This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/shouting-the-other-side-down-wont-advance-the-brexit-debate
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Shouting the other side down won’t advance the Brexit debate | Shouting the other side down won’t advance the Brexit debate |
| (3 days later) | |
| Critics of Brexit have focused on the damage it will do to our economy, but there is a greater damage and that is the threat it poses to our democratic system. In a democracy dissent must be allowed and the voice of the opposition must be heard. Brexiters, rather than listen to the dissenters, seek to silence them. The abuse directed at Philip Hammond by leavers (Tory Brexiters turn their fire on Treasury, 9 October) suggests that they are unwilling to engage with the difficult reality of the negotiations; they just seek to suppress the uncomfortable facts. | Critics of Brexit have focused on the damage it will do to our economy, but there is a greater damage and that is the threat it poses to our democratic system. In a democracy dissent must be allowed and the voice of the opposition must be heard. Brexiters, rather than listen to the dissenters, seek to silence them. The abuse directed at Philip Hammond by leavers (Tory Brexiters turn their fire on Treasury, 9 October) suggests that they are unwilling to engage with the difficult reality of the negotiations; they just seek to suppress the uncomfortable facts. |
| What we instead see is the encroachment of Orwell’s newspeak on the political dialogue: bad news is turned into good, the message in the media should be encouraging, inconvenient awkward facts about the costs of Brexit should be ignored and replaced by the warm words spoken about Brexit by such as James Dyson. One positive message from Dyson is more credible than the collective expressed anxieties of the CBI and the City. They seem to wish to control the political debate so that when the Brexit begins to have significant negative impact on the economy, both the media and Westminster remain on message, and so that when the negative effects of Brexit impact on people’s income, the media story will be one about wicked Europeans doing the British down that will absolve our political leaders from any blame for the post-Brexit economic mess. Derrick JoadLeeds | What we instead see is the encroachment of Orwell’s newspeak on the political dialogue: bad news is turned into good, the message in the media should be encouraging, inconvenient awkward facts about the costs of Brexit should be ignored and replaced by the warm words spoken about Brexit by such as James Dyson. One positive message from Dyson is more credible than the collective expressed anxieties of the CBI and the City. They seem to wish to control the political debate so that when the Brexit begins to have significant negative impact on the economy, both the media and Westminster remain on message, and so that when the negative effects of Brexit impact on people’s income, the media story will be one about wicked Europeans doing the British down that will absolve our political leaders from any blame for the post-Brexit economic mess. Derrick JoadLeeds |
| • Bernard Jenkin’s opening words (A sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury, 9 October) “there is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging” reveals the extent of the Brexiters’ delusions. No argument or expert opinion (other than those of known Brexiters) is evaluated. Vague slippery assertions such as “only a fraction of the UK economy is dependent on the EU” (“fraction” sounds small but the 44% of our trade with the EU is a large fraction) skate over the underlying economic risks which have alarmed so many. The EU is accused of being unreasonable by expecting the UK to stand by commitments and treaties it has already signed up to, when it is the UK that is trying to leave. | • Bernard Jenkin’s opening words (A sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury, 9 October) “there is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging” reveals the extent of the Brexiters’ delusions. No argument or expert opinion (other than those of known Brexiters) is evaluated. Vague slippery assertions such as “only a fraction of the UK economy is dependent on the EU” (“fraction” sounds small but the 44% of our trade with the EU is a large fraction) skate over the underlying economic risks which have alarmed so many. The EU is accused of being unreasonable by expecting the UK to stand by commitments and treaties it has already signed up to, when it is the UK that is trying to leave. |
| The sad truth is that on Brexit not only can we not trust the Brexiters, we don’t even know what kind of Brexit they want. Why should we (or the Treasury) accept this kind of slippery thinking as justification for an act of national self-harm?James ChurchillBaslow, Derbyshire | The sad truth is that on Brexit not only can we not trust the Brexiters, we don’t even know what kind of Brexit they want. Why should we (or the Treasury) accept this kind of slippery thinking as justification for an act of national self-harm?James ChurchillBaslow, Derbyshire |
| • In contrast to Bernard Jenkin’s fantasy economics, a number of Ukippers that I came to know during my time as an East Midlands European Movement public speaker had no doubt that Brexit would damage the UK’s economy. They had the honesty to accept that the economic cost was a price worth paying to achieve their aims. Jenkin has now confirmed what many have feared for years: the core of the Conservative party simply does not understand how wealth is created; not by derivatives, banks or playing with other people’s money, but by manufacturing, design and hard graft. | • In contrast to Bernard Jenkin’s fantasy economics, a number of Ukippers that I came to know during my time as an East Midlands European Movement public speaker had no doubt that Brexit would damage the UK’s economy. They had the honesty to accept that the economic cost was a price worth paying to achieve their aims. Jenkin has now confirmed what many have feared for years: the core of the Conservative party simply does not understand how wealth is created; not by derivatives, banks or playing with other people’s money, but by manufacturing, design and hard graft. |
| The CBI, IOD, EEF, FSB and TUC are not in a grand conspiracy. They are simply speaking the truth as evidenced by devaluation, inflation, loss of investment, flight of talented staff and companies, and a growing sense of gloom at the looming economic precipice that he seeks.Eric GoodyerBerwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland | The CBI, IOD, EEF, FSB and TUC are not in a grand conspiracy. They are simply speaking the truth as evidenced by devaluation, inflation, loss of investment, flight of talented staff and companies, and a growing sense of gloom at the looming economic precipice that he seeks.Eric GoodyerBerwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland |
| • Bernard Jenkin MP blames the UK Treasury and the EU for refusing to discuss and for blocking our global negotiations on trade deals. It would strengthen his case if he listed the nations eager to sign new low-tariff deals with Brexit UK; eg the US cancelling the 300% tariff on Canadian/UK planes. He cites, as fervent Brexiters, two private billionaires: Lord Bamford, with 17 far-east manufacturers and Caribbean mansions, and Sir James Dyson, whose workforce is 80% Malaysian. Both will survive a hard Brexit – outside the UK. Noel HodsonOxford | • Bernard Jenkin MP blames the UK Treasury and the EU for refusing to discuss and for blocking our global negotiations on trade deals. It would strengthen his case if he listed the nations eager to sign new low-tariff deals with Brexit UK; eg the US cancelling the 300% tariff on Canadian/UK planes. He cites, as fervent Brexiters, two private billionaires: Lord Bamford, with 17 far-east manufacturers and Caribbean mansions, and Sir James Dyson, whose workforce is 80% Malaysian. Both will survive a hard Brexit – outside the UK. Noel HodsonOxford |
| • There is something strangely Trumpian about Bernard Jenkin’s argument that Brexit would be oh so simple if only the Treasury (and the CBI, City, chancellor plus, I am sure, a host of other so-called experts) would accept the alternative facts presented by Bernard and his friends rather than follow their own professional judgment and experience. The implication of course is that they should either shape up or ship out to be replaced by those with greater faith. The obvious replacement candidates would be either Lewis Carroll or JM Barrie but for their untimely deaths. If, however, we were to all shut our eyes tight and say “I do believe in fairy stories” then I am sure that even that minor obstacle could be overcome. Colin GarwoodBerkhamsted, Hertfordshire | • There is something strangely Trumpian about Bernard Jenkin’s argument that Brexit would be oh so simple if only the Treasury (and the CBI, City, chancellor plus, I am sure, a host of other so-called experts) would accept the alternative facts presented by Bernard and his friends rather than follow their own professional judgment and experience. The implication of course is that they should either shape up or ship out to be replaced by those with greater faith. The obvious replacement candidates would be either Lewis Carroll or JM Barrie but for their untimely deaths. If, however, we were to all shut our eyes tight and say “I do believe in fairy stories” then I am sure that even that minor obstacle could be overcome. Colin GarwoodBerkhamsted, Hertfordshire |
| • Bernard Jenkin states that “The Treasury seems unable to hear any voices except those that reinforce their preconceptions. It seems blind to the facts…” Surely that very precisely describes his own position. What irony.Terry HolmesPocklington, East Yorkshire | • Bernard Jenkin states that “The Treasury seems unable to hear any voices except those that reinforce their preconceptions. It seems blind to the facts…” Surely that very precisely describes his own position. What irony.Terry HolmesPocklington, East Yorkshire |
| • John Harris (If everyone picks a side, who’ll speak truth to power? 6 October) should be more careful with the words he chooses if he wants to convince me that his own journalism lives up to the standards he is setting for the profession. At the end of his extended interrogation of biased journalism, he makes a jibe at the “insanities of Brexit”, coupling it with Trump’s election. Is this an example of the dispassionate writing he wants to see? He is right to argue that journalists should be asking awkward questions – and his own inquisitive tour of Britain in 2016, asking people how they intended to vote in the referendum, was an eye-opener for me – but he is falling into the same habits as those he criticises. And wasn’t the journalist who challenged Dennis Skinner asking a loaded question when he suggested that Labour had not learned from the lessons of its high-spending past? | • John Harris (If everyone picks a side, who’ll speak truth to power? 6 October) should be more careful with the words he chooses if he wants to convince me that his own journalism lives up to the standards he is setting for the profession. At the end of his extended interrogation of biased journalism, he makes a jibe at the “insanities of Brexit”, coupling it with Trump’s election. Is this an example of the dispassionate writing he wants to see? He is right to argue that journalists should be asking awkward questions – and his own inquisitive tour of Britain in 2016, asking people how they intended to vote in the referendum, was an eye-opener for me – but he is falling into the same habits as those he criticises. And wasn’t the journalist who challenged Dennis Skinner asking a loaded question when he suggested that Labour had not learned from the lessons of its high-spending past? |
| Sure, we need some objective journalism in these hysterical times, but I’m not sure Harris is providing it in this article.Linda EdmondsonWestbury, Shropshire | Sure, we need some objective journalism in these hysterical times, but I’m not sure Harris is providing it in this article.Linda EdmondsonWestbury, Shropshire |
| • Dick Taverne proposes a new referendum but this time with the voters “knowing what Brexit actually means” (Letters, 6 October). | • Dick Taverne proposes a new referendum but this time with the voters “knowing what Brexit actually means” (Letters, 6 October). |
| The government made sure everyone knew the implications before the first referendum, spending nearly £10m distributing a booklet to 28m households. You didn’t have to open it to get the message. It was helpfully titled “Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK”. It warned of: increasing prices, falling living standards, job cuts, loss of single market access, a falling pound and so on. | The government made sure everyone knew the implications before the first referendum, spending nearly £10m distributing a booklet to 28m households. You didn’t have to open it to get the message. It was helpfully titled “Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK”. It warned of: increasing prices, falling living standards, job cuts, loss of single market access, a falling pound and so on. |
| A majority of voters simply decided that the advantages, as they saw them, (sovereignty, control of laws and borders) outweighed the well-rehearsed financial disadvantages and went for Brexit.Dr John DohertyVienna, Austria | A majority of voters simply decided that the advantages, as they saw them, (sovereignty, control of laws and borders) outweighed the well-rehearsed financial disadvantages and went for Brexit.Dr John DohertyVienna, Austria |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Philip Hammond | Philip Hammond |
| Economics | Economics |
| European Union | European Union |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |