Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

forgottenhills

McGiver wrote: »

I don't agree with any of the optimistic posts.

The anti-EU narrative - has been set for decades
The media - are corrupt, owned by oligarchs (Murdoch) and almost all have an anti-EU agenda
The political system - is rigged, broken and heading towards authoritarianism
The business interests - are set - the City as a global unregulated money laundering machine for criminals, Arabs, Russians and Chinese, plus other dodgy "business" agendas
The electorate - is disinterested, apathetic, uninformed and brainwashed

None of this will change. And I'd argue that social media actually exacerbate the negative situation rather than improve it. I'm afraid that the UK's course is permanent. Barring some sort of a revolution (riots a la Poll Tax).

This is completely over the top commentary. What posts like this are doing are the exact mirror image of what the worst sections of the Murdoch press write about the EU. It is a false representation of an aspect of the UK in the same way that the Murdoch press would misrepresent an aspect of the EU, for instance the role of the Commission.

The City of London has been a source of diverse and innovative financial products for centuries which has in turn supported industries in other countries. For instance in the area of mergers and acquisitions the City provides a great deal of pillar to post services and financial options that other European centres simply just can't or don't provide due to lack of innovation or interest. Or if you are a small services business in Ireland looking for professional indemnity insurance then you are likely to be facilitated by a British PI product from the likes of Hiscox or via Lloyds because nobody else in the Irish or European market seem to be able to provide a similar product.

So describing the City as a global unregulated money laundering scheme is pure nonsensical propaganda.

What we need is balance in commentary to acknowledge the good and bad aspects of something, not a barrage of one sided propaganda that we rightly denounce in others.

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So yes propaganda and control of media can keep public opinion at bay for decades (hell the Soviets did it for 70 years with life in west being exponentially better, but the cracks appeared in Berlin where it was hard to hide the differences) but eventually it becomes hard not to compare

All the EU should concentrate is improving the lives of its citizens (financially, socially, educationally etc) who cares about UK re-joining X years down the road or not.

Eventually it become hard for even the most thicksculled brexiteer to claim that brexit was a success. Especially if they have to fill out visa, their job is lost, and their pound doesnt stretch that far abroad.

In contrast to the Russian situation, though, there will be a sizeable proportion of the residents in GB who have intimate and ongoing links with the EU, up to and including citizenship of an EU member state. That'll create a whole new class system within England in particular - the True Blue, Pure-blooded Brits who need visas and visa waivers, who have to count the days they've spent in the Schengen Zone, who have to queue up with the Africans, Asians and Americans at immigration control, and who can dream of retiring to Tuscany or the Costa Brava, but only dream ... And then you'll have their neighbours, classmates, work colleagues, even family members, to whom none of that applies because their "EU" citizenship entitles them to continued freedom of movement.

This is another schism that I think would have been written off as a celebration of Brexit Freedom this year, but the pandemic has scuppered that. By the time the virus-related restrictions have disappeared, the Brexit euphoria will have faded too, and we'll see families and groups of friends being split up at immigration, and - I'm convinced of it - stories of people missing out on football matches, romantic evenings, weddings, funerals, concerts and more, because a problem with their paperwork (I never needed this before ... why does my wife get in and not me?) keeps them unexpectedly stuck at the Schengen border.

These are the kind of social media stories that the government will have trouble keeping a lid on.

View

CelticRambler wrote: »

Unless you're Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh. Then, even if you did vote for Brexit, you can half-legitimately blame the English Tories for selling a lie and for not negotiating a more constructive new trade agreement.

Anyone who voted for Brexit, voted to give the Conservatives a (signed) blank cheque and can’t complain if they don’t like how it was filled in by the Conservatives.

ancapailldorcha

Please don't just paste links and text here from other sites. Post deleted.

CelticRambler

View wrote: »

Anyone who voted for Brexit, voted to give the Conservatives a (signed) blank cheque and can’t complain if they don’t like how it was filled in by the Conservatives.

True - but there are few enough of them in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

It would be reasonable (to an extent) for a Scottish Leave-voting fisherman or a Welsh Leave-voting sheep farmer to complain about the Tories' refusal to sign up to SPS alignment. Agreeing measures to facilitate trade would not have been a betrayal of Brexit; but the Tories put absolute ideological separatism ahead of economic common sense.

The Raging Bile Duct

forgottenhills wrote: »

This is completely over the top commentary. What posts like this are doing are the exact mirror image of what the worst sections of the Murdoch press write about the EU. It is a false representation of an aspect of the UK in the same way that the Murdoch press would misrepresent an aspect of the EU, for instance the role of the Commission.

The City of London has been a source of diverse and innovative financial products for centuries which has in turn supported industries in other countries. For instance in the area of mergers and acquisitions the City provides a great deal of pillar to post services and financial options that other European centres simply just can't or don't provide due to lack of innovation or interest. Or if you are a small services business in Ireland looking for professional indemnity insurance then you are likely to be facilitated by a British PI product from the likes of Hiscox or via Lloyds because nobody else in the Irish or European market seem to be able to provide a similar product.

So describing the City as a global unregulated money laundering scheme is pure nonsensical propaganda.

What we need is balance in commentary to acknowledge the good and bad aspects of something, not a barrage of one sided propaganda that we rightly denounce in others.

What he said has a lot of truth to it and the City of London has a very dark underbelly. Crown territories are responsible for two thirds of the world's tax havens that effectively act like satellites for the City of London meaning it can benefit from the shady activities of the Cayman Island, British Virgin Islands and Jersey without directly getting their hands dirty.

Roberto Saviano, an expert on the mafia, called the UK the most corrupt country in the world, calling the tax havens in Jersey and the Caymans 'the access gates to criminal capital in Europe' and Tom Burgis' book Kelptopia, following dirty money around the globe, highlighted how much of that money from Russia, Africa and the Middle East travels through London.

ZeroThreat

McGiver wrote: »

I don't agree with any of the optimistic posts.

The anti-EU narrative - has been set for decades
The media - are corrupt, owned by oligarchs (Murdoch) and almost all have an anti-EU agenda
The political system - is rigged, broken and heading towards authoritarianism
The business interests - are set - the City as a global unregulated money laundering machine for criminals, Arabs, Russians and Chinese, plus other dodgy "business" agendas
The electorate - is disinterested, apathetic, uninformed and brainwashed

None of this will change. And I'd argue that social media actually exacerbate the negative situation rather than improve it. I'm afraid that the UK's course is permanent. Barring some sort of a revolution (riots a la Poll Tax).

With your last point about social media I'd have to agree. Just look at the number of people following the likes of Nigel Farage, Jeff Taylor, Mahyar Tousi and Andre Walker on youtube.... :rolleyes:

forgottenhills

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

What he said has a lot of truth to it and the City of London has a very dark underbelly. Crown territories are responsible for two thirds of the world's tax havens that effectively act like satellites for the City of London meaning it can benefit from the shady activities of the Cayman Island, British Virgin Islands and Jersey without directly getting their hands dirty.

Roberto Saviano, an expert on the mafia, called the UK the most corrupt country in the world, calling the tax havens in Jersey and the Caymans 'the access gates to criminal capital in Europe' and Tom Burgis' book Kelptopia, following dirty money around the globe, highlighted how much of that money from Russia, Africa and the Middle East travels through London.

What has dirty money from Russia or China buying large houses or football clubs in London got to do with the City of London which is a heavily regulated centre for financial services and which the EU was proud to call its leading financial centre until Brexit? If the City has been hugely corrupt, according to your view, then the EU and EU member banks and companies have endorsed and heavily used it for 47 years and they are all corrupt also. You can't have it both ways.

Cayman Islands, Jersey etc are tax havens with their own regulations and banking laws that are used by wealthy people from around the world, including Ireland as we have often seen, to hide their wealth. And if you want to look for a corporate tax haven look no further than the IFSC which has been operating a succession of very dubious accounting practices and IP transfer schemes for many years allowing US multinationals to effectively avoid taxation and resulting in our highly dubious GDP figures. Kettle calling pot black etc.

serfboard

forgottenhills wrote: »

If you are a small services business in Ireland looking for professional indemnity insurance then you are likely to be facilitated by a British PI product from the likes of Hiscox or via Lloyds because nobody else in the Irish or European market seem to be able to provide a similar product.

Having direct experience of this you are right that no-one else in Ireland will do this kind of work - any Irish broker will order it via a UK company.

However, I don't believe that you have such extensive knowledge of European financial markets that you can say that "no European market" can provide a similar product. You are effectively saying that every small business in Europe getting professional indemnity insurance either buys it from London or buys it from somewhere else outside of Europe. How do you know this for certain? I don't believe that you do. You are asking for some balance, so why not show some yourself?

forgottenhills wrote: »

So describing the City as a global unregulated money laundering scheme is pure nonsensical propaganda.

Describing the City of London as only a global unregulated money laundering scheme is obviously wrong.

However, if the poster was to say that London is the best place to launder dirty money, then that would not be incorrect ...

The Guardian wrote:

Dirty money needs laundering if it’s to be of any use – and the UK is the best place in the world to do it.

View

CelticRambler wrote: »

True - but there are few enough of them in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

It would be reasonable (to an extent) for a Scottish Leave-voting fisherman or a Welsh Leave-voting sheep farmer to complain about the Tories' refusal to sign up to SPS alignment. Agreeing measures to facilitate trade would not have been a betrayal of Brexit; but the Tories put absolute ideological separatism ahead of economic common sense.

It was pointed out to Brexiters in advance of the referendum vote that there was no guarantee on what, if any, post-exit arrangements would exist If Leave won. They all choose to ignore those warnings and opt for Brexiters’ fantasies instead.

As one commentator said, most of the Brexiters were long-term backbenchers and there were usually very good reasons why they were never promoted to the frontbenchs.

Strazdas

View wrote: »

It was pointed out to Brexiters in advance of the referendum vote that there was no guarantee on what, if any, post-exit arrangements would exist If Leave won. They all choose to ignore those warnings and opt for Brexiters’ fantasies instead.

As one commentator said, most of the Brexiters were long-term backbenchers and there were usually very good reasons why they were never promoted to the frontbenchs.

What was almost unique about the Brexit referendum was that it instructed the Govt to do something it didn't want to do and thought was a terrible idea. This is a complete perversion of how referendums are normally held : usually a govt frames the policy (something it wants to do or introduce) and puts 'that' decision to the electorate. The way it was set up was a total disaster in the making.

forgottenhills

serfboard wrote: »

Having direct experience of this you are right that no-one else in Ireland will do this kind of work - any Irish broker will order it via a UK company.

However, I don't believe that you have such extensive knowledge of European financial markets that you can say that "no European market" can provide a similar product. You are effectively saying that every small business in Europe getting professional indemnity insurance either buys it from London or buys it from somewhere else outside of Europe. How do you know this for certain? I don't believe that you do. You are asking for some balance, so why not show some yourself?

Describing the City of London as only a global unregulated money laundering scheme is obviously wrong.

However, if the poster was to say that London is the best place to launder dirty money, then that would not be incorrect ...

I said that if you are a small Irish business looking for PI cover for Ireland the only options available seem to be cover that is underwritten by UK insurance companies. I would hope that there are French or German companies also providing similar cover but the last time I looked for such cover some years ago they certainly didn't seem to be providing any cover to SMEs in the Irish market. This is just one small example of the trusted financial products available and regulated from London that help keep the wheels of business turning in other countries.

And that article that you linked is about the fact that it is too easy to form a company using Companies House which is probably true. But that really has nothing to do with the operations and regulation of the many banks, insurers and other financial firms that make up the City of London.

Capt'n Midnight

View wrote: »

As one commentator said, most of the Brexiters were long-term backbenchers and there were usually very good reasons why they were never promoted to the frontbenchs.

MPs are not chosen by 'the people' - they are chosen by their local constituency parties: thirty-five men in grubby raincoats or thirty-five women in silly hats. The further 'selection' process is equally a nonsense: there are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at all."
- Yes Minister

After the purges they are left with an large supply of those too silly to be ministers

Kermit.de.frog

The UK has forwarded it's road map on the protocol.

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1377316858391592961

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

What was almost unique about the Brexit referendum was that it instructed the Govt to do something it didn't want to do and thought was a terrible idea. This is a complete perversion of how referendums are normally held : usually a govt frames the policy (something it wants to do or introduce) and puts 'that' decision to the electorate. The way it was set up was a total disaster in the making.

Well, actually, we have had referendums that fit into ones the Gov did not wish to win. For example, the 1983 Abortion one that took thirty years and tree or four referendums to unwind.

It also took the wonderful invention of the Citizen's Assembly to point the way.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, actually, we have had referendums that fit into ones the Gov did not wish to win. For example, the 1983 Abortion one that took thirty years and tree or four referendums to unwind.

It also took the wonderful invention of the Citizen's Assembly to point the way.

I agree that the 1983 one was a complete mess - but it was still only on a single issue.

The Brexit referendum was a supreme cock up in that it impacted on just about everything - the entire economy, foreign policy, caused several general elections, removed many rights from British citizens etc.

View

Strazdas wrote: »

What was almost unique about the Brexit referendum was that it instructed the Govt to do something it didn't want to do and thought was a terrible idea. This is a complete perversion of how referendums are normally held : usually a govt frames the policy (something it wants to do or introduce) and puts 'that' decision to the electorate. The way it was set up was a total disaster in the making.

It’s actually worse than that. The referendum was an advisory referendum which resulted in advice, not an instruction. That though got deliberately misinterpreted by the Conservatives as it suited their MPs and their core voters. And their major opposition party played along with that nonsense as they were too afraid to “offend” voters who in most cases had no intention of voting for them anyway.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

What was almost unique about the Brexit referendum was that it instructed the Govt to do something it didn't want to do and thought was a terrible idea.

View wrote: »

It was pointed out to Brexiters in advance of the referendum vote that there was no guarantee on what, if any, post-exit arrangements would exist If Leave won. They all choose to ignore those warnings and opt for Brexiters’ fantasies instead

While I agree that the whole referendum process was a cynical, cack-handed, propaganda exercise that grew unexpected legs, the very fact that there was no clear definition of Brexit meant that not all Leave-voters' hopes were fantasies. There were many steps along the way - mostly on Theresa May's watch - at which a workable, least-worst-case Brexit could have been agreed.

My point is that now there is a single version of Brexit to be lived with, instead of the 64000 variations that were being talked about before; and that means that anyone who wanted one of the 63999 others, and is (or will be) worse off can blame the Johnson administration for their new disimproved situation, with at least as much legitimacy as blaming the EU.

Where you have a concentration of disaffected Leavers in one region where the Tories do not have a strong foothold, there's great motivation for any of the other parties to attribute all their misfortune to the unelected elite in London, rather than trying to tie it to a bunch of foreigners in Brussels.

cameramonkey

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The UK has forwarded it's road map on the protocol.

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1377316858391592961

Straight into the EU folder marked already agreed.

View

CelticRambler wrote: »

While I agree that the whole referendum process was a cynical, cack-handed, propaganda exercise that grew unexpected legs, the very fact that there was no clear definition of Brexit meant that not all Leave-voters' hopes were fantasies. There were many steps along the way - mostly on Theresa May's watch - at which a workable, least-worst-case Brexit could have been agreed.

My point is that now there is a single version of Brexit to be lived with, instead of the 64000 variations that were being talked about before; and that means that anyone who wanted one of the 63999 others, and is (or will be) worse off can blame the Johnson administration for their new disimproved situation, with at least as much legitimacy as blaming the EU.

Where you have a concentration of disaffected Leavers in one region where the Tories do not have a strong foothold, there's great motivation for any of the other parties to attribute all their misfortune to the unelected elite in London, rather than trying to tie it to a bunch of foreigners in Brussels.

That’s partly true but, remember, Brexit voters opted for any (and all) versions of Brexit, so they can’t complain if the version they got isn’t the one they wanted.

And, be under no illusions, those voters will blame the EU for the failure to deliver each and every one of the contradictory versions of Brexit. It’ll be citied as proof that the EU is “unreasonable”.

The single factor uniting Brexiters was hatred of and animosity toward the EU. That isn’t going to go away and there is little likelihood that might dissipate, much less settle down into a mild animosity.

Strazdas

View wrote: »

That’s partly true but, remember, Brexit voters opted for any (and all) versions of Brexit, so they can’t complain if the version they got isn’t the one they wanted.

And, be under no illusions, those voters will blame the EU for the failure to deliver each and every one of the contradictory versions of Brexit. It’ll be citied as proof that the EU is “unreasonable”.

The single factor uniting Brexiters was hatred of and animosity toward the EU. That isn’t going to go away and there is little likelihood that might dissipate, much less settle down into a mild animosity.

I would say general xenophobia. They strongly dislike "foreigners" of any description - that would be basically anyone who doesn't speak English as a first language (but non white members of the Commonwealth would also be foreigners).

A lot of the stuff about unelected bureaucrats in Brussels is just tacked on to justify their xenophobia.

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

That’s partly true but, remember, Brexit voters opted for any (and all) versions of Brexit, so they can’t complain if the version they got isn’t the one they wanted.

And, be under no illusions, those voters will blame the EU for the failure to deliver each and every one of the contradictory versions of Brexit. It’ll be citied as proof that the EU is “unreasonable”.

The single factor uniting Brexiters was hatred of and animosity toward the EU. That isn’t going to go away and there is little likelihood that might dissipate, much less settle down into a mild animosity.

Think of the USA political attitude towards communism or socialism. Any idea that suggests even a nod towards any benefit for the less well off is attacked with absolute ferocity. This has been going on since McCarthyism of he 1950s.

I think it will be the same with Brexit/EU.

yagan

Strazdas wrote: »

I would say general xenophobia. They strongly dislike "foreigners" of any description - that would be basically anyone who doesn't speak English as a first language (but non white members of the Commonwealth would also be foreigners).

A lot of the stuff about unelected bureaucrats in Brussels is just tacked on to justify their xenophobia.

When I lived in England I knew a Brexiter who had actually run for UKip a few times. He could never refer to the EU without dropping calling them Nazi's.

On nearly every other topic he was extremely easy to get along with, but on the EU he was deeply radicalised. Who he reminded me most of in the an Irish context is a distant relative who was mostly pleasant but manic about religion.

If nations were patients then there's hints of dementia off Trump and Brexit voters.

Capt'n Midnight

rock22 wrote: »

Another Brexit fallout,

France doesn't recognise UK driving licences at the moment , possibly causing chaos for UK residents in France. It also seems there is a similar issue in Italy . Article in Guardian mentions both.

These are the hundreds of little benefits of EU membership that were never appreciated by those who brought about Brexit .

failure of the two countries’ governments to sign a post-Brexit reciprocal agreement - UK had a long time to sort out this

View

Strazdas wrote: »

I would say general xenophobia. They strongly dislike "foreigners" of any description - that would be basically anyone who doesn't speak English as a first language (but non white members of the Commonwealth would also be foreigners).

A lot of the stuff about unelected bureaucrats in Brussels is just tacked on to justify their xenophobia.

Not quite true but there is an element of that.

The reality is that for each and every year of the UK’s membership of the ECs/EU, more immigrants who arrived in the U.K. came from outside the ECs/EU than came from within it.

Yet, while the smaller numbers in the latter category generated huge negative reaction, the larger numbers in the former one were largely ignored.

That strange reaction continued after the 2016 referendum when the numbers of immigrants from the ECs/EU dropped sharply and the numbers of immigrants from the outside it increased sharply.

Clearly, it isn’t a problem with immigration per se but rather with immigration from the EU.

wexfordman2

View wrote: »

Not quite true but there is an element of that.

The reality is that for each and every year of the UK’s membership of the ECs/EU, more immigrants who arrived in the U.K. came from outside the ECs/EU than came from within it.

Yet, while the smaller numbers in the latter category generated huge negative reaction, the larger numbers in the former one were largely ignored.

That strange reaction continued after the 2016 referendum when the numbers of immigrants from the ECs/EU dropped sharply and the numbers of immigrants from the outside it increased sharply.

Clearly, it isn’t a problem with immigration per se but rather with immigration from the EU.

No, I disagree, the EU is blamed for the overall level of immigration to the UK, its the eus fault that there are so many brown people about the place, Angela's guests opening the border etc etc.

Peregrinus

wexfordman2 wrote: »

No, I disagree, the EU is blamed for the overall level of immigration to the UK, its the eus fault that there are so many brown people about the place, Angela's guests opening the border etc etc.

Well, yes, the EU is blamed for it, as in, that particular narrative is peddled by racists and bigots. But the narrative is nonsense, of course. The UK's high level of non-EU migration goes back decades and is associated with the UK's own colonial/imperial past. The admission of Syrian refugees to Germany in 2015 didn't result in increased migration, of refugees or anyone else, to the UK; the refugees admitted to Germany largely stayed there; they are mostly there still.

McGiver

forgottenhills wrote:

This is completely over the top commentary. What posts like this are doing are the exact mirror image of what the worst sections of the Murdoch press write about the EU. It is a false representation of an aspect of the UK in the same way that the Murdoch press would misrepresent an aspect of the EU, for instance the role of the Commission.

No.

London is the top global money laundering hub and also a global OFC hub linking the global British nexus of tax havens and OFCs ("Crown dependencies").

And I was talking about where it's heading i.e. Further deregulation (the objective of Brexit) and increase in money laundering and other dodgy business.

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/02/09/the-media-hardly-noticed-a-shocking-revelation-about-the-scale-of-money-laundering-in-the-uk/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/the-world-today/2018-04/london-money-laundering-capital

https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/national-economic-crime-centre-leads-push-to-identify-money-laundering-activity

https://www.ft.com/content/1d805534-1185-11e6-839f-2922947098f0

Akrasia

View wrote: »

That’s partly true but, remember, Brexit voters opted for any (and all) versions of Brexit, so they can’t complain if the version they got isn’t the one they wanted.

And, be under no illusions, those voters will blame the EU for the failure to deliver each and every one of the contradictory versions of Brexit. It’ll be citied as proof that the EU is “unreasonable”.

The single factor uniting Brexiters was hatred of and animosity toward the EU. That isn’t going to go away and there is little likelihood that might dissipate, much less settle down into a mild animosity.

One thing that is going away, are the voters who voted for Brexit, a lot of them have already died. What is important for the UK now, is how the youngest generations attitudes are molded in the coming years. Young people tend to be more progressive but there is an undercurrent of conspiracy theorizing and they are very vulnerable to being manipulated by social media

Lumen

Akrasia wrote: »

One thing that is going away, are the voters who voted for Brexit, a lot of them have already died. What is important for the UK now, is how the youngest generations attitudes are molded in the coming years. Young people tend to be more progressive but there is an undercurrent of conspiracy theorizing and they are very vulnerable to being manipulated by social media

There are reasons to be optimistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/31/pimlico-academy-pupils-stage-protest-over-discriminatory-policies

England getting its underwear in a twist over flags is somewhat refreshing.