Almost Canadian

From what has been reported in the press, the EU went to great lengths to ensure that the terms were legal. That being the case, despite the indication that Boris and his advisers are incompetent, I do not believe it is really credible to suggest that the EU were too.

I don't know of the legal arguments being put forward, but I would be amazed if a Court decides that legislation that has not been passed yet is unconstitutional.

dave_j

If the reader chooses to read into a headline something that isn't there, it's not the fault of the newspaper but the reader. No doubt newspapers exploit this weakness but words are words, they have meaning. If the reader is prejudiced or has a strong bias, don't blame the messenger.

And... your point is that Boris' deal isn't the same as May's?

DaveLovesDee

No. You claimed this deal had never existed until last week, and I pointed out you were wrong.

dave_j

I applaud your persistence but arguing that black is white will not make it so.
To date there have been two deals agreed between the EU and the UK that could be a final Brexit leaving agreement.
Boris' deal was finally agreed with EU on 17th October, today is 20th October and less than a week has passed.
No doubt you argue that Boris' deal has been tabled before but this cannot be true, something similar may have been offered but it won't have entered detailed discussions and as such will not be comparable to Boris' deal and thus it cannot have existed before the 17th.

DaveLovesDee

That's hypocritical coming from you.

That's not what you originally stated, and were called out on. Here's your original post.

I proved that it did exist before. Just because the UK didn't agree to it, or debate it, does not make it non-existent. Again, it's you who is peddling nonsense.

dbd33

I'm losing the will to live. Can we just agree that:

- any Brexit is a daft idea and arguing about the manner of Brexit is deckchairs on the Titanic
- Boris Johnson is a loathsome careerist who doesn't himself think Brexit is a good idea except inasmuch as it advances him towards his personal goals
- Trump's deals are always lose-lose so pinning the country's future trade on an arrangement with him won't go well

BEVS

Me too.


Belfast Telegraph

BristolUK

But that something is there. You gave an example. Trump must stop being an idiot. That was the one you gave. You cannot stop doing something if you are not doing it. It's not a personal interpretation that he is doing something idiotic it's the only interpretation.
Unless, of course, you write it as an opinion. "I believe Trump is acting like an idiot and he must stop it"...that would be a clear opinion.

But that's not the way you gave the example and you likely wrote it the way you did because that's the way the Mail would write it.

Remember this one?



There's nothing there to say it's opinion. The judges apparently defied voters. No they didn't, they made a ruling upon the case brought before them. 17m voters were not involved in the case.

The accompanying text - for those that get that far and don't just roll their eyes thinking more treachery because that's what the paper has been telling them regularly - does say that a constitutional crisis might be triggered but it's the newspaper saying the judges are the enemies of the people and it's the newspaper with that 'out of touch' although that may be referred to on page 2 for those that get that far, so for that part you may be right in thinking the paper is taking advantage of its readers.

But the meaning of the words on that page is that the judges have defied (or betrayed) voters and are enemies of the people. Nowhere does it say it's opinion.

JamesM

Don't worry Canada will show the world the way tomorrow.

You will get your will back then.

dave_j

The example I gave was "Trump should stop behaving like an idiot" not "Trump must stop being an idiot". Do you note the difference? The first example likens Trump's actions to those of an idiot, whereas the misquote that you submitted expressly identifies Trump as being an idiot, a subtle but important difference. Anyone who's not an idiot can at times act like one whereas an idiot acts as the title suggests all of the time.

As for the second example about Judges, in the UK they are clearly not enemies of the people and yet the headline says so, so what are we to make of it?
If the headline is taken as fact then the newspaper is clearly making a false statement and no doubt you would argue that anyone who believes it is misled. But I would argue that you would have to be predisposed to believe the headline to be true in order to believe something that is patently not true.

It's an interesting discussion this. It's clear that newspapers seek to influence their readers whilst maintaining their readership. They do this by giving their readers what they believe their readers want to read. The likes of the Mail wouldn't last long if they lost support of those that pay the bills.
It's only when others, who disagree with what's being published are given the opportunity to comment on it that accusations such as 'it's misleading' are made.
Q. If a headline is considered misleading to some and not to others, can it be considered misleading at all? After all it's either misleading or it's not, and who's to judge? A Judge?

BristolUK

Yes I do. Forgive my lack of accurate recollection but how does that change anything? How can he stop behaving like an idiot without behaving like an idiot in the first place. Therefore he must be behaving like an idiot. Your opinion has become a factual statement without anything to say it's just your opinion.

Of course there is also the added probability that someone who behaves like an idiot is an idiot. At least some of the time.

mikelincs

Spot on there, the deal is a lot worse that the May deal that was defeated, all Johnson wants is a deal that will help his paymasters, the hedge funds that have bet a lot of money on a no deal by 31st October.

Shard

Don't think it's quite that mercenary, but he does want whatever will give him power, and he believes delivering Brexit will do that. He's a politician of bold gestures, you can see it with his London history, big projects, costly or not, useful or not, wanted or not, that he can trumpet and evangelize on. Detail bores him, poverty bores him, stability bores him. He's a shambolic man and wants to make the country in his own image. The surprise is that so many support him in doing so.

dave_j

I wonder, is there evidence of this?
If we look at the recent history of brexit we see that May had a very slim majority following her catastrophic election mistake. For a few years this has meant that parliament hasn't had the will to make any decision and Boris now has a majority of minus forty something. What this means is that the Damocles like 31st October deadline rests not with Boris but the EU following his letter.
I'd have thought that the safe money would have been placed on an extension or any deal rather than no-deal.
If it's true that there's much betting on a no-deal then I'd rather look to Bercow today who's acted to prevent a vote that could have banished no-deal outright using a rule that he ignored when he allowed May three votes on a deal that he must have known would fail.
Is Bercow the Trojan Horse?

BristolUK

Depends on what one considers evidence.
Calls for inquiry into claims Johnson backers benefit from no-deal Brexit
It's the guardian, of course, that means that some people will pay no attention to the fact that the claims came from others (including his sister) and won't give it any credence because it wasn't reported in their Mail