Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

The Daily Express doing what they do best and spin more than a washing machine.

How anyone can buy this paper is beyond me.

Um, who to believe?


https://twitter.com/suzannelynch1/status/1370497706842599428

Tough one

Akrasia

Infini wrote: »

I agree that the UK needs to live up to its commitments but at the same time we also need to prepare for this eventuality as well, the truth is the UK is on the path to disintegration with these Tory Charlatans in charge, I wouldn't want something like a border poll rushed but neither would I want to see nothing done about this possibility either, we need planning and at least some sort of preperation for the possibility of this passing.

The border poll is pretty much inevitable demographically and you’d have to wonder if the Tories would consider losing NI as a price very much worth paying to lubricate their attempts at securing a US trade deal

Ulster has always been a bargaining chip, little more than a way to exert control over Ireland, the time for cashing it in is getting closer with every passing blunder

BlitzKrieg

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/uk-to-depart-from-gdpr/5107685.article

Depending how far Uk is planning on departing from gdpr, this is going to be another kick for uk services

Gdpr is already a huge subject in my current employer with many man hours put in as it’s becoming a worldwide standard almost

Isnt this part of their agreement with the Japan trade deal? I seem to recall the UK agreeing to laxing its data protection to get the deal (despite them crowing about getting a better deal)

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/what-the-uk-japan-trade-deal-means-for-digital-rights/

JamesFlynn

Akrasia wrote: »

We've reached the end of the beginning, we're starting on the beginning of the middle, and are nowhere near the beginning of the end

This 'Get Brexit Done' mantra may end up being the biggest own goal in history

It's like ending a siege by simply opening the gates of the city and letting the murderous hoard of zombies inside to kill everyone because people are sick of talking about the siege.

I might be the biggest own goal in history and I think it's a massive strategic mistake.

But I'd ask you to consider what a Scottish person in 1960 would think of the Irish vote for independence in 1920 - they'd probably view the decision as crazy. The Irish voted to leave the greatest global trading block at the time - the British Empire. It was, from an economic perspective, a disaster. It took 40/50 years for ireland to recover.

Now the two events are completely different - the EU isn't an occupying force and there were British soldiers on the streets of Dublin in 1920 - but the English right wing press (lead by Johnson in the 90s) have convinced the English public that the EU is akin to German oppression. Their media is still obsessed with events from 80 years ago.

In Ireland, we know that is nonsense, but they've made their choice. Perhaps in 2050 it will be seen as a masterstroke. I doubt it, but the decision is made.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Um, who to believe?


https://twitter.com/suzannelynch1/status/1370497706842599428

Tough one

So the day after bad data comes out about trade with the EU the paper that has been pushing for Brexit comes out with a story about a wonderful trade deal for the UK, which you have pointed out has been all but ruled out while they continue their belligerent stance towards the EU and Ireland. Gaslighting the UK public.

20silkcut

JamesFlynn wrote: »

I might be the biggest own goal in history and I think it's a massive strategic mistake.

But I'd ask you to consider what a Scottish person in 1960 would think of the Irish vote for independence in 1920 - they'd probably view the decision as crazy. The Irish voted to leave the greatest global trading block at the time - the British Empire. It was, from an economic perspective, a disaster. It took 40/50 years for ireland to recover.

Now the two events are completely different - the EU isn't an occupying force and there were British soldiers on the streets of Dublin in 1920 - but the English right wing press (lead by Johnson in the 90s) have convinced the English public that the EU is akin to German oppression. Their media is still obsessed with events from 80 years ago.

In Ireland, we know that is nonsense, but they've made their choice. Perhaps in 2050 it will be seen as a masterstroke. I doubt it, but the decision is made.

Irish independence was a more logical and romantic notion given our history even if we didn’t exactly get a ringing endorsement from the international community at the time.
Anyway Ireland had been a relative basket case and colonial non entity since 1800 so the economic stagnation of the mid 20th century was not as stark as it should have been. It’s only visible looking back from the current time. 1945 was infinitely better than 1845 in Ireland.

Brexit is less logical. There is not much international sympathy. Everyone knows that behind all the spin it is fuelled by xenophobia which is an entirely self inflicted problem. They could have controlled immigration into their country over the past 50 years but they chose not to. They chose to become the modern Britain that so many of its population dislike.

Ireland had no control over the “immigrants” who we were subjected to and wanted to break free from 100 years ago.

CelticRambler

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

The Daily Express doing what they do best and spin more than a washing machine.

How anyone can buy this paper is beyond me.

BRITAIN is closer to sealing a "fantastic" trade deal with the U.S. that will bring wealth to every corner of our nation.

Ah now, you're being a bit harsh. Did you not see how they put the word "fantastic" in quotations marks? They're probably making an ironic reference to this declaration by the Glorious Leader back in December, talking about the UK-EU trade deal:

The deal is fantastic news for families and businesses in every part of the UK.

Or am I being naïve? :rolleyes:

I'm sure the Welsh port workers and Scottish fishermen are delighted to hear that Liz Truss is going to negotiate an equally "fantastic" deal for them with the US.

Professor Moriarty

77% of people in the UK do not trust The Daily Mail and The Express.

Akrasia

JamesFlynn wrote: »

I might be the biggest own goal in history and I think it's a massive strategic mistake.

But I'd ask you to consider what a Scottish person in 1960 would think of the Irish vote for independence in 1920 - they'd probably view the decision as crazy. The Irish voted to leave the greatest global trading block at the time - the British Empire. It was, from an economic perspective, a disaster. It took 40/50 years for ireland to recover.

Now the two events are completely different - the EU isn't an occupying force and there were British soldiers on the streets of Dublin in 1920 - but the English right wing press (lead by Johnson in the 90s) have convinced the English public that the EU is akin to German oppression. Their media is still obsessed with events from 80 years ago.

In Ireland, we know that is nonsense, but they've made their choice. Perhaps in 2050 it will be seen as a masterstroke. I doubt it, but the decision is made.

The Brexit voting British public certainly were lied to, they were manipulated and systematically misinformed for decades about the EU

I don’t really blame them, even the racists and xenophobic brexiteers. They are not presented with the true facts by their media and they genuinely believed that Brexit was the right thing to do

I reserve my judgement for those who did the manipulation. Johnson wasn’t a victim of the bendy bananas narrative, he intentionally went out and invented that piece of propaganda, amongst many others. His political and journalistic career are built on his willingness to lie and the fact that he became prime minister is because he is not alone. The British media are in a large part Orwellian mouthpieces who function to disinform the public and reinforce the class and racial stereotypes that keep the antiquated British class system from collapsing

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

The Brexit voting British public certainly were lied to, they were manipulated and systematically misinformed for decades about the EU

I don’t really blame them, even the racists and xenophobic brexiteers. They are not presented with the true facts by their media and they genuinely believed that Brexit was the right thing to do

I reserve my judgement for those who did the manipulation. Johnson wasn’t a victim of the bendy bananas narrative, he intentionally went out and invented that piece of propaganda, amongst many others. His political and journalistic career are built on his willingness to lie and the fact that he became prime minister is because he is not alone. The British media are in a large part Orwellian mouthpieces who function to disinform the public and reinforce the class and racial stereotypes that keep the antiquated British class system from collapsing

Johnson was fired from The Times for lying and was fired from the Tory front bench for lying. It's what he does. As the old saying goes, what would you expect from a pig but a grunt.

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

77% of people in the UK do not trust The Daily Mail and The Express.

They don’t trust the guy in the pub who says dogs can’t look up but they still have to think for a few moments when he says it in case that claim gets absorbed into their subconscious

Propaganda works by constantly repeating the lie

The first time only a few believe it, the 200th time it is common sense

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

They don’t trust the guy in the pub who says fogs can’t look up but they still have to think for a few moments when he says it in case that claim gets absorbed into their subconscious

Propaganda works by constantly repeating the lie

The first time only a few believe it, the 200th time it is common sense

By extension, 23% of people in the UK trust The Mail and The Express. Which, in itself, is frightening.

fash

.
Another headache, it seems. I wonder where this ends? What is the plan? Do they get some deal on soil equivalence and call it a victory? Or capitulate entirely? Or is this an plan to renege on the WA/TCA? Honestly I am not sure the UK is willing to renege on WA/TCA if push comes to shove - due to the financial hit (however thinking about it, it might be easier to go "no deal" now/in short- given that they've had a few extra months to prepare and their businesses are more familiar with a "no deal" style brexit).

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Johnson was fired from The Times for lying and was fired from the Tory front bench for lying. It's what he does. As the old saying goes, what would you expect from a pig but a grunt.

I know that, and you know that and lots of his own general election voters know that, and everyone who voted for him to become the leader of the Conservative party knew that

And yet there he is, UK prime minister with a healthy approval rating

Professor Moriarty

fash wrote: »

.
Another headache, it seems. I wonder where this ends? What is the plan? Do they get some deal on soil equivalence and call it a victory? Or capitulate entirely? Or is this an plan to renege on the WA/TCA? Honestly I am not sure the UK is willing to renege on WA/TCA if push comes to shove - due to the financial hit (however thinking about it, it might be easier to go "no deal" now/in short- given that they've had a few extra months to prepare and their businesses are more familiar with a "no deal" style brexit).

I would suggest that it is the EU/Ireland which is much more prepared. Johnson and his merry band of populists don't do detail. It's governance by soundbite. Plus the EU/Ireland have known for some time that this Tory government cannot be trusted, so this unilateral betrayal of trust will have been expected.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

I know that, and you know that and lots of his own general election voters know that, and everyone who voted for him to become the leader of the Conservative party knew that

And yet there he is, UK prime minister with a healthy approval rating

It's because he dog whistles latent English nationalism and exceptionalism. Classic populist tactics.

CelticRambler

fash wrote: »

Another headache, it seems. I wonder where this ends? What is the plan? Do they get some deal on soil equivalence and call it a victory? Or capitulate entirely? Or is this an plan to renege on the WA/TCA? Honestly I am not sure the UK is willing to renege on WA/TCA if push comes to shove - due to the financial hit (however thinking about it, it might be easier to go "no deal" now/in short- given that they've had a few extra months to prepare and their businesses are more familiar with a "no deal" style brexit).

Well, reading the article itself (a highly snippeted interview), it seems like Brandon Lewis doesn't really know what he/his government is doing: simultaneously issuing "guidance" on temporary, agreement-breaking measures while talking about working within the protocol; authorising the movement of potentially disease-bearing products from GB to NI while saying he respects the "single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland" ...

The longer this particular knicker stays twisted, the more I'm convinced that it is purely and simply a Tory response to agitated Unionists for reasons that are yet to be made clear, and that the usual blinkered Tory vision means that they genuinely don't understand the implications that it has for the wider EU-UK deal - neither the TCA as agreed, nor any future improvements.

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

Another headache, it seems. I wonder where this ends? What is the plan? Do they get some deal on soil equivalence and call it a victory? Or capitulate entirely? Or is this an plan to renege on the WA/TCA? Honestly I am not sure the UK is willing to renege on WA/TCA if push comes to shove - due to the financial hit (however thinking about it, it might be easier to go "no deal" now/in short- given that they've had a few extra months to prepare and their businesses are more familiar with a "no deal" style brexit).

This was always the plan. Sign up to a deal, and then chip away at it bit by bit, where each 'bit' is too small in itself to trigger any pushback.

'What harm a few seedlings", 'sure sausages are sausages and standards are the same as they were before, and what about people starving'.

They did it with the original backstop, where before the ink was even dry they were stepping back from it.

Wil the EU take the necessary action to put a stop to it from the get-go, because giving even an inch will only result in them looking for more and more.

This is very much the plan from the UK, and is based on the real belief that 'They need us more than we need them'. When push comes to shove the UK believe they can wiggle out of the deal to such an extent that it ends up being a positive to them.

schmoo2k

Leroy42 wrote: »

This was always the plan. Sign up to a deal, and then chip away at it bit by bit, where each 'bit' is too small in itself to trigger any pushback.

'What harm a few seedlings", 'sure sausages are sausages and standards are the same as they were before, and what about people starving'.

They did it with the original backstop, where before the ink was even dry they were stepping back from it.

Wil the EU take the necessary action to put a stop to it from the get-go, because giving even an inch will only result in them looking for more and more.

This is very much the plan from the UK, and is based on the real belief that 'They need us more than we need them'. When push comes to shove the UK believe they can wiggle out of the deal to such an extent that it ends up being a positive to them.

I would be more concerned that if they keep flooding goods into NI without checks, then they will force the EU to put up custom checks on the border with the ROI, thus making the EU break the GFA...

Jizique

schmoo2k wrote: »

I would be more concerned that if they keep flooding goods into NI without checks, then they will force the EU to put up custom checks on the border with the ROI, thus making the EU break the GFA...

That has been the plan, and it remains the plan; it is a plan formulated to appease the 35% of NI voters who support the DUP/UDA/UVF alliance.

The plan’s aim is to destroy the Irish economy

McGiver

Professor Moriarty wrote:

77% of people in the UK do not trust The Daily Mail and The Express.

Quite irrelevant.

It forms the narrative, it affects the discourse, it poisons the well. Not trusting the DM doesn't mean you're not being consciously or subconsciously manipulated or affected by their narrative.

And this is exactly the reason these gutter press pamphlets should be banned and removed from the public discourse. If they stick to gossips about celebrities like in other countries - feel free. If they apply the same nonsense to politics - ban them.

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

Quite irrelevant.

It forms the narrative, it affects the discourse, it poisons the well. Not trusting the DM doesn't mean you're not being consciously or subconsciously manipulated or affected by their narrative.

And this is exactly the reason these gutter press pamphlets should be banned and removed from the public discourse. If they stick to gossips about celebrities like in other countries - feel free. If they apply the same nonsense to politics - ban them.

Pretty much, yes. They are framing the public narrative and debate and pumping ideas out into society. The widespread Euroscepticism and casual racism / xenophobia we see in England today is almost certainly down to decades of gaslighting by the tabloids.

Professor Moriarty

McGiver wrote: »

Quite irrelevant.

It forms the narrative, it affects the discourse, it poisons the well. Not trusting the DM doesn't mean you're not being consciously or subconsciously manipulated or affected by their narrative.

And this is exactly the reason these gutter press pamphlets should be banned and removed from the public discourse. If they stick to gossips about celebrities like in other countries - feel free. If they apply the same nonsense to politics - ban them.

Well, they only manipulate you if you choose to read them. Most people in the UK don't read The Mail or The Express. Most likely because they don't trust them. I think banning newspapers, because you believe their attitude towards politics to be nonsense, would be a dangerous road to go down.

mick087

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, they only manipulate you if you choose to read them. Most people in the UK don't read The Mail or The Express. Most likely because they don't trust them. I think banning newspapers, because you believe their attitude towards politics to be nonsense, would be a dangerous road to go down.

These newspapers are IMO are not great but as you say banning them would indeed take us down a very dangerous path.

No doubt people who want such restricting literature banned have there own restricting literature they believe in.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, they only manipulate you if you choose to read them. Most people in the UK don't read The Mail or The Express. Most likely because they don't trust them. I think banning newspapers, because you believe their attitude towards politics to be nonsense, would be a dangerous road to go down.

I don't think it's trust so much as demographic change. More and more people are looking to social media for news and less to traditional outlets. The obvious way forward is for outlets to have pages on social media sites and plenty of organisations do as it's simply too important not to do.

However, this means that newspapers are either premium, subscription-only titles like The Times, the Telegraph, the FT, etc or they exist solely to sell clicks for advertising. Ultimately, they're responsible to the advertisers and not to their readers.

The best solution would be for people to pay for the media they consume so that they are accountable to their readers and act accordingly. There are problems there though. An issue of The Economist costs £6.99 whereas 65p will buy a Daily Mail during the week and £1 on Saturdays.

Subscriptions are available but people might not read enough to warrant that option. Alternatively, supporting creators such as TLDR news on platforms like Patreon could be an option but I'm not sure how popular Patreon is.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, they only manipulate you if you choose to read them. Most people in the UK don't read The Mail or The Express. Most likely because they don't trust them.

That's not at all true.

Their front pages get shared, discussed on TV and online, thus they affect the discourse and the narrative that follows.

I think banning newspapers, because you believe their attitude towards politics to be nonsense, would be a dangerous road to go down.

Regulation would be better than banning, but that's a whole other day's work.

Professor Moriarty

mick087 wrote: »

These newspapers are IMO are not great but as you say banning them would indeed take us down a very dangerous path.

No doubt people who want such restricting literature banned have there own restricting literature they believe in.

Exactly.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's not at all true.

Their front pages get shared, discussed on TV and online, thus they affect the discourse and the narrative that follows.

Their headlines get shared sometimes on TV - notably during Sky discussions at night and on BBC on Sundays. However, if you are one of the 77% of people who don't trust The Express or The Mail, your automatic reaction will be to assume that the headline is a lie or biased. So, even if what they say is actually true, you will subconsciously dismiss their 'news'.

Regulation would be better than banning, but that's a whole other day's work.

Statutory regulation of media can amount to censorship - especially in a society drifting towards authoritarianism via populism.

schmoo2k

There is a relatively simple solution - If your site/paper/tv claims to be "news" then you implement a law which says it must be "clearly truthful", then simply implement punitive penalties for "fake news".

schmoo2k

schmoo2k wrote: »

There is a relatively simple solution - If your site/paper/tv claims to be "news" then you implement a law which says it must be "clearly truthful", then simply implement punitive penalties for "fake news".

Privately owned "news" organisations have and probably always shape the reports in such a way that they promote the owner's political leanings, the only time they are mostly true is with the reporting of natural events that cannot be politicised.
This is why it is always best to read the reports from more than one foreign news source as well as the "opposition" papers, usually the truth is somewhere between the lines.