Brexit discussion thread IV

Leroy42

It is very telling, though of course not being commented on by the UK media, that despite a summer where the UK have attempted to divide and conquer by sending TM and her cabinet around the various countries of the EU to try to sell Chequers, that TM has been reduced to basically threatening the EU leaders with a walk out unless they go with her plan, and her plan only.

Yet again, it is another remarkable display of how utterly useless she has been at her job.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is very telling, though of course not being commented on by the UK media, that despite a summer where the UK have attempted to divide and conquer by sending TM and her cabinet around the various countries of the EU to try to sell Chequers, that TM has been reduced to basically threatening the EU leaders with a walk out unless they go with her plan, and her plan only.

Yet again, it is another remarkable display of how utterly useless she has been at her job.

Useless? Nope. If the big money's behind Brexit, when the smoke clears it'll be very interesting to see where she lands. I think she, too, is obeying her corporate masters.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is very telling, though of course not being commented on by the UK media, that despite a summer where the UK have attempted to divide and conquer by sending TM and her cabinet around the various countries of the EU to try to sell Chequers, that TM has been reduced to basically threatening the EU leaders with a walk out unless they go with her plan, and her plan only.

Yet again, it is another remarkable display of how utterly useless she has been at her job.

What I find much more telling, not to mention daming is that the British forces behind Brexit such as the incredibly concentrated tabloid right wing media, politicians and oligarchs have basically been let off the hook because the facets of the system which are supposed to challenged unchecked and concentrated political power are either being undermined (the courts), are owned by private, pro-Brexit interests (the media) or have been hollowed out to the point of being totally ineffectual (the BBC).

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

have been hollowed out to the point of being totally ineffectual (the BBC).

I've seen the BBC be criticised as left-wing by right-wingers, and as right-wing by left-wingers. It's always made me think that maybe this means it's really quite centrist, and as John Cleese once quipped, moderates are the only thing that the right and left wings can agree on a mutual loathing of.

What are some examples of how the BBC has been hollowed out? I had thought it more that people on either side of the political spectrum were just getting less news from that outlet and more from their social media feeds, choice of newspaper (online or in print), or outlets generally in line with their viewpoint such that they regard the BBC as out of touch.

demfad

briany wrote: »

'Post-truth' has got to be one of the most frightening phrases of modern times. If George Orwell were alive today, he'd have an absolute fit over it. It wasn't just in 1984 he had written about the ploy of the manipulation of information, but it's all throughout his many opinion pieces and essays as well. And a lot of those writings have not dated.

But the question is what is to be done in about a war of misinformation?Documentarian Adam Curtis points to a man named Vladislav Surkov, one of Putin's advisors, as a leading strategist in what Curtis calls nonlinear warfare. It basically involves deliberately agitating on both the Left and Right by funding or creating groups and individuals, sowing division, and then letting it be known that this is what you're doing, so that both sides become disillusioned and suspecting, cynical about arguments presented by the other side fearing they're being trolled.

This is the strategy Russia has been accused of employing on social media and it's worked to a tee on everybody. Truth has been wounded.

Not to pessimistic, but I can't see an effective response for it at the moment. People can put more faith into newspapers, but they're always accused of having their own slant. People can attempt to cross reference more sources, but a lot of people just don't have the time or inclination to that kind of work if they're busy with jobs and families, but many of those people still vote and so their opinion matters.

On the internet side Surkov's protege Rykov was involved in the US online operation ( I don't know about Brexit).
Surkov is coordinating the war (info + cyber + conventional) in Ukraine which is/was the testing ground for Cyber techniques. For example NotPyeta was tested there (the devasting world wide damage were unforseen contagion).
The technique of poisoning the perception of all news is particularly powerful in countries that have already been successfully fissured:
So it's easy to keep half the population supporting Brexit when they don't believe any news that counters it or believe it is "fake news" or rather "project fear".
A big symptom of this is politicians being able to lie openly in public. People dont connect the two but they are connected. If no-one can tell the truth, then no-one can tell the lies either.
We must be able to decipher fact from fiction again:
To quell it requires education amongst other things:
Examples:

• The Swedes sent out instructions to their citizens about deciphering fake news and disinformation.
• Also the recent EU law (last week) on regulating online big tech.
• Journalistic standards for online media with imposters being labelled false news.
• Drastic change of regulations on polling stopping corporations from carrying out private polls to make money on currency fluctuations, manipulating polls etc.
• Full sanctions against the Putin regime.

WRT Brexit the UK government know there was serious interference in the EU referendum by both US billionaires and the Russian State as well as British citizens. THe apparent lack on interest in this by any side is the most worrying for me. There is a lot of Russian money sloshing around London.
I would see this as much as a symtom of the devaluation of democracy as anything else. You can see this further in the Governments attempts to sideline parliament. When democracy is a charade you are in the realm of Surkov's "sovereign democracy". It is a good fit for RW authoritarian post-democratic western capitalist states.

An Ciarraioch

briany wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

have been hollowed out to the point of being totally ineffectual (the BBC).

I've seen the BBC be criticised as left-wing by right-wingers, and as right-wing by left-wingers. It's always made me think that maybe this means it's really quite centrist, and as John Cleese once quipped, moderates are the only thing that the right and left wings can agree on a mutual loathing of.

What are some examples of how the BBC has been hollowed out? I had thought it more that people on either side of the political spectrum were just getting less news from that outlet and more from their social media feeds, choice of newspaper (online or in print), or outlets generally in line with their viewpoint such that they regard the BBC as out of touch.

It is noticeable how many of the UK Brexit correspondents regularly retweet Tony Connelly's posts, perhaps because they consider his sources more reliable than their own.

kowtow

I have a feeling that May is going to get a wake up call from the British press tonight and overnight.

There is a growing feeling that she is being badly advised and should not have been allowed to go to Salzburg.

The only question now is whether or not Downing street have a strategy to pivot back towards a Canada + deal before the Tory party conference or whether May is effectively going to throw in the towel and let the party dictate to her.

By my estimation a Canada + deal with electronics to solve the NI problem is the only direction left which stands a chance of getting parliamentary support now, and even that is a very long odds chance.

lawred2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What I find much more telling, not to mention daming is that the British forces behind Brexit such as the incredibly concentrated tabloid right wing media, politicians and oligarchs have basically been let off the hook because the facets of the system which are supposed to challenged unchecked and concentrated political power are either being undermined (the courts), are owned by private, pro-Brexit interests (the media) or have been hollowed out to the point of being totally ineffectual (the BBC).

The Labour party are just as culpable. Obsequiously standing by while the Tories burn all around them.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

I have a feeling that May is going to get a wake up call from the British press tonight and overnight.

There is a growing feeling that she is being badly advised and should not have been allowed to go to Salzburg.

The only question now is whether or not Downing street have a strategy to pivot back towards a Canada + deal before the Tory party conference or whether May is effectively going to throw in the towel and let the party dictate to her.

By my estimation a Canada + deal with electronics to solve the NI problem is the only direction left which stands a chance of getting parliamentary support now, and even that is a very long odds chance.

Betfair is offering odds of 9/1 on a 2018 general election. I would consider that to be very tempting.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It is noticeable how many of the UK Brexit correspondents regularly retweet Tony Connelly's posts, perhaps because they consider his sources more reliable than their own.

I don't know if you saw the BBC news last night. Their correspondent reporting from Salzburg was reporting from a parallel universe where the UK was holding the strongest deck of cards. The usual - they need us as much as we need them rhetoric and only a matter of time before there is some movement by the EU in the face of this reality..

But this was completely at odds with every single clip from Salzburg the BBC played themselves in that very same segment..

Sure what is anyone supposed to take from that?

PeadarCo

kowtow wrote:

By my estimation a Canada + deal with electronics to solve the NI problem is the only direction left which stands a chance of getting parliamentary support now, and even that is a very long odds chance.

Which means you are saying there is no chance because the technology required to solve the border problem is not currently in existence or will br in the short to medium term.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

I've seen the BBC be criticised as left-wing by right-wingers, and as right-wing by left-wingers. It's always made me think that maybe this means it's really quite centrist, and as John Cleese once quipped, moderates are the only thing that the right and left wings can agree on a mutual loathing of.

No disagreements there, B.

briany wrote: »

What are some examples of how the BBC has been hollowed out? I had thought it more that people on either side of the political spectrum were just getting less news from that outlet and more from their social media feeds, choice of newspaper (online or in print), or outlets generally in line with their viewpoint such that they regard the BBC as out of touch.

Specific examples? Not to hand so if you wish to dismiss my claim then that's fair enough. For a non-related example, I recall an audience member on Question Time complain about the supply of weapons to Saudi Arabia who have used them on the Yemenis. David Dimbley was very quick, not to mention subtle in shutting this down instantly.

I'm under the impression that the BBC had any rebellious tendency among its staff well and truly quashed during a spending review. The licence fee was frozen in 2010 by George Osborne which amounts to a real time cut in funding. Given Osbrone's free market leanings, I would imagine that the corporation was very aware of the threats to its existence.

During the referendum, it was obsessed with the concept of balance. Given that the referendum was a very close affair, this made sense as infuriating either the remain or leave side of the Conservative party, particularly the latter would augur poorly for the corporation's future. The result was that when someone produced a projection showing that Brexit would leave the country worse off, a prominent Brexiteer would receive equal airtime to dismiss it as nonsense.

In addition, it failed to cover a pro-EU march in London last year while inviting UKIP MEP's to appear on a 25% of Question Time episodes.

I'd also like to note that the front page of the BBC News website has declined substantially in quality over the past year or so. Relevant headlines have been sidelined into the relevant subpages only to be replaced with fluff pieces when the UK is currently handling its biggest diplomatic challenge since the second world war.

As a public service broadcaster, I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect the BBC to inform the public about Brexit. Instead, it seems to prefer showing how uninformed people seem to be about it:

https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1041805263362244608?s=19

It also seems to be suffering from a complete lack of any sort of motivation to actually analyse news, preferring instead to simply report it. Here's one example:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1042316027328192513

I don't know if this helps substantiate the point I was making. If not, that's fair enough. What I was saying was derived from my own experience of reading the BBC News site and watching it's political programming.

Imreoir2

If there is to be an EU summit in November then it will be on the 17/18th.

It seems however that the EU are insisting that there won't be a summit in November unless the UK has brought forward credible proposals by the October summit. Tusk has said that the October summit will be "the moment of truth".

If there is a repeat performance of May showing up to an EU summit with nothing of substance to disguss, like back in July, then we could see talks break down. It seems the EU is going to try to prevent the UK from running the clock down in hopes of some last minute concessions.

kowtow

PeadarCo wrote: »

Which means you are saying there is no chance because the technology required to solve the border problem is not currently in existence or will br in the short to medium term.

You may be right.

But as far as NI is concerned once you introduce technology you can put a border in the Irish sea without it being called a border... that much has been strongly hinted at over the last few days. If that can be a "no border" in the irish sea then it can also be a "no border" inland or west / east, provided that the political will exists to do it. I've always felt that when the UK let the NI wording pass in December it is because they believed there was a degree of political will in the EU to find a mutual solution but that turned out to be a mirage.

If that political will on the part of the EU really does not exist then, unless the EU succeeds in forcing the UK to stay in the CU - which would have consequences of its own in the UK long term - then a no deal Brexit is what we will face.

It won't matter much who is to blame, each side will blame the other and each side will make whatever political capital out of it they think they can.

The real consequence of today is that Parliament will be less likely to allow a transition agreement - i.e. payment - to pass in favour of the EU with some vague promise of chequers because for the time being Chequers has now been discredited.

The line in Parliament will be divorce money only for a solid promise of Canada Plus.

listermint

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If there is to be an EU summit in November then it will be on the 17/18th.

It seems however that the EU are insisting that there won't be a summit in November unless the UK has brought forward credible proposals by the October summit. Tusk has said that the October summit will be "the moment of truth".

If there is a repeat performance of May showing up to an EU summit with nothing of substance to disguss, like back in July, then we could see talks break down. It seems the EU is going to try to prevent the UK from running the clock down in hopes of some last minute concessions.

Right now,

General election seems to be the only thing that would make any plausible change in anything.

There does not seem to be a single other thing that will stop this train smashing into the wall.

Harika

listermint wrote: »

Right now,

General election seems to be the only thing that would make any plausible change in anything.
There does not seem to be a single other thing that will stop this train smashing into the wall.

As long as Labour sits on the "Will of the people - We leave" train a general election makes so sense either. I don't get it why Corbyn doesn't come out with something like "The Tories tried, they fail spectacular, let's have a people's vote on the deal", that's such an open goal and while he hesitates May stays in power easily and the cliff is coming closer and closer.

Imreoir2

listermint wrote: »

Right now,

General election seems to be the only thing that would make any plausible change in anything.

There does not seem to be a single other thing that will stop this train smashing into the wall.

I don't think they have time to hold a general election between now and the October Summit.

If we assume the only thing motivating May right now is staying in No. 10 then I don't see how an election helps her. She can probably survive at least as far as January if she goes down a no deal route, or even if she tries to pull a U-Turn at the end of the year. A GE would probably see her out of No. 10 in a few weeks time either due to losing the election or a heave from within the Tories.

Imreoir2

Harika wrote: »

As long as Labour sits on the "Will of the people - We leave" train a general election makes so sense either. I don't get it why Corbyn doesn't come out with something like "The Tories tried, they fail spectacular, let's have a people's vote on the deal", that's such an open goal and while he hesitates May stays in power easily and the cliff is coming closer and closer.

Corbyn wants to go off the cliff. He is a life long Eurosceptic. I think it's clear enough that he wants the UK out of the EU and if the Tories get the blame for a no-deal Brexit, all the better.

Harika

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Corbyn wants to go off the cliff. He is a life long Eurosceptic. I think it's clear enough that he wants the UK out of the EU and if the Tories get the blame for a no-deal Brexit, all the better.

So his hate on the EU is bigger than the will to power? Strange politician he is.
And as said, as long he wants to go over the cliff edge, a GA won't miraculously put greens and lib dems in power.

Professor Moriarty

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think they have time to hold a general election between now and the October Summit.

If we assume the only thing motivating May right now is staying in No. 10 then I don't see how an election helps her. She can probably survive at least as far as January if she goes down a no deal route, or even if she tries to pull a U-Turn at the end of the year. A GE would probably see her out of No. 10 in a few weeks time either due to losing the election or a heave from within the Tories.

She mightn't be toast right now but she is a dead woman walking. Her credibility, such as it was, has nosedived. The EU see her as such and decided she couldn't carry her government with her which is why they dismissed her plan. She has nothing left to offer her party, cabinet or the EU anymore.

Itssoeasy

I've just read the relevant quotes from Theresa May and Donald tusk. Well if the Uk was a plane or a train you'd be advising the passengers(citizens) to brace for impact unless the quotes I've seen make it sound worse than it is.

I mean the referendum was in June 2016 for jaysus sake. How in the hell is the situation in the position it's in over two years since the referendum happened and nearly two years since Article 50 was triggered ?

kowtow

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think they have time to hold a general election between now and the October Summit.

If we assume the only thing motivating May right now is staying in No. 10 then I don't see how an election helps her. She can probably survive at least as far as January if she goes down a no deal route, or even if she tries to pull a U-Turn at the end of the year. A GE would probably see her out of No. 10 in a few weeks time either due to losing the election or a heave from within the Tories.

The only thing keeping May in no. 10 is either her control-freak nature "give me time, I'll fix it.." or a perverse sense of stoic duty. If her calculation is that nobody in no. 10 can possibly profit from this mess, she would be right. She's not staying there for the salary and the perks.

If I was May, I would appoint a strongly pro-Brexit chancellor and drive through a very radical budget with an unmistakable emphasis on no-deal.

In fact I would more or less walk away from the Brussels negotiating table - not out of pique but because nothing is being gained by remaining there as things stand. The EU position has been intransigent - in the nicest possible sense - and UK politics simply is not sufficiently of a single mind to challenge that - drastic measures are needed to force one of those immovable objects to change.

Sassygirl1999

The reason so many people in the EU are not extremely devastated by Brexit is that the UK have not being a committed EU partner for many many years if ever, this separation would have been a true divorce had the UK been fully committed, as it stands its more like a couple who cohabitted for many years and had a child (NI) but never went the whole way and married, its more "ah ye on your way Britain you were never into me anyway, you just were using me!" Now if germany were to leave that would be a full proper divorce

Water John

And why Kowtow do you believe that the EU will blink?

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

And why Kowtow do you believe that the EU will blink?

Exactly. The mantra 'No deal is better than a bad deal' equally applies to the EU.

Rhineshark

kowtow wrote: »

The only thing keeping May in no. 10 is either her control-freak nature "give me time, I'll fix it.." or a perverse sense of stoic duty. If her calculation is that nobody in no. 10 can possibly profit from this mess, she would be right. She's not staying there for the salary and the perks.

If I was May, I would appoint a strongly pro-Brexit chancellor and drive through a very radical budget with an unmistakable emphasis on no-deal.

In fact I would more or less walk away from the Brussels negotiating table - not out of pique but because nothing is being gained by remaining there as things stand. The EU position has been intransigent - in the nicest possible sense - and UK politics simply is not sufficiently of a single mind to challenge that - drastic measures are needed to force one of those immovable objects to change.

The intransigent one here is not the EU no matter how often you repeat it.

That offer in the last few days was a huge concession that would have very much relied on trust the UK doesn't deserve. It was thrown out.

Chequers can't even be gotten through the UK parliament. When May tried, her own headbangers forced amendments through to make it, in effect, illegal.

The Dec Agreement was signed off on and then immediately renaged on when May decided that no UK PM could possibly agree to it (for longer than a week).

The UK has promised the sun, moon and stars as long as the EU doesn't ask them how they plan to do it or to sign commitments. UK politicians have been talking dismissively about how they can sign an agreement and then just do as they like.

I really do not know what parallel universe you have to be living in to decide it's the EU being mean to poor little UK.

kowtow

Water John wrote: »

And why Kowtow do you believe that the EU will blink?

I don't, particularly.

I'm just considering what I would do if I were in her shoes.

Imreoir2

Harika wrote: »

So his hate on the EU is bigger than the will to power? Strange politician he is.
And as said, as long he wants to go over the cliff edge, a GA won't miraculously put greens and lib dems in power.

Oh he wants power all right, but after Brexit, when he can implement his policies without the EU holding him back and still blame everything on the Tories for making a mess of Brexit in the first place.

kunst nugget

Harika wrote: »

So his hate on the EU is bigger than the will to power? Strange politician he is.

Not really. Hold back and let the Tories absolutely destroy themselves and decimate any chance of them having a majority for at least a decade and get to work setting up his Bennite vision of a UK free of EU interference. Well, that's probably the plan he has.

Water John

Kowtow, what happens then, the EU doesn't budge but says it has made a fair offer. What's the next moves for TM?