Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

Enzokk wrote: »

This will be important for the EU, too important to let go I feel. The UK will see this as a chance to get a leg up. This could derail and lead to both sides not trusting each other for the FTA negotiations that will follow, whenever that happens (post transition or during the extension).

Do you think trust exists now?

I'd be surprised.

Who would have thought the unworkable would very quickly prove to be difficult to work?

Enzokk

lawred2 wrote: »

Do you think trust exists now?

I'd be surprised.

Who would have thought the unworkable would very quickly prove to be difficult to work?

I think that there will be trust within the negotiation teams, people (minions) working on either side who know each other. I don't think there is trust at the top though and I think Barnier just about set this out with his briefing the other day. But trust is easy to find if the heads get together and when Johnson meets with the other leaders or Von Der Leyen then trust can be won. But it will have to be from this area as Johnson will make or break whether there is a deal or not. He will be the one that will need to compromise and I don't know which way he will decide to go.

I think it is easier to be frank with one on one meetings with the leaders. It is here where they will be frank with each other, but when you have Gove leading the negotiations on the EU office in the Joint Committee, then no trust at all.

Gerry T

Enzokk wrote: »

The FTA negotiations are separate to the Joint Committee.

Statement by the European Commission following the first meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee



The discussions around the EU Office has been happening with the talks between Barnier and Frost I think. That is how I see it, but it seems like it can get a little confusing as there seems to be a few talks happening at the same time.

Thks, makes sense.

Joe_ Public

We're supposed to swallow the notion that they're going to be sorting out fairly complex trade and other agreements in around five months while they cant come to some agreement over a poxy office in Belfast. Only one way this can go.

54and56

Leroy42 wrote: »

One thing I think we can all agree on is that it really doesn't matter what the EU do the brexiteers will wail and moan. Either they are a belligerent undemocratic power throwing their weight around and dismissing the will of UK democracy or they are falling apart and ripe to be taken to the cleaners.

One thing for certain is that at no point will they even question their own government on why the let the EU even think this was feasable, and why Johnson didn't make this clear when signing his oven ready deal.

They are often wrong but never in doubt!

Enzokk

So this seems a total normal way to answer a question about a Brexit extension from Gove.

https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1257346992780578819?s=20

Basically if I understand his answer, we won on the 12th December last year so we will do what we want.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

So this seems a total normal way to answer a question about a Brexit extension from Gove.

https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1257346992780578819?s=20

Basically if I understand his answer, we won on the 12th December last year so we will do what we want.

I didn't know what to expect watching that but it was more than this.

It's a pathetic bit of showboating from Gove that accomplishes nothing. It's documented that both sides of the Brexit debate want the government to get an extension to allow them to focus on handling the viral outbreak.

I thought that one advantage of a virtual Commons would have been the end of the jeering. Apparently not.

eire4

Joe_ Public wrote: »

We're supposed to swallow the notion that they're going to be sorting out fairly complex trade and other agreements in around five months while they cant come to some agreement over a poxy office in Belfast. Only one way this can go.

IMHO London's whole strategy at this point is to just sit tight until the last minute assuming the EU will cave in at the last minute and if not well then blame the resulting economic hits on the damage of no deal on the economic damage caused by the virus.

Enzokk

On the news that the UK and the US has started their negotiations on a trade deal, it doesn't seem like this will do much for the UK. I suspect that they will negotiate a quick deal to tout as a stopgap for the loss of a deal with the EU, but the net result will be a loss but they will spin it as much as they can as a win.

US-UK trade talks begin, nearly four years after Brexit vote

"Our Brexit research suggests that the benefits of a trade deal with the US are pretty limited and will not compensate for the worsening of trade relations with the EU," economist Garry Young, deputy director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, told Al Jazeera.

And then another quote by Dmitri Grozoubinski,

"Anyone expecting a free trade agreement to transform either economy is likely to be severely disappointed," said Grozoubinski, now a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde and the founder of ExplainTrade.com.

"The US and UK are some of the most open and liberalised economies in the world, with their remaining major trade barriers unassailable, politically entrenched and fiercely defended by activists and special interests. A free trade agreement certainly has the potential to improve the business climate for some exporters, in some ways, some of the time - but the average citizen likely won't even notice it's there."

I find it interesting in the article that the US exported $140b to the UK but only imported $120b worth of goods from the UK. So that is a deficit right? Like the one Trump keeps moaning about with China? So I suspect he will be happy to give a lot to make sure there is parity, right?

Talk about a rock and a hard place for the UK, they either have to deal with Trump and his US first policies, or they have to deal with a Biden administration which you would guess will look at what is happening in NI and may influence the deal in that way.

Leroy42

IMO, there is little doubt that some form of trade deal with the US will be agreed before the end of the year. But it will be optics only. Johnson gets to say he delivered, little will actually come of it, even it is did actually makes it way through the House and Senate.

But all the headlines will be about the trade deal, how this proves that the UK never needed the EU, that the EU are now on the backfoot as the UK gets on with international trade. THere will be little, if any, actual analysis of what the trade deal means, what they have given up.

Take for example the WA. Johnson was touted has having done something extraordinary, yet only a few months later the UK is demanding that it doesn't have to live up to the agreement at all. Yet the vast majority of headlines at the time were not about the fact that Johnson had agreed to pay over billions in a diveroce settlement, not that he had agreed to citizens rights, not that he had agreed to carve off NI. It was all about getting it done. The details were not important.

The exact same will be followed for the US deal.

We have already seen it when Dr Fox went around saying he had secured trade deals, when at best all he got was a continuation of what they had under the EU agreements, and in some cases not even that.

ancapailldorcha

Unsurprisingly, this hasn't made the rounds:

https://twitter.com/BrianCathcart/status/1257606684144480257

I honestly thought that the Covid-19 situation would force the government to see reason. People here know that the UK has left the EU and it need only be a single year. They are legally allowed to ask for either a one or two year extension once and once only.

Most British people support extending the transition period. Even with Leave voters, the majority against it is only slight:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1247914921855254529?lang=en

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, this hasn't made the rounds:

https://twitter.com/BrianCathcart/status/1257606684144480257

I honestly thought that the Covid-19 situation would force the government to see reason. People here know that the UK has left the EU and it need only be a single year. They are legally allowed to ask for either a one or two year extension once and once only.

Most British people support extending the transition period. Even with Leave voters, the majority against it is only slight:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1247914921855254529?lang=en

Excellent graph on trust. Very reassuring that British people see the Tory press for what it is - dishonest.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent graph on trust. Very reassuring that British people see the Tory press for what it is - dishonest.

yeah but then that leads to seeking, finding and trusting alternative purveyors of truth...

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah but then that leads to seeking, finding and trusting alternative purveyors of truth...

It does. Apparently, The Guardian, FT and Observer rate very highly in terms of trust.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent graph on trust. Very reassuring that British people see the Tory press for what it is - dishonest.

There's a bit more to it than that though.

A free press is supposed to act as a check on power. If people trust politicians more than the press then that check has been rendered null and void.

That's not to say that the press here is anything but abysmal. It objectively is but when people begin to feel like all politicians are rotten and the institutions that make a society function are corrupt then that's where the likes of Trump attain opportunities to actually seize power because people don't trust politicians, experts and journalists when they call populists out.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's a bit more to it than that though.

A free press is supposed to act as a check on power. If people trust politicians more than the press then that check has been rendered null and void.

That's not to say that the press here is anything but abysmal. It objectively is but when people begin to feel like all politicians are rotten and the institutions that make a society function are corrupt then that's where the likes of Trump attain opportunities to actually seize power because people don't trust politicians, experts and journalists when they call populists out.

True. We are at the point of two legs good four legs bad.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It does. Apparently, The Guardian, FT and Observer rate very highly in terms of trust.

amongst a very small cohort of the population I'd expect

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

amongst a very small cohort of the population I'd expect

Interesting analysis here:

Pamco has released digital engagement figures for the first time alongside its reach data, breaking down how readers feel about the content they engage with online.

Based on interviews with 35,000 people by Ipsos Mori, the research found that 91% of people considered reading a publication as time well spent, 70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication and 81% trusted what they read.

In terms of trust for specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what I see in it", followed by i (83%) and The Independent (82%).

Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism.

Meanwhile, 96% of readers of The Times and The Guardian felt that engaging with their content was "time well spent", followed closely by The Telegraph and The Independent (95%), then i (94%).

MailOnline, Express and Mirror readers were less convinced that they were making the most of their time, with 82% agreeing with the statement.

Shelga

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent graph on trust. Very reassuring that British people see the Tory press for what it is - dishonest.

Why did they vote for them in their droves then? It's been 5 months since the election and I still don't get it. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to vote for a Tory over Labour. I get not wanting to vote for Corbyn, but vote for someone else. FPTP makes it more difficult, but it seems everyone just adopted the attitude of "well the Tory is going to get in anyway", and that's precisely what happened.

The public couldn't seem to care less about Brexit anymore anyway. Gove gets away with his lies and his arrogance as usual.

Highest death toll in Europe from COVID-19, despite the multiple warnings that this would be the result of pursuing a herd immunity strategy, which was quickly dropped anyway. Pathetic government, pathetic country. I think Fintan O'Toole's article on how the world now regards the USA with pity for the first time could well be applied to the UK as well.

Professor Moriarty

Shelga wrote: »

Why did they vote for them in their droves then? It's been 5 months since the election and I still don't get it. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to vote for a Tory over Labour. I get not wanting to vote for Corbyn, but vote for someone else. FPTP makes it more difficult, but it seems everyone just adopted the attitude of "well the Tory is going to get in anyway", and that's precisely what happened.

The public couldn't seem to care less about Brexit anymore anyway. Gove gets away with his lies and his arrogance as usual.

Highest death toll in Europe from COVID-19, despite the multiple warnings that this would be the result of pursuing a herd immunity strategy, which was quickly dropped anyway. Pathetic government, pathetic country. I think Fintan O'Toole's article on how the world now regards the USA with pity for the first time could well be applied to the UK as well.

44% voted Tory. That cohort voted Tory for a variety of reasons. A perception of English exceptionalism. Xenophobia. Nationalism. Get Brexit Done. Some were relatively valid reasons such as Anybody but Corbyn. And some people were simply manipulated by perpetual disingenuous conditioning by The Telegraph/Mail/Express/Sun. Think Pavlov's dogs.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah but then that leads to seeking, finding and trusting alternative purveyors of truth...

This is where it can get very dangerous, which source do people trust?
Information comes from a wide range of sources.

• Vested interests - any organisation that has an agenda
• personal contacts who pass on information "they choose"
• politicians - only those who they would vote for
• internet sites - only those of interest.
• oddballs - 5G & chemtrails types of sites

People can and are being manipulated by all of the above, the truth is out there, but you really need to be very careful as to where you seek it!


Best to look at opposing views and guess the truth between them.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

Why did they vote for them in their droves then? It's been 5 months since the election and I still don't get it. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to vote for a Tory over Labour. I get not wanting to vote for Corbyn, but vote for someone else. FPTP makes it more difficult, but it seems everyone just adopted the attitude of "well the Tory is going to get in anyway", and that's precisely what happened.

The public couldn't seem to care less about Brexit anymore anyway. Gove gets away with his lies and his arrogance as usual.

Highest death toll in Europe from COVID-19, despite the multiple warnings that this would be the result of pursuing a herd immunity strategy, which was quickly dropped anyway. Pathetic government, pathetic country. I think Fintan O'Toole's article on how the world now regards the USA with pity for the first time could well be applied to the UK as well.

The Conservatives only won 43.6% of the popular vote and attained well over half the seats in the House of Commons. People didn't vote for them "in droves", FPTP just guarantees a disproportionate and unfair election result and concentrates power in England's southeast. Add in the dismal failure of Corbyn to retain seats which have been Labour safe seats for many decades and this is the result.

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Conservatives only won 43.6% of the popular vote and attained well over half the seats in the House of Commons. People didn't vote for them "in droves", FPTP just guarantees a disproportionate and unfair election result and concentrates power in England's southeast. Add in the dismal failure of Corbyn to retain seats which have been Labour safe seats for many decades and this is the result.

I hear what you're saying, but they also voted by two-thirds not to change any of that in 2011, when only 42% of the population bothered turning up to vote at all. It's only reasonable to conclude that a large proportion of those who don't want a Tory government now, didn't lift a finger to vote in 2011.

Hard to think they care about much of anything, other than what Murdoch dictates.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interesting analysis here:

Pamco has released digital engagement figures for the first time alongside its reach data, breaking down how readers feel about the content they engage with online.

Based on interviews with 35,000 people by Ipsos Mori, the research found that 91% of people considered reading a publication as time well spent, 70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication and 81% trusted what they read.

In terms of trust for specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what I see in it", followed by i (83%) and The Independent (82%).

Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism.

Meanwhile, 96% of readers of The Times and The Guardian felt that engaging with their content was "time well spent", followed closely by The Telegraph and The Independent (95%), then i (94%).

MailOnline, Express and Mirror readers were less convinced that they were making the most of their time, with 82% agreeing with the statement.

Mass readership is a big factor, i think, even though it's in obvious decline. Between them the mail and sun have, according to press gazette figures, a combined reach of over 60m readers a month on all outlets. Even 46% of that is more than the Guardian & FT combined. And people say they dont trust the sun or mail but read them anyway, the same they say they wouldn't trust Boris Johnson but vote for him anyway.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

I hear what you're saying, but they also voted by two-thirds not to change any of that in 2011, when only 42% of the population bothered turning up to vote at all. It's only reasonable to conclude that a large proportion of those who don't want a Tory government now, didn't lift a finger to vote in 2011.

Hard to think they care about much of anything, other than what Murdoch dictates.

In fairness, 2011 was a year of relatively sensible government. Nobody was talking about fake news or biased experts. The neoliberal consensus was still held. The UK has used FPTP for a very long time. Only the Lib Dems and the Pirate party actually supported AV while the Tories and their allies in the press sank it easily.

Ultimately though, it was just not seen as important and few people understood what it actually meant. I don't know if it would pass now but the injustice of FPTP which used to be accepted has been questioned openly. Changing it is the one Brexit party policy I can recall. Government by fiat of 40-odd percent of the population isn't sustainable in the long run in my opinion.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fairness, 2011 was a year of relatively sensible government. Nobody was talking about fake news or biased experts. The neoliberal consensus was still held. The UK has used FPTP for a very long time. Only the Lib Dems and the Pirate party actually supported AV while the Tories and their allies in the press sank it easily.

Ultimately though, it was just not seen as important and few people understood what it actually meant. I don't know if it would pass now but the injustice of FPTP which used to be accepted has been questioned openly. Changing it is the one Brexit party policy I can recall. Government by fiat of 40-odd percent of the population isn't sustainable in the long run in my opinion.

The FPTP system has mostly succeeded in its intended purpose of preventing hung parliaments, more often than not, a single party has gained overall control of the HoC.
Love it, or loathe it, It is working as designed.

storker

Deleted User wrote: »

The FPTP system has mostly succeeded in its intended purpose of preventing hung parliaments, more often than not, a single party has gained overall control of the HoC.
Love it, or loathe it, It is working as designed.

Pity it wasn't designed to reflect the wishes of the electorate. Dictatorships work as designed and avoid hung parliaments too.


.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The FPTP system has mostly succeeded in its intended purpose of preventing hung parliaments, more often than not, a single party has gained overall control of the HoC.
Love it, or loathe it, It is working as designed.

I would disagree with this based on recent Parliaments:

• 2010: A hung Parliament resulting in a coalition
• 2015: A wafer-thin majority
• 2017: Another hung Parliament with no ability to pass any meaningful legislation
• 2019: A resounding victory for the Conservatives despite winning only 43.6% of the vote

We're starting to see strains in the system. Scottish unionists have virtually no representatives in Westminster for instance. The Tories took four times the number of Lib Dem votes and have, what thirty times the seats? It was designed for two-party politics but that's not really how the UK works any more.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would disagree with this based on recent Parliaments:

• 2010: A hung Parliament resulting in a coalition
• 2015: A wafer-thin majority
• 2017: Another hung Parliament with no ability to pass any meaningful legislation
• 2019: A resounding victory for the Conservatives despite winning only 43.6% of the vote

We're starting to see strains in the system. Scottish unionists have virtually no representatives in Westminster for instance. The Tories took four times the number of Lib Dem votes and have, what thirty times the seats? It was designed for two-party politics but that's not really how the UK works any more.

Most of this is due to devolution bringing about the rise of regional parties in Scotland and Wales, without the regional party bias it worked quite well.
Plus the complications that devolution have actually brought about, you now basically have two parliaments in one, the UK parliament, and the English parliament.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Conservatives only won 43.6% of the popular vote and attained well over half the seats in the House of Commons. People didn't vote for them "in droves", FPTP just guarantees a disproportionate and unfair election result and concentrates power in England's southeast. Add in the dismal failure of Corbyn to retain seats which have been Labour safe seats for many decades and this is the result.

FPTP is much worse than that.

It puts control of parliament into a small cabal of party activists who select the candidates in the safe and very safe seats who then exert a large pressure base on the parliamentary party. It is through this mechanism the the ERG were able to propel the the Tory PM to commit and deliver on a divisive and in the end destructive referendum.

If there was the STV system, with multi seat constituencies, this could not and would not happen.

[Except when it comes to a constitutional amendment like the eighth in 1983 but that was eventually reversed.]