Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

That's an internal UK political squabble. Leave them at it.

Of course. But, as Zuben said, this will allow British populists (Johnson, Mogg, Farage et al) to paint the EU as the bad guys and the Little Englanders as the good guys. That's not in the EU's or Ireland's interests in the long term.

Professor Moriarty

Midlife wrote: »

Don't think that will wash. The backlash to the consequences of a no deal brexit will be brutal.

Depends on who gets the blame. If it's the populists then great, lesson learnt. If it's the vengeful and nasty EU then Britain will become a basket case.

Leroy42

Matlis totally destroyed him. I was not expecting it at all, was ready for the usual bluster and nonsense and no calling out of facts but tbf she really went in hard on him and didn't let him away. It was pretty uncomfortable viewing actually seeing a professional come face to face with the lies and duplicity that he has allowed himself to become.

On the other hand, I felt she let the other lad off a bit gently. He kept touting the mantra that Hunt was best placed to get a renegotiation. IMO, she should have asked that since this was the claimed difference that would Hunt resign on 1st October if he failed in the one task he claimed only he could achieve.

Even to ask the question as to why he feels Hunt is best placed. Why? What previous experience does he have reopening up international agreements in a 3 week time frame?

And again, what is Hunt willing to offer the EU in exchange for what he wants?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Matlis totally destroyed him. I was not expecting it at all, was ready for the usual bluster and nonsense and no calling out of facts but tbf she really went in hard on him and didn't let him away. It was pretty uncomfortable viewing actually seeing a professional come face to face with the lies and duplicity that he has allowed himself to become.

On the other hand, I felt she let the other lad off a bit gently. He kept touting the mantra that Hunt was best placed to get a renegotiation. IMO, she should have asked that since this was the claimed difference that would Hunt resign on 1st October if he failed in the one task he claimed only he could achieve.

Even to ask the question as to why he feels Hunt is best placed. Why? What previous experience does he have reopening up international agreements in a 3 week time frame?

And again, what is Hunt willing to offer the EU in exchange for what he wants?

She did let him off relatively gently. I suspect it's because Hunt doesn't have a hope anyway. It's not in the tweeted segments but at the end she thanked both of them and the camera flashed to Green. If looks could kill...

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Depends on who gets the blame. If it's the populists then great, lesson learnt. If it's the vengeful and nasty EU then Britain will become a basket case.

The only way for the EU to counter this is to outperform the UK in the coming years. If the UK is in recession and the EU pushing ahead with growth, then it is very hard to claim that it is all the EU's fault.

Sure that will probably work for a couple of years, but people will start to question where the new trade deals are, where the payback is going to come from.

When people like Liam Fox are now coming out to cover their arse and claim that maybe Brexit could cause some issues then the tide is definitely turning.

Too late I fear to save it at this point but maybe the start of the rethink over the coming years.

Tell me how

This is chillingly shameful.

https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/1145968706939445248


The UK should hold it's head in shame to have it's representatives treat a democratic institution like this.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Depends on who gets the blame. If it's the populists then great, lesson learnt. If it's the vengeful and nasty EU then Britain will become a basket case.

It wouldn't be as binary as that: no matter the blaming, you would always have a non-trivial body of the British population well aware that the EU is not being vengeful or nasty to the UK, but just observing its own rules for the sake of organisational coherency (to say nothing of personal 'Remain' sentiments and personal domain-specific knowledge favouring 'remain' or as close to it as possible).

So perhaps more accurately, I'd say it depends how much of the population the snake oil peddlers will manage to continue to hoodwink and whip up, once the consequences at the personal level begin to ramp up (food, meds, jobs, travel, contracts, etc). Safe to say you can exclude sizeable portions of Scots, Londoners and NI from that notional population.

I expect the UK to become a basket case out of the consequences of Brexit, irrespective of who or what attracts the most blame, deserved or not: blaming never fixed anything.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

This is chillingly shameful.

https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/1145968706939445248


The UK should hold it's head in shame to have it's representatives treat a democratic institution like this.

That's disgusting. It's getting increasingly hard to maintain a positive view of the British electorate these days.

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

It wouldn't be as binary as that: no matter the blaming, you would always have a non-trivial body of the British population well aware that the EU is not being vengeful or nasty to the UK, but just observing its own rules for the sake of organisational coherency (to say nothing of personal 'Remain' sentiments and personal domain-specific knowledge favouring 'remain' or as close to it as possible).

So perhaps more accurately, I'd say it depends how much of the population the snake oil peddlers will manage to continue to hoodwink and whip up, once the consequences at the personal level begin to ramp up (food, meds, jobs, travel, contracts, etc). Safe to say you can exclude sizeable portions of Scots, Londoners and NI from that notional population.

You're spot on. It's a battle for the middle ground. However, such is the mindset of many Brexiteer supporters, it could turn very nasty if they don't get their way.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's disgusting. It's getting increasingly hard to maintain a positive view of the British electorate these days.

Everyone else in the room who saw that probably thought to themselves, 'I wish they just f*cked off', which even more depressingly, is exactly what the Brexit MEP's want.

Leroy42

I think the issue is that a very large portion of the UK electorate has shown itself very much open to the manipulation and hoodwinking from the MP's and the media and there is very little sign of that changing.

Even the tweets coming from the new Brexit party MEP's. Complaining about being given iPads upon entering the parliament (it is a work tool, like getting a laptop in many jobs) or having to travel!

When you have people like Ann Widdecombe

Ann Widdecombe: spent more than £9,000 of taxpayers' money on newspaper cuttings

decrying the EU expense you know that people are willing to accept anything once it fits with their bias.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

It's only destroying him if he admits he is wrong, or changes his mind.

He does neither, they are entirely immoral. They're not going on Newsnight to talk about Brexit, or their positions on it, they're auditioning for a job in Boris's government.

I disagree. Changing your mind is an admission of fallibility and imperfection. It's how we grow. People shouldn't be penalized for it at all. In the UK, if it were looked on more favorably, Brexit would have been aborted by now.

I also can't stand this "destroy" boll*xology that we've for some reason imported wholesale from the US. Yeah, you can use research and dirty debating tricks to shut someone up but that won't really change their mind. It's just humiliation and it needs to go away.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're spot on. It's a battle for the middle ground. However, such is the mindset of many Brexiteer supporters, it could turn very nasty if they don't get their way.

In the sentiment of my late edit to my previous post: it could turn equally nasty if they do get their way.

In either case, immigrants would be (still more-) the frontline targets.

One of the several main reasons we Brexoded. I'm son and grandson of economical migrants on one side, of generations of families force-displaced and dispossessed by successive conflicts (1870, 1914, 1940) on the other: feeling how the tide turns and when, is genetically encoded by now.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. Changing your mind is an admission of fallibility and imperfection. It's how we grow. People shouldn't be penalized for it at all. In the UK, if it were looked on more favorably, Brexit would have been aborted by now.

I also can't stand this "destroy" boll*xology that we've for some reason imported wholesale from the US. Yeah, you can use research and dirty debating tricks to shut someone up but that won't really change their mind. It's just humiliation and it needs to go away.

I think discussing the value of change (which is important) is moot here as I think Mr Green is motivated entirely by selfish desires to be seen by Boris as a supporter of his. No more that Priti Patel reading entire passage from notes last week, we should call out the barely concealed motivations of politicians when the picture doesn't match the words.

I agree on the use of the 'destroy' lexicon, sometimes it's apt but for the most part it is used incorrectly.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. Changing your mind is an admission of fallibility and imperfection. It's how we grow. People shouldn't be penalized for it at all. In the UK, if it were looked on more favorably, Brexit would have been aborted by now.

I also can't stand this "destroy" boll*xology that we've for some reason imported wholesale from the US. Yeah, you can use research and dirty debating tricks to shut someone up but that won't really change their mind. It's just humiliation and it needs to go away.

So what would you do then? Simply let them spout whatever nonsense they like, change their standing on any issue depending on whom they are talking too?

Matlis held him to account for what he had previously said. Either he was lying then or he was lying now. She gave him the chance to explain this change of mind but instead he tried to claim that nothing had really changed.

When people hold themselves up as principled people, taking hard decisions that effect negatively on others on the basis that the principle is what matters, that is destroyed when they can be so easily and openly shown to be completely unprincipled when it comes to looking after themselves.

James O'Brien has been doing this for ages, and it is time that politicians are held to account for what they previously said. I am all for them coming out and saying that they have changed their minds because of A,B or C but it is a very hard position to take when at the same time they are claiming that any rerun of the ref is an affront to democracy.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. Changing your mind is an admission of fallibility and imperfection. It's how we grow. People shouldn't be penalized for it at all. In the UK, if it were looked on more favorably, Brexit would have been aborted by now.

I also can't stand this "destroy" boll*xology that we've for some reason imported wholesale from the US. Yeah, you can use research and dirty debating tricks to shut someone up but that won't really change their mind. It's just humiliation and it needs to go away.

Hang on. Green campaigned for Remain in 2016. Nine months ago, he advocated a second referendum. Three months ago, he passionately defended May and May's deal as being the only way Britain should leave the EU and dismissed No Deal as being a disaster for Britain. Now he's fervently supporting an arch Brexiteer who is happy to leave with no deal in October.

Maitlis didn't use "dirty tricks". She just presented him with facts about his political 'principles' and 'positions'. The only person who has humiliated Dominic Green is Dominic Green.

Hurrache

Wilson still detached from reality
https://twitter.com/PeterKGeoghegan/status/1145946992121716737
https://twitter.com/paul__johnson/status/1145947299396370433

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

I think discussing the value of change (which is important) is moot here as I think Mr Green is motivated entirely by selfish desires to be seen by Boris as a supporter of his. No more that Priti Patel reading entire passage from notes last week, we should call out the barely concealed motivations of politicians when the picture doesn't match the words.

I agree on the use of the 'destroy' lexicon, sometimes it's apt but for the most part it is used incorrectly.

Ok. I'd forgotten that Green was a remainer and was solely commenting on the "destroy" rhetoric.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what would you do then? Simply let them spout whatever nonsense they like, change their standing on any issue depending on whom they are talking too?

Matlis held him to account for what he had previously said. Either he was lying then or he was lying now. She gave him the chance to explain this change of mind but instead he tried to claim that nothing had really changed.

When people hold themselves up as principled people, taking hard decisions that effect negatively on others on the basis that the principle is what matters, that is destroyed when they can be so easily and openly shown to be completely unprincipled when it comes to looking after themselves.

James O'Brien has been doing this for ages, and it is time that politicians are held to account for what they previously said. I am all for them coming out and saying that they have changed their minds because of A,B or C but it is a very hard position to take when at the same time they are claiming that any rerun of the ref is an affront to democracy.

Oh no, they should absolutely be challenged. No question and this is a particularly hypocritical and venal volte face. As I said, I'd forgotten that Green was once in favour of a People's Vote. I didn't realize there was this much hypocrisy on display.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hang on. Green campaigned for Remain in 2016. Nine months ago, he advocated a second referendum. Three months ago, he passionately defended May and May's deal as being the only way Britain should leave the EU and dismissed No Deal as being a disaster for Britain. Now he's fervently supporting an arch Brexiteer who is happy to leave with no deal in October.

Maitlis didn't use "dirty tricks". She just presented him with facts about his political 'principles' and 'positions'. The only person who has humiliated Dominic Green is Dominic Green.

I wasn't talking about Maitlis. I was speaking in general. I should have been clearer. Hopefully, my explanation above clarifies things.

Berserker

Leroy42 wrote: »

The only way for the EU to counter this is to outperform the UK in the coming years.

And what happens if the EU doesn't outperform the UK?

Tell me how wrote: »

The UK should hold it's head in shame to have it's representatives treat a democratic institution like this.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's disgusting. It's getting increasingly hard to maintain a positive view of the British electorate these days.

Oh behave yourselves. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest. I would have sat down but turning their backs is just as good.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The only way for the EU to counter this is to outperform the UK in the coming years. If the UK is in recession and the EU pushing ahead with growth, then it is very hard to claim that it is all the EU's fault.

Firstly, this is inevitable. Even the Brexiteers sometimes admit that there will be a price to pay. Rees-Mogg has said it may take 50 years to see a dividend.


Secondly, the UK doing badly is precisely what will feed the "Nasty EU is punishing us because we had the cheek to leave" narrative. "If only the EU had given us the cake we deserve, we'd be in the Sunny Uplands right now!"

Tell me how

Berserker wrote: »

Oh behave yourselves. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest. I would have sat down but turning their backs is just as good.

What are they protesting against?

kunst nugget

Don't know if this has been mentioned already but here's a very interesting take on BJ's bizarroland bus-painting hobby story.

https://parall.ax/blog/view/3301/boris-johnson-the-unlikely-seo-strategist

Yesterday, Boris Johnson appeared on talkRadio and chatted to Ross Kempsell, Political Editor, about what he likes to do when we he wants to relax and switch off. You can see the video here. And of course today, the focus of the news has been all about his bizarre new pastime: making model buses.

To most, this is probably easy to shrug off as another strange remark about what he does in his spare time – like the time he said he enjoyed painting cheese boxes. But to us here at Parallax – and anyone else with a modicum of knowledge about search rankings – there’s something amiss in the would-be Prime Minister’s choice of relaxation. Could this latest news piece be more than a short-term ‘dead cat strategy’ and more of a long-term SEO strategy?

The Conservative MP has had a dubious history with buses; images of him in front of a red bus with the words “We send the EU £350 million a week” plastered across the side are easy to find, and the relatively recent failing of his redesigned London Routemaster buses had no end of complaints popping up across the internet. Doesn’t it then seem likely then that, now, during his campaign to be Prime Minister, that Boris would want to push down any mention of these on Google?

We think so.

Leroy42

Berserker wrote: »

And what happens if the EU doesn't outperform the UK?

Well then the UK would have shown up the entire EU is not fit for purpose and it will lead to the break up of the EU. Which given that the UK will be doing better nobody will mourn.

Berserker wrote: »

Oh behave yourselves. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest. I would have sat down but turning their backs is just as good.

But what are they protesting? A few musicians playing some music? Really. Protesting would be refusing to take their seats at all, you know like SF do in NI. You may not agree with it but it has a principle behind it.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Matlis totally destroyed him. I was not expecting it at all, was ready for the usual bluster and nonsense and no calling out of facts but tbf she really went in hard on him and didn't let him away. It was pretty uncomfortable viewing actually seeing a professional come face to face with the lies and duplicity that he has allowed himself to become.

On the other hand, I felt she let the other lad off a bit gently. He kept touting the mantra that Hunt was best placed to get a renegotiation. IMO, she should have asked that since this was the claimed difference that would Hunt resign on 1st October if he failed in the one task he claimed only he could achieve.

Even to ask the question as to why he feels Hunt is best placed. Why? What previous experience does he have reopening up international agreements in a 3 week time frame?

And again, what is Hunt willing to offer the EU in exchange for what he wants?

Some presenters and journalists are learning how to interview subjects in a world where facts are pliable. I think we can see why politicians avoid James O'Brien like the plague, because they know he will not let up in an interview and make it easy for them.

Tell me how wrote: »

This is chillingly shameful.

https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/1145968706939445248


The UK should hold it's head in shame to have it's representatives treat a democratic institution like this.

Berserker wrote: »

Oh behave yourselves. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest. I would have sat down but turning their backs is just as good.

I don't mind a protest, but this is not just a protest. They are openly disrespecting the institution and I feel their protests will have much more heft to it if they also refused the salary they will get. That would show their commitment to the cause and how much they despise the excesses of the EU.

Berserker

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well then the UK would have shown up the entire EU is not fit for purpose and it will lead to the break up of the EU. Which given that the UK will be doing better nobody will mourn.

Agree with you on the above. A successful Brexit even in the medium to long term spells big trouble for the EU.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what are they protesting? A few musicians playing some music? Really. Protesting would be refusing to take their seats at all, you know like SF do in NI. You may not agree with it but it has a principle behind it.

Ah, it's just a bit of attention seeking. The page three style reactions in the posts above are OTT though. I was surprised to see them taking their seats, if I'm honest.

Leroy42

Right, so its not protesting just attention seeking. Using the institutions of the EU do get themselves attention?


In terms of the impact of Brexit, there is almost no chance, certainly nothing based on anything other than hope, that the UK will be better off than the EU. The world has three economic powers (US, China and the EU) with possibly India joining along. How will the UK possibly get into that level? Because if they are in the ones making the decisions, then they will be the ones having to accept them.

There is nothing, and even Brexiteers don't try to claim otherwise, that the UK can be in a stronger position after leaving the EU. It is all based on the hope that the EU will start to stall and that the lessor countries (in terms of economic power) will continue to rise. But for that to work it is predicated on these 'new' countries being willing to accept that the UK will be in charge. Just as the UK expect them to grow, so they can see the UK are weaker and they will exploit it.

There is simply no factual basis on which to expect that the UK will be better off than the EU after Brexit. Short, medium or long term.

Professor Moriarty

Berserker wrote: »

And what happens if the EU doesn't outperform the UK?





Oh behave yourselves. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest. I would have sat down but turning their backs is just as good.

So when God Save The Queen is played when French MEPs visit London then it's okay for them to remain seated.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Of course. But, as Zuben said, this will allow British populists (Johnson, Mogg, Farage et al) to paint the EU as the bad guys and the Little Englanders as the good guys. That's not in the EU's or Ireland's interests in the long term.

The long term will sort itself.

lawred2

Tell me how wrote: »

This is chillingly shameful.

https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/1145968706939445248


The UK should hold it's head in shame to have it's representatives treat a democratic institution like this.

Pathetic carry on acting as if they are at a football match.

They are a reflection of British society and those that have voted for them. Boorish arrogant and hateful.

ambro25

Berserker wrote: »

(...)

Ah, it's just a bit of attention seeking. The page three style reactions in the posts above are OTT though. I was surprised to see them taking their seats, if I'm honest. They are going to the parliament to tell people that they don't want to be there.

You might not follow continental news, much, do you?

Front (online) page everywhere across the Benelux, France & Germany, right now.

Not earning much goodwill for the Brits' next extension, there, either.