The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    My problem isn't with its prominence on the front page at all, indeed on that I couldn't care less. The issue is the wording. The headline is deliberately ambiguous. After all, why couldn't they have put 'No serious brexit talks 'for 12 months' predicts former EC president'? There is enough space for that headline (see the Wiggins headline) and it would remove the ambiguity by not allowing for the possibility that it may be UK Government policy say?
    It's a media company, they want to get people reading the articles so use catchy headlines. Less people will read it with that title.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    It's a media company, they want to get people reading the articles so use catchy headlines. Less people will read it with that title.
    It is also publicly owned and has a duty to be unbiased and avoid being misleading - the headline can be taken in many different ways, perhaps used to suggest that Brexit is further delayed, stirring up pro-Brexit voters for example. Clarity is what was needed here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    To be honest i don't see how half the people here would be happy regardless given that the party made May leader.

    If May had come up with a plan quickly then half you people would be arguing that it's rash, full of holes, reckless. Now that she's said we'll wait 6-9 months to formulate a proper plan of action, you people are now complaining that she's not told the public exactly what she wants in advance of negotiations in which electorates will find the perception important.

    Personally i think that she'd taken the right approach, there's no need to rush and no need to pander to the people yet since any election is years away.
    Honestly I'm open to any ideas for Brexit so don't really care that the negotiations are private, but I am concerned that since Brexiters voted Leave for different reasons, any revote is off limits for political reasons.

    That said, all we've heard is hot air, students can't clarify that they'll be allowed to work after graduating. We really should have a list of priorities and a "I'll negotiate the best deal and put it to vote"

    I may be open to not joining the single market for instance if we had indications of how we'd cope in the meantime and an idea of who to form a deal with.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    It is also publicly owned and has a duty to be unbiased and avoid being misleading - the headline can be taken in many different ways, perhaps used to suggest that Brexit is further delayed, stirring up pro-Brexit voters for example. Clarity is what was needed here.
    If the BBC said "EC president says that he doesn't believe serious brevity talks will happen for at least a year" no one would bother reading the article.

    Unfortunately the bit I'm looking for isn't on YouTube but this will, at some point, sum up why you are wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Honestly I'm open to any ideas for Brexit so don't really care that the negotiations are private, but I am concerned that since Brexiters voted Leave for different reasons, any revote is off limits for political reasons.

    That said, all we've heard is hot air, students can't clarify that they'll be allowed to work after graduating. We really should have a list of priorities and a "I'll negotiate the best deal and put it to vote"

    I may be open to not joining the single market for instance if we had indications of how we'd cope in the meantime and an idea of who to form a deal with.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why should we have a revote though.

    In 2015 the people elected a government who promised a referendum. In 2016 the people voted in said referendum. In 2019 parliament will vote to ratify the exit agreement. In 2020 the people will vote for the post-brexit vision that most appeals to them.

    Student visas are not permanent, therefore they should assume not. EU nationals who have moved here should since the UK signed the Vienna Convention assume they'll be staying. Most people seem to be overacting over things which are obvious on the basis of international law.

    Canada.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    It is also publicly owned and has a duty to be unbiased and avoid being misleading - the headline can be taken in many different ways, perhaps used to suggest that Brexit is further delayed, stirring up pro-Brexit voters for example. Clarity is what was needed here.
    If only there was some way that you could click on that link and it would take you to a written article giving a much more detailed story and clarifying any misunderstandings.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Why should we have a revote though.

    In 2015 the people elected a government who promised a referendum. In 2016 the people voted in said referendum. In 2019 parliament will vote to ratify the exit agreement. In 2020 the people will vote for the post-brexit vision that most appeals to them.

    Student visas are not permanent, therefore they should assume not. EU nationals who have moved here should since the UK signed the Vienna Convention assume they'll be staying. Most people seem to be overacting over things which are obvious on the basis of international law.

    Canada.
    Which Vienna Convention are you talking about and what does it have to do with whether or not immigrants stay?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which Vienna Convention are you talking about and what does it have to do with whether or not immigrants stay?
    May not be the Vienna one but an MP was on Newsnight definitely saying that x convention (of which we are a signatury) means that those already here have their rights protected.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    May not be the Vienna one but an MP was on Newsnight definitely saying that x convention (of which we are a signatury) means that those already here have their rights protected.
    If we are only a signatory then the Convention does not legally bind us. We are only bound in international law by conventions that we have ratified.

    I don't think that expats will be sent home. However that will be because of policy rather than international law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ended up unable to sleep for a second night in a row. On the plus side it gave me a chance to start Kenneth Harris' Attlee biography which is rather good so far, although I find it a tad jarring when it jumps from talking about Attlee, to quotes of Attlee talking about that part of his life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't agree with Anna Soubry often, but by golly I did last night when I assume she was referring to Ruth Smeeth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Why should we have a revote though.

    In 2015 the people elected a government who promised a referendum. In 2016 the people voted in said referendum. In 2019 parliament will vote to ratify the exit agreement. In 2020 the people will vote for the post-brexit vision that most appeals to them.

    Student visas are not permanent, therefore they should assume not. EU nationals who have moved here should since the UK signed the Vienna Convention assume they'll be staying. Most people seem to be overacting over things which are obvious on the basis of international law.

    Canada.
    Because the people should be able to vote on what final outcome is. If they return with terrible negotiations the people who voted initially to Leave are underwhelmed and no longer support it. What about if we remain as part of the EEC, to many voting Leave that's actually worse than staying. Because people had no reliable information or plan, people voted for different individual reasons, most of which will not materialise (cue the £350million for the NHS) Leave promised many things and won't be able to deliver on them. Vote Leave parties and councils promised no cuts as a result of Brexit, that's not going to happen. Many Leavers will likely be outraged that their reason to Leave is ignored and undeliverable and would therefore change vote.

    I'm optimistic that most intelligent people will be pragmatic and look at the proposal, but it would have to be guarantees, not the hot air we've seen so far, otherwise if it's not written in stone I believe it won't happen.

    And how are students supposed to know that, the University stances are deliberately vague and ambiguous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Because the people should be able to vote on what final outcome is. If they return with terrible negotiations the people who voted initially to Leave are underwhelmed and no longer support it. What about if we remain as part of the EEC, to many voting Leave that's actually worse than staying. Because people had no reliable information or plan, people voted for different individual reasons, most of which will not materialise (cue the £350million for the NHS) Leave promised many things and won't be able to deliver on them. Vote Leave parties and councils promised no cuts as a result of Brexit, that's not going to happen. Many Leavers will likely be outraged that their reason to Leave is ignored and undeliverable and would therefore change vote.

    I'm optimistic that most intelligent people will be pragmatic and look at the proposal, but it would have to be guarantees, not the hot air we've seen so far, otherwise if it's not written in stone I believe it won't happen.

    And how are students supposed to know that, the University stances are deliberately vague and ambiguous.
    Representative democracy ensures that they will have the option to vote to re-enter the EU in 2020.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Representative democracy ensures that they will have the option to vote to re-enter the EU in 2020.
    But they voted to Leave under false pretences.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What's that,? Another one of those evil, sexist, racist, homophobic, regressive parties has a female leader before the so called progressives who can't manage it even when they try to boost them with discrimination against the men?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What's that,? Another one of those evil, sexist, racist, homophobic, regressive parties has a female leader before the so called progressives who can't manage it even when they try to boost them with discrimination against the men?
    And they've done it without an all woman shortlist, how about that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What's that,? Another one of those evil, sexist, racist, homophobic, regressive parties has a female leader before the so called progressives who can't manage it even when they try to boost them with discrimination against the men?
    Having a female leader is nothing to do with feminism or sexism. It's about policy first and foremost. One of the things that pissed me off so much about the Labour leadership election last year was how Burnham came under fire for saying that "now isn't the right time for a female leader". There's so much tiptoeing around these days, when all that has to be said is that "I think I'm better for the job than anyone else, regardless of their or my own gender". The fact that people like yourself are focusing on May's gender rather than her work as PM is part of the problem. Don't want people to think you're sexist? Stop focusing on gender.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    And they've done it without an all woman shortlist, how about that?
    The argument for positive discrimination is pretty solid in some cases. In the USA when they had affirmative action in the 30's it was to show bosses and such that black people were just as capable as white people. As long as it's a temporary measure to simply make a point, I really don't take too much of an issue with it. However, there's plenty that's being done and that has been done to make politics more accessible for women, we've also had 2 female PMs now, so I really don't see the argument for all women shortlists.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    The argument for positive discrimination is pretty solid in some cases. In the USA when they had affirmative action in the 30's it was to show bosses and such that black people were just as capable as white people. As long as it's a temporary measure to simply make a point, I really don't take too much of an issue with it. However, there's plenty that's being done and that has been done to make politics more accessible for women, we've also had 2 female PMs now, so I really don't see the argument for all women shortlists.
    Agree.

    Positive discrimination can be an effective temporary measure but it should only ever be temporary.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    And they've done it without an all woman shortlist, how about that?
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What's that,? Another one of those evil, sexist, racist, homophobic, regressive parties has a female leader before the so called progressives who can't manage it even when they try to boost them with discrimination against the men?
    It's almost like women are as capable as men and will be judged on their work in these parties.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 10, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.