Timeline for Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2019 at 9:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1111916122415222786 | ||
| Mar 30, 2019 at 3:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 30, 2019 at 7:30 | |||||
| S Mar 28, 2019 at 9:21 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Mar 28, 2019 at 9:21 | comment | added | yannis | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 17:53 | comment | added | Voo | @pjc50 So what is the way in which the EU parliament, council or commission can order an army (what's the name of that army anyhow? The CDSP certainly isn't from the wiki article) to attack? What part of the EU budget is used to pay standing military? Looks to me more like a simple organization between different european militaries than an army in its own right. And if organisation between different militiaries is the problem, why is NATO not an issue? | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 13:40 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @user it's very clearly biased. Predictions (e.g. economy) and value judgements ("outweighed by the benefits") are presented as facts. The symbology and colour coding is heavily biased. From "A Permanent Customs Union" onwards it's tacitly assumed that "Yes" is a good thing with no factual evidence. | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 13:33 | comment | added | OrangeDog | There are no different deals though, just a lot of hypothetical ideas that probably aren't achievable. There is one available deal, and three options: take it, leave it, cancel. | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 8:58 | comment | added | user622505 | @MSalters to be fair, wouldn't it usually be the case that there would be more journalists talking about x than politicians talking about x, on the account of there being far more journalists than politicians, and journalists job being talking? Not to mention that if Juncker, Merkel or Macron say something and a hundred journalists report on it, their words still hold far more weight than the journo's. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 21:42 | comment | added | pjc50 | The EU does have a military: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy ; it's not clear whether they actually have any munitions, but they have a HQ and staff. I don't think it's right to deny that "ever closer union" has always been a goal of the EU - but by mutual benefit and consent. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 19:34 | answer | added | Jens | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 15:42 | comment | added | AJFaraday | @chaslyfromUK I'm mostly querying if the direction of the question is "is this site factual?" or "is there a similar site which presents the opposing view?" | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 15:37 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | @AJFaraday - I'm sorry but you are falling into the trap of looking for bias in others. I am simply seeking information. If you read the excellent answer by DonFusili and the subsequent comments, you will see more than one reason that this particular site contains bias no matter how subtle.. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 15:33 | comment | added | AJFaraday | Is it possible the facts present a picture which opposes your preferred viewpoint? That being said, bias exists, it's up to you to decide how you want to handle the available facts, what to disregard etc. I could easily find something biased in favour of leaving the EU, probably which looks different to this. I'm puzzled as to what the purpose of the exercise is? Is the question really "is there a website which presents the case for leaving the EU?"? | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 14:07 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | I don't think the 'Canada' option can be directly applied to the UK's situation because they don't have the complicated border issue. Sure, you could compare deals that are on the table with that FTA but they are not something the UK can implement as is (as the EU might not allow it). To get the EU to agree may require fundamental changes that results in a different comparison. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 14:00 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 25, 2019 at 15:52 | |||||
| Mar 25, 2019 at 13:51 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | @Fizz - I understand your criticism. I think I shall have to formulate a separate question that just asks for the facts of the deals rather than the predicted results of them. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 13:44 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | What is "impartial" on matter like this is going to depend on the answer's POV. Just read different perspectives. Your question is as good as "what newspapers should I read?" | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 13:28 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | @ MSalters - Maybe but the EU is not static. It is developing. For example this (slightly out-of-date) text was the first I found with a quick search. "The president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker has called for a European Union military headquarters to work towards an EU-controlled army. Juncker made the proposals during his State of the Union address to MEPs in Strasbourg on Wednesday (14 September)." ibtimes.co.uk/… | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 13:27 | comment | added | jean | @chaslyfromUK You are comparing apples with oranges. EU members can send their military where they wish (and refuse to). US states cannot leave (sedition federal crime) | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 13:22 | comment | added | MSalters | @chaslyfromUK: An EU military? There are more British journalists writing about that than there are EU politicians proposing it. What the EU does have is a budget and a parliament, but since that parliament isn't sovereign it cannot fund a military. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 13:09 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | @jean - Sure but there's a difference between a common market and a Union. The former is about trading without tariffs, whereas the latter is about creating a new power with its own military (a European version of the United States). | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 12:29 | comment | added | jean | @chaslyfromUK. to be fair the "Learn more" buttons have links and give a good summary of each point. I'm also don't have a bone in this but always found brexit an insane self-destruct politic platform because the only fact (measurable, with many unbiased and trusted sources) I was able to find, year-after-year is actually the common market was a good thing for Britain economy. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 11:35 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Mar 25, 2019 at 11:03 | history | edited | chasly - supports Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2019 at 11:02 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | @user - I've changed my ideas as a result of the answer by DonFusili - Of course the costs and benefits are important but quite honestly I don't know the factual differences between May's deal and WTO, EFTA, Canda, Norway etc. What are the main clauses and what do they mean? Maybe I need a separate question. | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 10:57 | history | edited | chasly - supports Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2019 at 10:37 | answer | added | DonFusili | timeline score: 79 | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 10:23 | comment | added | user | That site seems fairly factual. Why do you say it's biased? | |
| Mar 25, 2019 at 10:05 | history | asked | chasly - supports Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |