Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Aussie Rules
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advert:


On 19/04/2021 at 10:23, Regal Beagle said:

Well interestingly, I've spent about 1 minute googling that report and found this:

 

Beyond Brexit: policing, law enforcement and security (parliament.uk)

 

The report lists the loss of the SIS information as THE most significant gap not A most significant gap. It's relative, it doesn't actually mean that there's a significant gap, it just means that compared with everything else in the report, this is the smoking gun. The headline to the bbc article is negative, whereas the report lists several things that are not affected, several things that might be but might not be affected and one thing that is a clear downgrade, and it goes with that one.

 

Here is the conclusion of the loss of that particular data:

 

image.png.a139c0b91c6d277a10d93a3d6303fdd5.png

 

Obviously that is not overwhelmingly negative, there's provisions in there to improve the interpol data speeds and the drop off is from seconds to hours which maybe isn't a critical timeframe.

 

If the article was written by a pro-brexit organisation they could have quite easily quoted any of the first 11 paragraphs of the conclusion which were all positive, instead of the 12th paragraph which had one negative, and then they still cut out the 'positive' caveat from that. They could have gone with "UK and EU will continue to share the vast majority of security data, report finds" for example.

 

If you were to just read the headline, you could wrongly believe that the UK is significantly worse off now in terms of data sharing/law and order since brexit. Although if you read the full article it does quote the Government saying that our safety is assured still. And the report they quote goes even futher than the article in saying that too.

 

So yeah, overall, not a lie outright, but it could be misleading if you are only skimming the news/headlines and obviously written from an anti-brexit position in my view.

 

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Thanks for sharing, it was a great example.

1.  So the BBC report is accurate. 

2. The first negative in the report is in paragraph 4 of the summary on page 5.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/04/2021 at 14:19, hillmanhunter said:

1.  So the BBC report is accurate. 

2. The first negative in the report is in paragraph 4 of the summary on page 5.

 

It's not accurate in the slightest really is it?

 

It picks out the one real negative in the entire report, uses it for the headline and spends half the article talking about it, omitting the majority of the report which would not allow for an article of the same negative brexit tone to be written.

 

It's definitely misleading.

 

Not sure what your paragraph has to do with anything. It's neither positive or negative, if I'm looking at the right one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


 

Barnier and Von der Leyen sounding like 2015 brexiteers:

 

Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier admits to EU vaccine rollout 'mistakes' | Politics News | Sky News

COVID-19: EU chief Ursula von der Leyen admits UK 'speedboat' can act faster than bloc over vaccines | Politics News | Sky News

 

Pretty sure I/other brexit supporters said all this over the last few years. You can't make effective decisions for 27 different countries with individual needs. You certainly can't take quick decisions without changing the constitution of the EU and losing the right for nation states to veto. This is why it was never possible to "change within"  (remember when remainers used to admit the pitfalls of the EU)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/05/2021 at 16:50, Regal Beagle said:

It's not accurate in the slightest really is it?

 

It picks out the one real negative in the entire report, uses it for the headline and spends half the article talking about it, omitting the majority of the report which would not allow for an article of the same negative brexit tone to be written.

 

It's definitely misleading.

 

Not sure what your paragraph has to do with anything. It's neither positive or negative, if I'm looking at the right one.

I see the problem here. You don't understand what news means.

If something changes - that's news. If something stays the same - less so.

If a doctor diagnoses someone with kidney failure should they spend an equal amount of time with the patient telling them that their liver is doing great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting when we look back at Brexit. Back then We never knew COVID-19 was just around the corner. 
 

So ironically 50,000 people who voted to remain, if they’d have got their way would now be dead. 💀 ⚰️ 

They owe their lives to us leaving the EU. 

As we’d have been stuck still waiting at the back of the queue for vaccines 💉 to arrive from the EU programme. 

So i would personally like to thank all the visionary brexiters out-there that saved so many UK lives. 
 

We now have to admit leaving the EU was the right thing to do. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2021 at 09:38, hillmanhunter said:

I see the problem here. You don't understand what news means.

If something changes - that's news. If something stays the same - less so.

If a doctor diagnoses someone with kidney failure should they spend an equal amount of time with the patient telling them that their liver is doing great?

Wow, seriously?

 

The bbc as an impartiality charter. They're funded by the public and are contractually obliged to represent both sides of a story.

 

Surely the aim of that bbc article was to give the reader an insight into the findings of the report into the security arrangements betweeen the UK and EU following brexit? So things that have stayed the same are definitely relevant. And if it were ok to just ignore everything that hasn't changed "because it isn't new information" then that means that everyone reading it would come away thinking that everything had changed...which is kind of what I was saying the article does anyway.

 

They cherry picked negative points and didn't offer any real context into how the rest of the report was fairly unnoteworthy, which is in itself noteworthy because the difference pre and post brexit are the exact point of that article.

 

It wasn't accurate and my evidence for that is the report that the article is based on. I don't know what more I can tell you.

 

And just to add - even if the source didn't have an impartiality charter, then they still shouldn't mislead their customers by omitting parts of the story that goes against the headline that they want to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2021 at 12:56, valiant said:

It is interesting when we look back at Brexit. Back then We never knew COVID-19 was just around the corner. 
 

So ironically 50,000 people who voted to remain, if they’d have got their way would now be dead. 💀 ⚰️ 

They owe their lives to us leaving the EU. 

As we’d have been stuck still waiting at the back of the queue for vaccines 💉 to arrive from the EU programme. 

So i would personally like to thank all the visionary brexiters out-there that saved so many UK lives. 
 

We now have to admit leaving the EU was the right thing to do. 

 

Love it :thumbs:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


On 10/05/2021 at 12:56, valiant said:

It is interesting when we look back at Brexit. Back then We never knew COVID-19 was just around the corner. 
 

So ironically 50,000 people who voted to remain, if they’d have got their way would now be dead. 💀 ⚰️ 

They owe their lives to us leaving the EU. 

As we’d have been stuck still waiting at the back of the queue for vaccines 💉 to arrive from the EU programme. 

So i would personally like to thank all the visionary brexiters out-there that saved so many UK lives. 
 

We now have to admit leaving the EU was the right thing to do. 

Nice sentiment but not true.

The UK could have done the EXACT same thing as part of the EU.

From the Institute for government website:

As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). [1] This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones.

Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.

 

As a friendly genuine suggestion as well... I would be careful about throwing deaths around at this time to try and score political points. Lots of people have been affected. I'm sure this wasn't meant in a malicious way but best to air on the side of caution.

UTV 

Edited by Iron Curtain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Iron Curtain said:

Nice sentiment but not true.

The UK could have done the EXACT same thing as part of the EU.

No you are totally incorrect. What I posted is 100% Fact.

Let me explain. Imagine if a pro-EU party had won the last general election. They Would have joined the EU Vaccine programme. Why wouldn’t they??? In fact their members would be furious if they didn’t do. 

So saying they “Could have done” is totally irrelevant as they wouldn’t have.

The Only reason we weren’t part of that programme is due to the country voting to Leave the EU and then Voting to give a majority to an anti-EU party.

So yes it’s fair to say many people who got vaccinated sooner due to us ditching the EU ironically owe their lives to Brexiters.

i’m not in anyway making light of this awful pandemic. It’s just one of the many benefits of leaving the EU that lots of people including myself could never have predicted but are starting to now become apparent for all to see.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, valiant said:

No you are totally incorrect. What I posted is 100% Fact.

Let me explain. Imagine if a pro-EU party had won the last general election. They Would have joined the EU Vaccine programme. Why wouldn’t they??? In fact their members would be furious if they didn’t do. 

So saying they “Could have done” is totally irrelevant as they wouldn’t have.

The Only reason we weren’t part of that programme is due to the country voting to Leave the EU and then Voting to give a majority to an anti-EU party.

So yes it’s fair to say many people who got vaccinated sooner due to us ditching the EU ironically owe their lives to Brexiters.

i’m not in anyway making light of this awful pandemic. It’s just one of the many benefits of leaving the EU that lots of people including myself could never have predicted but are starting to now become apparent for all to see.

How about those who died because Boris the Brexiteer was slow to react and buggered up the response in care homes? 

You're making a lot of assumptions in your post whereas it is FACT that people died in care homes in their thousands because of the government's inadequate response.  Now to do with Brexit.  Our deaths per million is still one of the worst in Europe despite being all clever and brexity?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2021 at 12:56, valiant said:

It is interesting when we look back at Brexit. Back then We never knew COVID-19 was just around the corner. 
 

So ironically 50,000 people who voted to remain, if they’d have got their way would now be dead. 💀 ⚰️ 

They owe their lives to us leaving the EU. 

As we’d have been stuck still waiting at the back of the queue for vaccines 💉 to arrive from the EU programme. 

So i would personally like to thank all the visionary brexiters out-there that saved so many UK lives. 
 

We now have to admit leaving the EU was the right thing to do. 

This is not a laughing matter. There have been many avoidable deaths thanks to our inept government and disgraceful leader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


38 minutes ago, valiant said:

No you are totally incorrect. What I posted is 100% Fact.

Let me explain. Imagine if a pro-EU party had won the last general election. They Would have joined the EU Vaccine programme. Why wouldn’t they??? In fact their members would be furious if they didn’t do. 

So saying they “Could have done” is totally irrelevant as they wouldn’t have.

The Only reason we weren’t part of that programme is due to the country voting to Leave the EU and then Voting to give a majority to an anti-EU party.

So yes it’s fair to say many people who got vaccinated sooner due to us ditching the EU ironically owe their lives to Brexiters.

i’m not in anyway making light of this awful pandemic. It’s just one of the many benefits of leaving the EU that lots of people including myself could never have predicted but are starting to now become apparent for all to see.

I’m not sure your understanding of the words ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ are best represented in this post. 

The only fact in this whole thing is that we did not need Brexit to do our own Vaccine program. 

I would also politely suggest that if you were not making light of Covid deaths, or at least reducing them to a political point scoring tactic, then your use of emojis was misjudged. As I say, I’m sure you weren’t but best to be cautious.

 

Edited by Iron Curtain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

Wow, seriously?

 

The bbc as an impartiality charter. They're funded by the public and are contractually obliged to represent both sides of a story.

 

Surely the aim of that bbc article was to give the reader an insight into the findings of the report into the security arrangements betweeen the UK and EU following brexit? So things that have stayed the same are definitely relevant. And if it were ok to just ignore everything that hasn't changed "because it isn't new information" then that means that everyone reading it would come away thinking that everything had changed...which is kind of what I was saying the article does anyway.

 

They cherry picked negative points and didn't offer any real context into how the rest of the report was fairly unnoteworthy, which is in itself noteworthy because the difference pre and post brexit are the exact point of that article.

 

It wasn't accurate and my evidence for that is the report that the article is based on. I don't know what more I can tell you.

 

And just to add - even if the source didn't have an impartiality charter, then they still shouldn't mislead their customers by omitting parts of the story that goes against the headline that they want to run.

Your continued moaning about that article holds up until you read it and see it does actually mention security arrangements that are unaffected.

There's nothing factually inaccurate about it. You just don't like it.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

How about those who died because Boris the Brexiteer was slow to react and buggered up the response in care homes? 

You're making a lot of assumptions in your post whereas it is FACT that people died in care homes in their thousands because of the government's inadequate response.  Now to do with Brexit.  Our deaths per million is still one of the worst in Europe despite being all clever and brexity?

Latest figures on May 2nd say we are now in 8th place in Europe with 191 deaths per 100,000,after being overtaken by Belgium and Italy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    • Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please - Contact us here
    • If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here
    • Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here
  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...