Media stifling Brexit debate, in denial of reality.

The discussion between the pair started with Guru-Murthy asking the MP for Wokingham, who is a member of Leave Means Leave, why he didn’t support Theresa May’s deal.

Well, no we couldn’t possibly do that because that isn’t leaving. The deal is a massively expensive and long delay.

Our manifesto promised that within two years the government would negotiate a future partnership as well as any withdrawal issues the EU wanted mentioned or leave without a deal.

Now we must keep our promise and I and my colleagues stand fully behind the manifesto.

We hoped our prime minister did and I would urge her tonight to join us in upholding the manifesto, taking us out proudly on April 12 and agreeing on any remaining things that need agreeing so we have a smooth exit.

There is no cliff edge. There is no disaster and we would have lots of money to spend and we need to spend the money urgently to give our economy a boost at a time when the German and French economies are ailing and the Italian economy is in recession.

Guru-Murthy, who is no stranger to calling out Tories, then came back at Redwood and asked him if he believed that the government had sidestepped hard-line Brexiteers and instead reached out to the Labour party in order to help with the Brexit negotiations in order to make sure a no-deal doesn’t happen.

I live in hope that sensible MPs will come around to my view. All Conservative MPs fought on the same manifesto and we very clearly said ‘no single market, no customs union.’

So our leader can’t offer that to the Labour party unless she wants to stop leading our party for the Labour party. 200 Tory MPs either voted against any further delay or abstained against allowing any further delay, very recently.

We all know that we need to keep our promise. We should have kept our promise to leave on March 29 and we urge out prime minister know ‘don’t embarrass us, don’t embarrass our country.’ Take us out and offer a free trade offer to the EU.

As Guru-Murthy replied, it is a bit too late to save the UK from international embarrassment at this point.

Redwood, who appeared to be getting more and more agitated as the discussion went on, said to Guru-Murthy:

Why do you want to talk down the one thing that most of the public now want, my idea is by far and away the most popular.

Much more popular than the withdrawal agreement.

Things had now grown quite heated between the pair so Guru-Murthy decided it was about time that he corrected Redwood:

Now let’s just correct that complete error, that most of the public want no-deal. Not true.

There’s no evidence for that. Where’s the evidence for it?

Redwood answered:

Well, the polling evidence shows now that most people think it is the least bad option because they do not like the withdrawal agreement.

The withdrawal agreement polls very badly with remain voters and leave voters.

All the polling that I’ve seen shows that remain voters think it will be better to stay in the EU from their point of view and leave voters don’t think it is leaving.

So, you are flogging a dead horse with this agreement and the public is well ahead of you and the public accept, by a majority now that the best option is just to leave and offer them a free trade deal.

Murthy decided to cut Redwood off at this point and accused of him spreading false facts.

That is not true. That is not true. John Redwood thank you very much.

What you’ve just said is not true but thank you very much for joining us.

Redwood was cut off from the broadcast claiming that Channel 4 news wasn’t factual.

The media and just leaving the EU – please use neutral language

My criticism of much mainstream media journalism about just leaving the EU is the lack of neutrality or objectivity in the reporting.

Many of them just assert leaving without a deal is “falling off a cliff edge” or will result in “cataclysm, or disaster”. This is the extreme language of some Remain MPs.

A neutral commentator should use neutral language to describe such an exit .  “Just leaving the EU without signing the Withdrawal Agreement”  would do it.

They could then expand on how the two sides view that –

“Remain thinks this would be like falling off a cliff. They think it would  be disastrous for the UK economy. They think the UK does owe more money to the EU and has to settle the bill.  Leave on the other hand think it means quickly achieving their aims of taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. They say it  would enable the government to boost the UK economy by spending  the money saved from EU contributions  on improved public services and tax cuts at home ”

That is as far as a reporter might wish to go. A commentator might go on to explain why he or she favoured the Remain or the Leave view, placing more information and criticism on the table. Where the media is using so called experts it would be helpful for them to reveal whether they are Leave voting or Remain voting experts, given the intensity of feeling on this issue.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.