Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Tuesday 30 January 2018

Brexit - BuzzFeed Busts Useless Press

Not for the first time recently, our free and fearless press has been caught not doing the job that it claims to do - bringing us the news. Perhaps this is because the news it has been caught not bringing us is the kind of news many newspapers would rather we did not see - because this news is bad for those wanting Britain to leave the EU.
So it has been left to the oft-derided New Media, in the shape of BuzzFeed News, to open the latest Brexit worm can, while the press - and, to their shame, all the broadcasters - were caught wrong footed. And the news was not good.

The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal … The assessment, which is titled ‘EU Exit Analysis - Cross Whitehall Briefing’ and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements”. Up to date analysis. And there was more.

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis … The ‘no deal’ scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%”. Slam. Dunk. Bad. News.

But it was not all bad news for the press, especially the Brexit supporting part of it. In good time for tomorrow’s editions, out came serial liar Iain Duncan Cough to sniff “I think we should take this with a pinch of salt”. Jacob Rees Mogg declared the findings to be “highly speculative”, although neither of these less than august beings had bothered to check the reports and find out what analysis had gone into them.
The point, after all, was to rebut any news that was not to their liking. And what the press will be majoring on tomorrow was hinted at by the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, who carpedAlso worth noting that none of the models forecast - Norway, Canada or no deal - are currently being sought by the government”. Very good, O Great Guido. The problem with this argument is that what exactly the Government is seeking has not yet been revealed. So it cannot be modelled.

But we do know now what the Sun, Mail, Express and Telegraph will be telling their readers tomorrow: take it with a pinch of salt, they got it wrong before, we’re going to get a really special deal so it doesn’t matter, nothing to see here, look at all these wonderful talking heads we lined up who say exactly what our editors and proprietors want to hear.

There will be no mention that they were scooped by BuzzFeed. Or that the last time that happened - with the Trump Russia dossier - they rubbished the site, only for it to be revealed that BuzzFeed was right, and the boo boys were wrong.

The Brexit backing press just waved goodbye to thousands more readers. And their response will be as before - rearrange the deckchairs and pretend it’s not happening.


Anonymous said...

"The Trump Russia dossier"?

That the umpteenth unverified one, this time by "a former British intelligence officer" (yeah, right)?

Has anybody, anywhere, come up with anything remotely resembling verifiable evidence?

Just think......all those billions - if not trillions - spent on sophisticated electronic eavesdropping and bribery......and not one jot or tittle of ACTUAL EVIDENCE has shown up. Not one.

Plenty of bullshit noise, though, from loonies trying to revive the Cold War. And while we're at it: Whatever happened to "the peace dividend"? Did it become a peace subprime?

Shurely shome mishtake?

nparker said...

I am wondering if Alan is the same as this Trump-supporting and pro-corruption Anonymous? They seem to have similar writing styles, but I at least thought Alan used to make at least some semblance of being on the same side as 'Zelo Street.' I hope I am wrong.

Anywho, Rees Mogg and the newspapers are scum, and they'll never tell their readers the truth. They'll continue to exploit this mass hysteria against the EU, like the proverbial false accuser in Salem profiting off the frantic hysteria.

Gulliver Foyle said...

There's little new here, before the Referendum the Treasury carried out a somewhat flawed but still useful long term assessment of the economic impact on Brexit with the 3 options of continued EEA membership, Bilateral Trade Deal and Ne Deal (WTO)assessed.The EEA came out as the best "sub-optimal" option and WTO the worst (by a fairly long way). I believe it was described as Project Fear at the time.

This leaked DExEU impact assessment just reflects the reality and backs up the former study, that ANY way out of the EU is sub-optimal economically but EEA is the least worst.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous @13.17
If you don't think any evidence has been gathered then you ain't following the story! It will soon be Mueller time!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 16:49.

Have you or Mueller ANY EVIDENCE?

In your own time.

Thanks in advance.

Concerned of Weybridge said...

Spot on, nparker. Never understood why he stopped using a name but continued with same big spaces between paragraphs and same Dave Spart rant style.

Anonymous said...

Concerned of Weybridge,

You got ANY EVIDENCE on this Trump Russia bullshit?

In your own time.

Thanks in advance.

Stephen said...

Anon - Yes, he has evidence. Now shut up.

nparker said...

Concerned of Weybridge,

Yes, it baffled me too. We can all tell it is him. I don't really understand, but he does seem to hate almost everyone in existence, so perhaps it means that when he turns on Zelo Street, he has the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous said...


Give me a clue.

WHEN will we see the evidence? And how do you know such "evidence" exists if you haven't seen it? And if you HAVE seen it why haven't you made it public?

I realise this presents you with some difficulty. But, you know, the demands of democratic law and all that......

In your own time.

Thanks in advance.

Stephen said...

"In your own time..." You obviously have no idea how this works.

Anonymous said...

So, Stephen, you have NO EVIDENCE.

In your time or anybody else's.

Tough luck for the rule of law, that. But grist to t'mill of Murdoch/Rothermere, Fox News, CNN and all the other "investigative journalists" and "intelligence" agencies.

Get back to me when some evidence surfaces. You know, as in an honest democratic court of law. As opposed to corner shop gossip or rigged government "inquiries".*

Thanks in advance.


*TIP: Allegations, innuendo and hearsay are NOT EVIDENCE. Hope this helps.

nparker said...


Are we sure this isn't just Donald Trump?

Stephen, you're right. He talks of the law, but doesn't seem to understand the way investigations work. The accusations are extremely credible, there has been some confessions and charges already, and the investigation is not completed. Investigations get started when we have the information we have, and we are allowed to make up our own judgements. Our dear Anonymous seems to think that if the investigations immediately don't turn up convictions on the day they start, then all the evidence so readily available couldn't possibly be relevant. But they are. There have already been convictions, and there will be many more.

He'd rather believe Donald Trump, serial liar, than all the intelligence agencies all in agreement with each other, constant news reports and proven attempts by Kushner to set up illegal back channels. I'm sure Anonymous is going to dismiss that all as being the 'Deep State' at work. These Trump supporters are all the same.

Anonymous said...


See post at 13:23.

All EVIDENCE welcome. As is conviction of the proven guilty in any crime.

But, as usual, you have NO EVIDENCE.

Which means you would be laughed out of an honest democratic court. If it even got that far.

And since neither you or anyone else has any EVIDENCE, it's best to leave the "issue" there before you embarrass yourself further. Not a pretty sight.

But good luck in your obviously "objective investigations".

nparker said...


The evidence is with Mueller. Flynn met with Russians, Kushner met with Russians, Don Jr. is involved, Trump gave classified info to Kisylak, Sessions met with the Russians, all undeclared, Russia hacked the DNC and RNC and only released DNC info, Trump tried to fire the man investigating him, and it is only a matter of time before more comes to light. You and your President cannot hide forever- their links to Russia are in plain sight.

Mueller has got more, as evidenced by the arrests made already. Don't forget; the Republicans didn't let go of Benghazi and emails despite the fact there was nothing, so this should at least run to eight investigations.

No need to respond again- your ranting will not receive much in the way of response.

nparker said...

You also seem to be under the impression that Trump is somehow being treated unfairly. Trump brought everything on himself, and attacking people simply doing their jobs does him no favours, and neither do any 'Deep State' believing loons.

If poor baby doesn't like it, he shouldn't demand the Presidency.

Anonymous said...


This is the last time I read your comments, let alone respond to them. It seems you lack common sense as much as knowledge of the law in an honest democracy.

1. We will see what Mueller "has" when what he "has" is made public. Just as we saw what Starr "had" when Clinton was impeached. Which was nothing. Until then any claims are bullshit propaganda.

2. Neither you or anyone else knows if Trump gave "classified" information to anybody.

3. Neither you or anybody else knows if "Russia" - by which is implied the Russian government - hacked anybody. Not one jot or tittle of EVIDENCE.

4. Meeting with Russians proves nothing. People in all walks of life, including US and other politicians, do it every day. Trump did business in Russia long before he got into politics.

5. Whether it runs to eight or eight hundred is of no relevance except to the US taxpayer. What matters is EVIDENCE.

6. Trump is not MY president, but if as you sound you are a US citizen, he is YOUR president. Which is just your tough luck. Him or Hillary "Drone Murderer" Clinton are different only in degree.

Since you've taken to answering your own comments I'll leave it there. You've already made a big enough fool of your self.

But good luck in your search for EVIDENCE.

nparker said...

You're deliberately taking what I said out of context and ignoring many details of what you describe.

Yes, the threatening of the rights of human beings in what is supposed to be a democracy are just 'tough luck' to you. I think we know which one of us actually cares about other people and which of us is simply excusing behaviour that is clearly criminal. The details are all over the net, and your dismissal of key points in your 'appraisal' is laughable.

I'm not a US citizen, I'm simply a concerned citizen of the world. I'm glad you've decided to stop this silliness, as I am glad to.