Brexit discussion thread IV

Trasna1

Leroy42 wrote: »

And its deeply worrying. We have MEP's calling that anyone in the UK that supports the EU is committing treason and should be hanged.

We have the likes of IDS and JRM claiming that the EU are bullying them and Hunt is claiming that if the EU don't come up with a deal then the people of the UK will blame the EU for generations.

They are simply added fuel to a potential fire.

Would he himself be a traitor seeing as he's on the EU payroll...?

flutered

Christy42 wrote: »

Early stages of talks but the social aid package to farmers shows that the administration is feeling the pinch. Barriers to trade will remain up, no matter what Trump says due to below quality American produce but 0% tariffs into the US would be a big deal. Especially for Ireland.

Obviously early days and who knows what Trump will do tomorrow.

mexico is now purchasing wheat from abroad instead of america, this is hitting the kansas farmers hard, this week they are heading down to argentina in the hopes of a good deal, they have deals on with ukraine and russia and canada and brazil, this is hitting back at trump as regards his wall and kids in cages

ArthurDayne

Trasna1 wrote: »

Maybe it's written for the audience, but I feel like I'm back in first class reading that. Two sentence paragraphs, and nothing more complex than chest beating put forward. I believe he is incorrect as well - the EU would be open to a Norway style deal but they'd have to accept freedom of movement and pay into the budget.

What is sad of course is that the article is not coming from some fringe of the Brexiteer school of thought -- it is coming from a man who is supposedly one of the shining intellectual lights of the Brexit movement.*

I read the article earlier today and, after spending 10 minutes massaging my temples to calm down after subjecting myself to yet another vacuous Jingoisim R' Us rant, I realised that what we are witnessing is a man who is looking to absolve both himself and his fellow Brexit acolytes of the blame for this mess -- a mess which he has helped to create. It is remarkable that, even in a process where the UK is voluntarily leaving the EU and being allowed to leave without any threat or hindrance, certain elements of British commentary still manage to shift the blame onto the ever-blameable faceless Eurocrats for the completely British-made f**k up which has been the sorry tale of Brexit.

*Emphasis on "supposedly"

VonZan

When does the cold reality set in for Brexiteers and their fantasy trade deals? It's hard to believe that they still believe the EU will tear up their rulebook to allow these nonsensical ideas of picking and choosing which rules you want to follow with no legal basis to enforce such rules.

The level of stupidity is frightening. It's dangerously stupid that the Tory's think the EU is a pick n mix shop which just leads to this continual kicking the can down the road.

CelticRambler

Trasna1 wrote: »

Maybe it's written for the audience, but I feel like I'm back in first class reading that. Two sentence paragraphs, and nothing more complex than chest beating put forward.

Way back in the last century, when I lived and worked in England, I did a marketing course (of sorts) with a module on writing for the public. The speaker knew she was talking to a room full of high achievers with no less than 5 years university education, so she made a point of bringing us back down to earth, reminding us that the average reading level of the Great British Public (at the time, and I have no reason to believe it's changed very much since the 90s) is just ten years of age. She went on to deconstruct the typical tabloid headline and article to illustrate her point.


My opinion/prejudice in that regard was reinforced over subsequent years as I mixed with more of the "plain people of England" to the extent that I decided not to let my children grow up in that kind of environment, and we left the country.

PeadarCo

VonZan wrote:

The level of stupidity is frightening. It's dangerously stupid that the Tory's think the EU is a pick n mix shop which just leads to this continual kicking the can down the road.

The problem is people like Theresa May and Boris Johnson can't turn around and say so sorry we were wrong and or lying. It would be political suicide. Sky News had a good article on it a few days ago. Basically saying all the stuff that has been said to try and placate the Tory hard brexiters has backfired as people took David Cameron and Theresa may at face value. For example when Theresa May said no deal is better than a bad deal, she can't say sorry I was only bluffing and the EU called my bluff. It's very hard to do a massive u turn when you have been saying the EU would bend to your will for over 2 years now.

Akrasia

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is people like Theresa May and Boris Johnson can't turn around and say so sorry we were wrong and or lying. It would be political suicide. Sky News had a good article on it a few days ago. Basically saying all the stuff that has been said to try and placate the Tory hard brexiters has backfired as people took David Cameron and Theresa may at face value. For example when Theresa May said no deal is better than a bad deal, she can't say sorry I was only bluffing and the EU called my bluff. It's very hard to do a massive u turn when you have been saying the EU would bend to your will for over 2 years now.

But it is a bluff, and when you're caught bluffing, its better to fold and take your losses than double down against someone you know is holding a royal flush and can easily afford to call any bet you make.

TM might be politically damaged now, but its nothing compared to what will happen to whatever is left of her legacy if she presides over food shortages, grounded aircraft and the deepest recession in generations

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

Way back in the last century, when I lived and worked in England, I did a marketing course (of sorts) with a module on writing for the public. The speaker knew she was talking to a room full of high achievers with no less than 5 years university education, so she made a point of bringing us back down to earth, reminding us that the average reading level of the Great British Public (at the time, and I have no reason to believe it's changed very much since the 90s) is just ten years of age. She went on to deconstruct the typical tabloid headline and article to illustrate her point.


My opinion/prejudice in that regard was reinforced over subsequent years as I mixed with more of the "plain people of England" to the extent that I decided not to let my children grow up in that kind of environment, and we left the country.

A shocking statistic is that about 80% of newspaper sales in the UK are of right wing newspapers. People are getting badly written drivel with numerous lies and inaccuracies as their main source of information on current affairs, politics and the EU.

PeadarCo

Akrasia wrote:

But it is a bluff, and when you're caught bluffing, its better to fold and take your losses than double down against someone you know is holding a royal flush and can easily afford to call any bet you make.

Akrasia wrote:

TM might be politically damaged now, but its nothing compared to what will happen to whatever is left of her legacy if she presides over food shortages, grounded aircraft and the deepest recession in generations

I'd completely agree. But in the case of the idea that no brexit was better than a bad brexit it was a stupid bluff in the first place. Part of May's problem and I argue anyone who wants a soft brexit you have labour led by a hard brexiter and a significant amount of hard brexiters with the Tory Party. She is honest she will get hammered by them as they won't be honest with the UK public. They either don't care/believe the impact a hard brexit could have.

It will take more than TM being honest arguably you need the entire hard brexit side to be open and transparent about the likely consequences which unfortunately won't happen.

Strazdas

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'd completely agree. But in the case of the idea that no brexit was better than a bad brexit it was a stupid bluff in the first place. Part of May's problem and I argue anyone who wants a soft brexit you have labour led by a hard brexiter and a significant amount of hard brexiters with the Tory Party. She is honest she will get hammered by them as they won't be honest with the UK public. They either don't care/believe the impact a hard brexit could have.

It will take more than TM being honest arguably you need the entire hard brexit side to be open and transparent about the likely consequences which unfortunately won't happen.

To do that would mean admitting the British public were conned during the referendum campaign. They would sooner crash the economy than admit Brexit is a bad idea.

McGiver

VonZan wrote: »

The level of stupidity is frightening. It's dangerously stupid that the Tory's think the EU is a pick n mix shop which just leads to this continual kicking the can down the road.

I'm afraid Tories always thought that, hence all the UK's opt-outs, rebates etc. But the latest EU anti-tax avoidance measures and stricter financial regulation were too much for them, hence Brexit.
UK is practically running a series of money-laundering tax havens; Guernsey, Jersey, Virgin Islands etc.

ancapailldorcha

McGiver wrote: »

I'm afraid Tories always thought that, hence all the UK's opt-outs, rebates etc. But the latest EU anti-tax avoidance measures and stricter financial regulation were too much for them, hence Brexit.
UK is practically running a series of money-laundering tax havens; Guernsey, Jersey, Virgin Islands etc.

I have to disagree.

The European question has broken the last three Conservative prime ministers. Each change in Europe has wreaked havoc in the Conservative party. Major had Maastricht, Thatcher became increasingly Eurosceptic despite being the architect (along with Jacques Delors) of the single market while Cameron, a PR man instead of a leader decided to try to placate his Paleosceptics with a binary referendum which contained no provisions whatsoever for a Leave vote with a few token changes in the event of a Remain win.

I remember a quote from the film Man About Dog, "The worst thing that can happen to a gambler in winning". Cameron kept throwing fish to his Eurosceptic seals hoping they'd clap. Instead, it emboldened them. Then he won, which nobody expected and had to call the referendum or risk his party splitting.

The defining characteristic of the Cameron premiership isn't Brexit or austerity or tuition fees. It's that he was happy to discard the central tenets of British Conservatism, pragmatism, heritage, skepticism and putting country before party as Peel did with the corn laws, Churchill did with the second world war and Thatcher did with the single market.

Here's a quote from a good chronicle about the coalition:

‘David’s a lovely person – but I have no idea at all what he stands for,’ Ken Clarke once admitted to coalition colleagues about his party leader.

Laws, David. Coalition: The Inside Story of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government (Kindle Locations 8145-8147). Biteback Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Traditionally, the Conservatives would eschew the opinions of the masses in favour of those of the governing classes who would adopt the best and brightest into its ranks but now they're sick of experts. Ditto for pie-in-the-sky schemes but now we're getting blue passports printed in France and adequate food while as many British assets as possible have been flogged to foreign oligarchs.

One nation conservatism is truly dead and I think we have Cameron and his zeal of succeeding Blair to thank for that.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have to disagree.

The European question has broken the last three Conservative prime ministers. Each change in Europe has wreaked havoc in the Conservative party. Major had Maastricht, Thatcher became increasingly Eurosceptic despite being the architect (along with Jacques Delors) of the single market while Cameron, a PR man instead of a leader decided to try to placate his Paleosceptics with a binary referendum which contained no provisions whatsoever for a Leave vote with a few token changes in the event of a Remain win.

I remember a quote from the film Man About Dog, "The worst thing that can happen to a gambler in winning". Cameron kept throwing fish to his Eurosceptic seals hoping they'd clap. Instead, it emboldened them. Then he won, which nobody expected and had to call the referendum or risk his party splitting.

The defining characteristic of the Cameron premiership isn't Brexit or austerity or tuition fees. It's that he was happy to discard the central tenets of British Conservatism, pragmatism, heritage, skepticism and putting country before party as Peel did with the corn laws, Churchill did with the second world war and Thatcher did with the single market.

Here's a quote from a good chronicle about the coalition:



Traditionally, the Conservatives would eschew the opinions of the masses in favour of those of the governing classes who would adopt the best and brightest into its ranks but now they're sick of experts. Ditto for pie-in-the-sky schemes but now we're getting blue passports printed in France and adequate food while as many British assets as possible have been flogged to foreign oligarchs.

One nation conservatism is truly dead and I think we have Cameron and his zeal of succeeding Blair to thank for that.

The problem was the Conservative Party itself of course, not so much the way the EU was expanding and adopting more powers. It was inevitably going to head in this direction, that was the stated aim since 1958.

But the Tories have always been all over the place on Europe. You had your Maastricht rebels who would quite willingly have prevented the EU even being created in 1993 if they possibly could, alongside more EU friendly types. Perhaps the party was always going to blow up like this.

Junkyard Tom

Looks like Kate Hoey's political career is to come to an end... with Labour at least. Perhaps Hoey will find a home with UKIP where her fanatical British-Unionist nationalism will be accommodated.

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, Raab agrees that a backstop is required, but then undermines that by reverting to the notion of a time-limited arrangement.

Well, he's being creatively ambiguous, maybe. What he says is this:

"[Resolving the border issue] will be easier to achieve if it is clear that the backstop, if it were to be exercised at all, could only be for a time-limited period before the permanent future arrangements would become operational."

Remember the backstop has always had a dual role - it applies "unless and until" a Free Trade Agreement, magic technology, etc which will keep the border open becomes operational.

But there's a big difference between "unless" and "until". If we say that the backstop applies unless X happens, that implies that we don't necessarily expect that X will ever happen, so the backstop could apply forever. But if we say that it applies until X happens, there's an implication that we expect X to happen, so the backstop will be temporary.

Right. When Raab calls for a "time-limited" backstop, that could be taken in one of two ways:

First, he's suggesting a clause that says that the backstop will in any event expire after, say 5 years. That's nonsense, because an arrangements which expires isn't a backstop. If the arrangement expires, then the backstop is whatever happens after that. But it's also nonsense because, as he well knows, the EU will never agree to this. Why would they?

Secondly, he's merely emphasising that the backstop is an "until" backstop - it will apply until X happens, and we will be confident that X will happen. And I think this is what he does mean. He keeps the dog-whistle term "time limited", but also explicitly say that the backstop is to apply "before the permanent future arrangements would become operational". So the limit is not a fixed number of years but an event, the event being the commencement of the permanent arrangements.

This ambiguity suits Raab. Ultra-brexiters will understand him to be saying that any backstop will have a defined time limit. The EU will understand him to be saying that he can accept a backstop without a defined time limit if it is accompanied by a suitably strong political declaration about introducing a Free Trade Agreement which will keep the border open and so supersede the backstop at some point in the future.

And, on either interpretation, he is signalling that he will accept a backstop which does in fact come into operation. So he is moving away from the position that the UK would only agree a backstop if it was going to be superseded before the end of the transitional period, and so would never actually come into operation.

VinLieger

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Looks like Kate Hoey's political career is to come to an end... with Labour at least. Perhaps Hoey will find a home with UKIP where her fanatical British-Unionist nationalism will be accommodated.

Absolutely delighted

Akrasia

Strazdas wrote: »

To do that would mean admitting the British public were conned during the referendum campaign. They would sooner crash the economy than admit Brexit is a bad idea.

Theresa May should call a press conference saying she has been advised that the referendum was materially affected by outside hostile actors.

Blame Russia, Cambridge analytica etc.

Use them as the scapegoat, politicians and voters love scapegoats. The brexiteers are gonna blame immigrants and the EU for all their woes if they crash out, Its better to pick actually malevolent forces then innocent bystanders or future allies and vital trading partners.

Going back to the bluffer analogy, its easier to fold if she can tell herself that she was right to bluff given the information she had at the time, but if 'the will of the people' was corrupted then she can say she has a duty to reconfigure her options

Leroy42

Is Raab's statement about the backstop the first time they have acknowledged that a backstop is coming?

I seem to recall they messed around with time limiting in the past, but at that point it was in the POV of even considering a backstop.

Maybe it is my reading too much into it, but I got the distinct impression that the backstop was now accepted and will be implemented and they are looking for a way to massage the language to try to placate the ERG and DUP.

Peregrinus makes a good point about the difference in Unless and Until. My reading of it, again I could be reading way too deeply, is that they are starting the process of moving the outcome to include both. The EU will accept a time limit, unless something happens (technology etc) and without that it is effectively open ended.

McGiver

Strazdas wrote: »

But the Tories have always been all over the place on Europe. You had your Maastricht rebels who would quite willingly have prevented the EU even being created in 1993 if they possibly could, alongside more EU friendly types. Perhaps the party was always going to blow up like this.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. They had always a rather large wing which was eurosceptic/eurohostile and even the moderates were quite suspicious of the EU integration in the general.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is Raab's statement about the backstop the first time they have acknowledged that a backstop is coming?

No. They agreed to the backstop in the Joint Report last December.

Of course, various Brexiters tried to piss on that afterwards, but that doesn't change the fact that HMG had agreed, even if it did call the good faith/reliability of that agreement into some question.

More recently they seemed to be moving towards a position whereby they would try to sell the backstop to ultra-Brexiters on the basis that it was only to kick in (a) after the transition period and, even then, (b) only if a Free Trade Agreement/magic technology were still not in place by that time. And of course those things would be in place, so in practice the backstop would never actually operate, so signing up to it was not a problem.

I think they are now at a position where they accept that this is nonsense. Any backstop agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement will kick in at the end of the transition period, because nothing else will be place by then. But it will still be temporary (or "time-limited"), because something else will be in place at some point, and the backstop will be superseded.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus makes a good point about the difference in Unless and Until. My reading of it, again I could be reading way too deeply, is that they are starting the process of moving the outcome to include both. The EU will accept a time limit, unless something happens (technology etc) and without that it is effectively open ended.

Just to be clear, the EU will not accept a limit to the backstop defined in terms of time (e.g. "the backstop will lapse after 5 years") but they will accept - they have always accepted - that it will lapse in certain events ("the backstop will lapse when the EU and the UK begin to operate a Free Trade Agreement which keeps the Irish border open"). You can call that a "time-limited backstop" if you are confident that, in time, the EU and the UK will put in place such an agreement.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

This only happens if the UK imposes checks on EU goods entering the UK

If they want to return to WTO rules, it might be a plan not to flagrantly break WTO rules while trying to negotiate with the WTO.

Leroy42

Yes, I know they signed up to it and have talked about it before (the backstop) but in terms of the agreement, no sooner had TM returned home than the likes of Davies were saying it was not really an agreement, not agreed until everything agreed etc.

As I said, I might be reading too much into it, by I noticed that he mentioned it, when in reality he could have simply avoided saying anything about it at all. IMO, they are preparing the way for the climbdown. From "no PM could ever agree to this" (although she herself had done exactly that!) to 'it will be a really short-term thing. Pretty much the transition period, which nothing really changes anyway, and once the technology is up and running we will be back on track'

But you need to ready the ground when making such a shift. They need to start getting people talking about the time limit (even though in actuality it won't exist).

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, I know they signed up to it and have talked about it before (the backstop) but in terms of the agreement, no sooner had TM returned home than the likes of Davies were saying it was not really an agreement, not agreed until everything agreed etc.

It's important to remember that there are two kinds of talk from the UK side. There are official positions and agreements made at the talks, and there is noise.

The December agreement was an official agreement by Her Majesty's Government as part of negotiations with the EU.

Everything else they have said about the backstop has been noise intended for the UK press as part of the internal Tory party struggle.

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they want to return to WTO rules, it might be a plan not to flagrantly break WTO rules while trying to negotiate with the WTO.

Someone should tell that to Jacob Rees Mogg

It would be astounding if after all this talk of WTO rules being perfectly acceptable to Brexiteers, they don't even get accepted the WTO because they are in breach of even these default WTO rules.

The worst case scenario is that the UK gets pushed back to WTO default rules, but what happens if they are rejected by the WTO?

The risk of this is tiny, but if they piss off enough WTO members, or breach WTO rules, they could be blocked or delayed membership after brexit

They'd join the likes of Iran, Sudan, Belarus, Algeria etc. I
It means they wouldn't have 'most favourable status' with any trading partner, so they can be bullied and have punitive terms imposed on them by any country on a whim

J Mysterio

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Looks like Kate Hoey's political career is to come to an end... with Labour at least. Perhaps Hoey will find a home with UKIP where her fanatical British-Unionist nationalism will be accommodated.

Made my day - thanks

Enzokk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Looks like Kate Hoey's political career is to come to an end... with Labour at least. Perhaps Hoey will find a home with UKIP where her fanatical British-Unionist nationalism will be accommodated.

I am sure I saw that she received donations from Arron Banks as well. She will be right at home at UKIP.

In other news today, another day another Vote Leave scandal. They paid for ads on Facebook without putting on who paid for the ads. Those ads were misleading to say the least and they were targeted as well. This thread has a sample of the ads they paid for.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1022596449207574528

To add some insult, after the parties agreed that there will not be campaigning because a MP was murdered (can anyone still remember that someone died during all of this?) they still released ads during that time.

https://twitter.com/veritasta/status/1022752615447375872

https://twitter.com/veritasta/status/1022755651108388864

J Mysterio

Akrasia wrote: »

Theresa May should call a press conference saying she has been advised that the referendum was materially affected by outside hostile actors.

Blame Russia, Cambridge analytica etc.

Use them as the scapegoat, politicians and voters love scapegoats. The brexiteers are gonna blame immigrants and the EU for all their woes if they crash out, Its better to pick actually malevolent forces then innocent bystanders or future allies and vital trading partners.

Going back to the bluffer analogy, its easier to fold if she can tell herself that she was right to bluff given the information she had at the time, but if 'the will of the people' was corrupted then she can say she has a duty to reconfigure her options

In full agreement. It's either:

a) a ludicrous Brexit which leaves the UK in a significantly worse material situation and as a rule taker with no say, or

b) Hard Brexit

The only way out is to blame these pernicious forces, as you say. Make it a political issue, institute investigatice commisions, signal the withdrawal of article 50.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

In full agreement. It's either:

a) a ludicrous Brexit which leaves the UK in a significantly worse material situation and as a rule taker with no say, or

b) Hard Brexit which leaves the UK in a significantly worse again material situation and as a rule taker with no say

Fixed that for you.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Goes without saying tbf. The Mad Max dystopia that Davis was so smug about.

ancapailldorcha

It looks like Arron Banks is worse than the shadowy financier we see him as:



Full Letter.

In other news, Nathalie Loiseay, the French Finance Minister is insisting that the door for the UK to return is still open which gives me hope:

Asked if staying in was still an option for the UK, Nathalie Loiseau told the programme:

We have always said, always, that the door would remain open and that we were not the ones who wanted to diverge from the United Kingdom. It was the British people who decided to leave the European Union.

And when asked if that meant the UK would be able to stay in, “on the same terms”, she replied:

Sure, of course. [Like] every single member state of the European Union, we have one conviction, which is that the best possible status is being a member, the most profitable status.