Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

I agree that at the very least the BBC should be looking to move LK on after the election, and I would imagine that she is lining up a government press job.

They can't do it know, they started with her and had to go through with it, but as you said she is seemingly totally unable to do any actual analysis. Gossip, heresay, words from ministers about a coup etc will always be part and parcel or the job, regardless of who does it. But she seems to have taken thaat as the only purpose of the role and actual reporting of facts is not necessary.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that at the very least the BBC should be looking to move LK on after the election, and I would imagine that she is lining up a government press job.

They can't do it know, they started with her and had to go through with it, but as you said she is seemingly totally unable to do any actual analysis. Gossip, heresay, words from ministers about a coup etc will always be part and parcel or the job, regardless of who does it. But she seems to have taken thaat as the only purpose of the role and actual reporting of facts is not necessary.

Would she make similar money as government/Tory press officer? Reportedly on about £225k at the moment.

She certainly won't work for any non-Tory government, I'd be pretty sure that none of them would want her.

Maybe such a role would provide a better work/life balance, but who knows.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that at the very least the BBC should be looking to move LK on after the election, and I would imagine that she is lining up a government press job.

They can't do it know, they started with her and had to go through with it, but as you said she is seemingly totally unable to do any actual analysis. Gossip, heresay, words from ministers about a coup etc will always be part and parcel or the job, regardless of who does it. But she seems to have taken thaat as the only purpose of the role and actual reporting of facts is not necessary.

As an institution, the BBC is utterly in thrall to the government of the day. The licence fee model necessitates this. The BBC will probably carry on as before with Brexiters just being allowed to spew all sorts of easily disprovable nonsense unquestioned.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As an institution, the BBC is utterly in thrall to the government of the day. The licence fee model necessitates this. The BBC will probably carry on as before with Brexiters just being allowed to spew all sorts of easily disprovable nonsense unquestioned.

And, as if to emphasise that point.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1204039631991431169

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is, IMO, totally unworkable. A border with no checks! Sure it might work for a while, and certainly the value of trade currently means the risk if fairly low, but in time things will happen, such as Foot and Mouth, for which we have no defence based on the WA. And it won't take long for other EU countries to block us from free access on the basis of the risks.

Don't worry, Johnson is merely lying. When he says there will be no checks, he is omiting all the many comdtions that would have to be met to make that possible. Should the UK fail to agree those conditions, then there most certainly will be checks between NI and GB. The risk of foot and mouth will be no greater than it is now as the same checks will be applied and other EU countries will have not basis to block our access to the Single Market as all necessary checks will take place unless a workable solution if found in the meantime to prevent them having to come into force.

Don't let Johnson get you into a flap, he is a well known liar, you should really not be so easily deceived.

farmchoice

Leroy42 wrote: »

Certainly Katya has moved to a more fact based reporting, even on Brexitcast she has been the one that has tried, mostly in vain, to bring a sense of reality to the conversation. However, she spent far too long going along with the line that the EU always do 11th hour deal. That thread above shows that at least she is aware that whilst it is clearly being sold as an 11th hour deal which Johnson achieved, it was only achieved by the EU getting what it wanted.

In terms LK, I am actually coming around to the thinking that she isn't actively trying to be biased, but she just isn't actually very good at her job. Clearly she has access to high up people, mainly in the Tories it would appear, and she genuinely, I think, reports what she is being told as news. But she consistently fails to actually critically review the information she is given. I know people think she is always trying to point back at Labour or Corbyn, but I actually think she does think that everything is equal. She doesn't appear to have the ability to see that there are differences in the seriousness of different things.

Katya changed her tune when May left. i can only assume that her primary source was a may loyalist and wafer he/she departed the scene katya had to think for herself or at the very least use tony connlloy's reporting as her primary source.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As an institution, the BBC is utterly in thrall to the government of the day. The licence fee model necessitates this. The BBC will probably carry on as before with Brexiters just being allowed to spew all sorts of easily disprovable nonsense unquestioned.

I realise it will be unpopular saying this but isn't this likely to apply to any state funded broadcaster?
The problem arises if people actually believe everything they(BBC et al)report.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I realise it will be unpopular saying this but isn't this likely to apply to any state funded broadcaster?
The problem arises if people actually believe everything they(BBC et al)report.

Quite possibly, but I think there was a perception that the BBC in days gone by held itself to a higher standard, had greater independance and would follow the truth without fear or favour.

I'm not sure if that perception was ever fully justified, but a lot of people feel that the BBC is a much weaker institution than it used to be and that it has become much more of a government mouthpiece than it was.

J Mysterio

Carole Cadwalladr calling Laura K out on her bullshìt - a great moment.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1204114205475057667

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

And from an Irish POV, that is why the proposed WA is a disaster in the making IMO. It is nothing but a sop to the UK to try to help them onto the next stage, just like Phase 1 agreement was.

I think its more a case of Boris and Co either not understanding what theyve agreed, or simply lying about it. The idea that they would only check goods going to NI with a declared ultimate destination of 26 counties is ridiculous. Equally there is no reality to everything being checked, but even the Russia/Poland border doesnt check everything. I suspect he just got it wrong or is trying to massage the truth for the hardliners.

It should also be pointed out that, and I stand to be corrected on this, much as we use Wales and England to export goods to the EU, so too is it convenient for goods going from E&W to NI to travel through Dublin. It would be fatuous to suggest that the Irish customs will ignore those items labelled to go to NI, which is the corrollary of what he is saying.

From everything that I have seen from the UK over the last 3 years, and particularly now, they have no intention of undertaking their responsibilities. They would happily leave the GB/NI completely unchecked on the basis of it being politically difficult to do anything different and then the border falls to us.

This is a slightly different issue. They could, after any trade agreement default on their obligations, either directly, by renouncing it, which is in breach of the agreement, or indirectly by as you say not effectively policing it. In either event, the ECJ has jurisdiction to hear the dispute as far as I know.

They have, if we are honest, done a pretty good job of shifting the burden of responsibility from them onto us.

Im not so sure. Certainly they are winning the media/spin war against Dublin, but that is a game that we refuse to play. At least, to date. We have kept schtum out of respect for our fellow EU Member State as we are obliged to do in the spirit of EU Membership. Making non sanctioned adverse comments about another MS can be seen as breaching one of the four freedoms if its intent is to gain a competitive advantage. Thats why no government agency is ever seen to overtly say to multinationals "dont move to the UK, theyre a basket case, come to ireland instead"

Once the UK leaves they will no longer be a member state, and the gloves will be off. Whether Ireland chooses to get down in the muck with the UK is another matter, but its a possibility.

In any event, despite all the optics and bluster and Johnsons supposed victory in securing a new deal, I think its fair to say that the substance of the agreement reached is more in Ireland/EUs favour than in the UKs. If that is because the UK played a big media campaign and left the burden of coming up with solutions to us, then it has worked well in our favour.

We will be happy to besr the onus of setting the terms for the UK in future while they rabbit on about how much they hate us etc

Chips Lovell

I doubt a Tory victory will be quite as catastrophic from a Brexit perspective as a lot of people think it will.

That's mainly down to the fact that I simply don't believe Johnson when he say's he'll end the transition period in December 2020, deal or no deal. It's important to remember that, in addition to his complicated relationship with the truth, Johnson is a Brexiteer out of convenience, not out conviction. He dithered for a good while over which side to back when the referendum was called. That wasn't out of any indecisiveness about the EU, but rather indecisiveness about which position would serve his ambitions best.

For now, talking tough on Brexit serves Johnson's interest. It won him leadership of his party and, if the polls are to be believed, will win him a decent majority in parliament.

But once he has that majority, a hard Brexit has served it's purpose and can be quietly dropped. He will have no incentive to do something as patently stupid as crash out at the end of the transition period in December 2020.

Yes, he's said they're leaving deal or no-deal by December 2020, but that's because he's an election to win. Yes the EU has made noises about granting no further extensions, but that's because taking that line may convince UK voters to elect an another government.

The UK has intimated it wants a new trade deal, a "super Canada plus arrangement" by the end of 2020 which has no political alignment. That's impossible by the end of 2020 and probably impossible by any date.

Instead, what appears more likely is extension, followed by extension, followed by extension, with the UK remaining in a semi-permanent limbo of de facto membership.

johnnyskeleton

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The UK has intimated it wants a new trade deal, a "super Canada plus arrangement" by the end of 2020 which has no political alignment. That's impossible by the end of 2020 and probably impossible by any such date.

Instead, what appears more likely is extension, followed by extension, followed by extension, with the UK remaining in a semi-permanent limbo of de facto membership.

Just on the semi-permanent extensions, I wonder would this type of scenario be useful to prevent, or possibly hasten, the breakup of the UK? I suspect that the Scottish view will be that they won't want independence until Brexit is "settled", so that they know what the options are between UK and Independence/EU Membership. Thus, stalling Brexit will also stall Scottish Independence ambitions.

On the other hand, if Scotland obtained independence during the extended transition period, they would presumably be allowed to get a deal similar to the current transition period. This could ease the passage as they apply for full membership of the E.U.

Scotland then joining the EU would lead to a scenario whereby the rest of the UK has to consider whether the Scots are better or worse off as Members of the EU.

Overall, all the signs point towards a "no sudden moves" strategy over the next 5 years.

Chips Lovell

You're right. Scotland complicates the situation more than most people may think. I'm fairly convinced that remaining in the Single Market/Customs Union was what swung the independence referendum.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I doubt a Tory victory will be quite as catastrophic from a Brexit perspective as a lot of people think it will.

That's mainly down to the fact that I simply don't believe Johnson when he say's he'll end the transition period in December 2020, deal or no deal. It's important to remember that, in addition to his complicated relationship with the truth, Johnson is a Brexiteer out of convenience, not out conviction. He dithered for a good while over which side to back when the referendum was called. That wasn't out of any indecisiveness about the EU, but rather indecisiveness about which position would serve his ambitions best.

For now, talking tough on Brexit serves Johnson's interest. It won him leadership of his party and, if the polls are to be believed, will win him a decent majority in parliament.

But once he has that majority, a hard Brexit has served it's purpose and can be quietly dropped. He will have no incentive to do something as patently stupid as crash out at the end of the transition period in December 2020.

Yes, he's said they're leaving deal or no-deal by December 2020, but that's because he's an election to win. Yes the EU has made noises about granting no further extensions, but that's because taking that line may convince UK voters to elect an another government.

The UK has intimated it wants a new trade deal, a "super Canada plus arrangement" by the end of 2020 which has no political alignment. That's impossible by the end of 2020 and probably impossible by any date.

Instead, what appears more likely is extension, followed by extension, followed by extension, with the UK remaining in a semi-permanent limbo of de facto membership.

It's sort of been forgotten that Johnson seems to have backed Brexit to gain entry to number 10. However, your post raises a question. If he wins with a slight, say 20 seat majority, how does he get a softer Brexit deal through while being in thrall to the ERG? It's conceivable that Labour might be persuaded to back it but this is far from a given.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's sort of been forgotten that Johnson seems to have backed Brexit to gain entry to number 10. However, your post raises a question. If he wins with a slight, say 20 seat majority, how does he get a softer Brexit deal through while being in thrall to the ERG? It's conceivable that Labour might be persuaded to back it but this is far from a given.

I think the ERG already supported his deal no?? Besides, I think now, if they even a small majority, that they will get his deal passed before the end of January as to not do so would collapse the government within a few months.

If they squeeze in with majority this time, they'll take any version of Brexit just to claim they delivered it I expect.

Chips Lovell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's sort of been forgotten that Johnson seems to have backed Brexit to gain entry to number 10. However, your post raises a question. If he wins with a slight, say 20 seat majority, how does he get a softer Brexit deal through while being in thrall to the ERG? It's conceivable that Labour might be persuaded to back it but this is far from a given.

The ERG may not back him a year from now on extending the transition period, but the opposition will surely vote for retaining the status quo.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The ERG may not back him a year from now on extending the transition period, but the opposition will surely vote for retaining the status quo.

You would think. If he does pass the deal and we enter a transition then there's no real option for staying in if he gets a majority.

However, the transition period is a parlous allowance of time for negotiating a trade deal when the UK allegedly wants to trade and sign deals accordingly on a global scale.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I doubt a Tory victory will be quite as catastrophic from a Brexit perspective as a lot of people think it will.
.

Its catastrophic because it means lying and conniving wins. It opens the door for all sorts of absolute hell for future elections. Absolute pandoras box frankly

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You would think. If he does pass the deal and we enter a transition then there's no real option for staying in if he gets a majority.

However, the transition period is a parlous allowance of time for negotiating a trade deal when the UK allegedly wants to trade and sign deals accordingly on a global scale.

If the above in bold happens, Brexit will have happened.

Any conversation will be about rejoining the EU, not staying in.

Chips Lovell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You would think. If he does pass the deal and we enter a transition then there's no real option for staying in if he gets a majority.

However, the transition period is a parlous allowance of time for negotiating a trade deal when the UK allegedly wants to trade and sign deals accordingly on a global scale.

I believe the transition deal will just keep being extended. Neither Parliament nor the EU have any reason not to keep extending it.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

Its catastrophic because it means lying and conniving wins. It opens the door for all sorts of absolute hell for future elections. Absolute pandoras box frankly

This is politics. Lying and conniving always wins.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I believe the transition deal will just keep being extended. Neither Parliament nor the EU have any reason not to keep extending it.

The deal contains a single provision for an extension but I'm sure British and European lawyers could find a workaround. It's perfect for the EU. The UK keeps paying its dues, stays in the ECJ, Single Market and Customs Union and can't act the maggot. Bonus in getting rid of the Brexit party and their stipends.

Chips Lovell

Absolutely. And, although he'll never admit it, it's probably the best outcome for Johnson too. By the time he's held to account for neverending can kicking (which he will of course blame on the EU), he'll probably have had a good innings at Number 10.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The deal contains a single provision for an extension but I'm sure British and European lawyers could find a workaround. It's perfect for the EU. The UK keeps paying its dues, stays in the ECJ, Single Market and Customs Union and can't act the maggot. Bonus in getting rid of the Brexit party and their stipends.

Probably right. But could still foresee some fun come extension time when they renegotiate the payment plan and johnson has to explain why this isnt simply chucking nhs and other money away. Its a moment he'll be dreading if or when he gets back into power.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

This is politics. Lying and conniving always wins.

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

There's a readjustment going on. Papers used to hold them to account. This is insidious world war II origins stuff.

Leroy42

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Probably right. But could still foresee some fun come extension time when they renegotiate the payment plan and johnson has to explain why this isnt simply chucking nhs and other money away. Its a moment he'll be dreading if or when he gets back into power.

Why, he suffered nothing from the failure to leave on 31 October. In fact, he has successfully blamed the parliament, and specifically the Labour party, for his failure.

He will simply repeat. He might blame someone/something else, but the outcome will be the same.

Joe_ Public

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why, he suffered nothing from the failure to leave on 31 October. In fact, he has successfully blamed the parliament, and specifically the Labour party, for his failure.

He will simply repeat. He might blame someone/something else, but the outcome will be the same.

Maybe so. But i can see some potential for trouble. He has pledged not to seek any extension to trade talks which could bring him into conflict with parliament again. On the other hand, if he does start talking about extension the ERG might not be best pleased. Might be no trouble at all but if i were him I'd want to be sitting on a comfortable majority and by comfortable i mean somewhere well north of double figures.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Stopping the export of live animals seems to high on the agenda.

That was completely and finally debunked by a House Of Commons briefing paper back at the start of September
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8031/CBP-8031.pdf

Section 5.1 is where the RSPCA pointed out that the UK wouldn't be able to ban it because of WTO GATT rules.

And then there's the most-favoured-nation rules which would necessitate a hard border to stop live exports from the North.


It's not just that Boris is lying.

It's that it's so blatant and that he isn't being challenged on it by the media.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

There's a readjustment going on. Papers used to hold them to account. This is insidious world war II origins stuff.

What is interesting to ponder is that, considering Chips' perfectly reasonable thesis that Johnson may opt for a much softer Brexit, how will the papers react? It would be ironic if they turned against him as they did Cameron in 2016. Johnson could sell May's deal because it delivered a promise of Brexit but signing a trade deal that maintains close alignment with Brussels is a completely different story.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What is interesting to ponder is that, considering Chips' perfectly reasonable thesis that Johnson may opt for a much softer Brexit, how will the papers react?

It doesn't really matter if he gets his majority.

Because he'll be in No. 10 for five years under the fixed term thingy so plenty of time to mend fences later on.