Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, has no position in the UK government. Q for US posters: would this come under the Logan Act were this a US Congressman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Kawczynski
Printable View
Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, has no position in the UK government. Q for US posters: would this come under the Logan Act were this a US Congressman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Kawczynski
I think I asked the same question about someone else a while back.
Also, James Dyson, one of the most prominent backers of Brexit, is moving his HQ to Singapore, having already moved most of the manufacturing overseas. What is it about Brexiteers and hypocrisy? They talk about sovereignty and ask foreign governments to overrule Parliament. They talk about post-Brexit opportunity and move their investments abroad.
I'm reading a whole lot of corporations are preparing for Brexit, but some also see a chance: That German corporations can get lucrative opportunities within the EU once the former British suppliers are out of the picture due to tariffs and other logistical problems.
The logistical problems of having border controls on a very narrow road with trucks piling up for kilometers also came up in the article.
"May you live in exciting times!" I always forget whether that was meant as a blessing or a curse. :sweatdrop:
Richard North, a Brexit advocate until the ERG seized control of the agenda, reckons there won't be queues of lorries, as they'll go through their inventories and work out what can and can't be transported, and that there will be abnormally low traffic instead. Instead, we'll be screwed another way, as there will simply be less trade due to barriers that can't be prepared for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Another point about Dyson, who was one of the leading business advocates for Brexit. Singapore recently signed a trade treaty with the EU. So after having taken the UK out of the EU on the grounds that our prospects are better outside, he's now moved his business out of the UK and to somewhere that has a new agreement with the EU. It's unbelievable how hypocritical the Brexiteers get yet their followers will continue to make excuses for them and maintain that Brexit is a good idea, in denial of the evidence of their heroes' actions.
Ya'll missed your chance to elect Lord Buckethead. I liked his platform.
It should read: "May, you live in exciting time!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Times should be plural either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
What has May actually achieved if there is a hard brexit?At the moment it's not very interesting though, because anything could still happen and the rest is guesswork.
Rees Mogg now suggests the government should suspend Parliament if no deal is blocked. Do the Brexiteers here agree with this tactic, to suspend Parliament until the March deadline is passed and Brexit is safely through?
Article suggests Corbyn supports Brexit not (merely) out of some ideological drive but because the electoral picture is one of deep-red Remain constituencies and 'purple' swing constituencies (such as in smaller industrial cities), and the purple constituencies are heavily pro-Brexit...
Maybe Corbyn is more "pragmatic" than has been assumed. How... American.Quote:
First-past-the-post forces Britain’s political parties to prioritize marginal seats with small majorities over those where their support is strongest. In the case of Brexit, it appears that Corbyn has decided to abandon his most devoted followers out of fear of alienating provincial Leavers. Labour currently holds 29 of the 30 safest parliamentary seats in the entire country. These seats are overwhelmingly concentrated in densely populated cities, London most of all, that returned large majorities for Remain in 2016. Labour’s lead in towns populated by socially conservative, working-class voters that voted out, however, is much smaller.
According to a paper published by the London-based think tank Policy Network, 49 of Labour’s top 100 target seats—the party needs to gain 64 to achieve a parliamentary majority in the next election—are located in English “town” constituencies. The Labour leadership clearly fears that endorsing anti-Brexit policies popular with its metropolitan diehards, like a second referendum, risks repelling the town-dwelling voters that it needs to secure a parliamentary majority. Members of Corbyn’s shadow Cabinet are so terrified by this prospect that several have threatened to resign if the party backs a so-called People’s Vote.
Of course, the reverse is possible as well, but the uncomfortable truth for metropolitan voters is that Labour can afford to shed votes in cities. The party won Liverpool Walton, its safest seat, by 32,551 votes in 2017. By contrast, in Dudley North, a constituency outside Birmingham, where the Leave vote stood at 67.6 percent, a mere 22 votes nudged Labour to victory in the last election. The chances of Labour losing its majority in Walton borders on zero, which certainly isn’t the case in Dudley. And while backing a second referendum might endear the Labour Party to metropolitan voters, they’re not the ones that the party needs to win over. In 2017, the Conservatives edged Labour in 54 seats by a margin of less than 10 percent; 47 of those marginal constituencies voted Leave. Corbyn clearly feels that honoring the Brexit vote is key to defending Labour’s paper-thin majorities in Leave-voting towns and seizing marginal seats currently held by the Tories.
However...
Rory is vindicated!Quote:
Labour’s electoral predicament highlights a much deeper dysfunction in Britain’s political system. It’s often said that Brexit has paralyzed politics in the U.K., but Brexit is only a symptom of that paralysis rather than its cause. The real root of the problem lies in first-past-the-post, which denies truly proportional representation.
Quote:
The past two decades have seen a major realignment in British politics. It’s widely believed that by accepting Margaret Thatcher’s free-market consensus, Tony Blair’s “New Labour” abandoned working-class voters, who Blair and his allies regarded as unlikely to switch to the Tories in significant numbers. But support for Labour among skilled workers dropped 9 percentage points during Blair’s first two terms as prime minister, between 1997 and 2005. The drop was even greater among unskilled workers, sliding 13 points in the same period. According to a report by the Fabian Society, a London think tank, the 63 most working-class constituencies have swung toward the Conservatives by 3.6 percent since 2005, while cities have moved toward Labour by 5.6 percent.
Labour has increasingly become the party of liberal-minded, university-educated professionals and ethnic minority voters concentrated in metropolitan constituencies, yet it remains electorally dependent on votes from homogenous, working-class towns—particularly since the 2015 general election, when a Scottish National Party landslide decimated Labour in Scotland. The first-past-the-post system forces disparate voters with opposing values together into a brittle, schizophrenic coalition, one that neuters Labour’s capacity to act as an effective opposition. The party’s fear of alienating either side of its coalition is so great that it has largely avoided taking a concrete stand on Brexit at all, aside from demanding permanent Customs Union membership. This means that Labour has helped facilitate Brexit without shaping it in any meaningful way.
Quote:
Under proportional representation, there would be no need for Labour to pursue such a broken strategy. It would be free to adopt a firm anti-Brexit position that would help it extend its majority in cities, court the 39 percent of Conservatives that backed Remain, and steal votes from the Liberal Democrats. This would allow a much more natural coalition to emerge, one that’s more in line with the changing profile of the Labour vote. But until first-past-the-post is discarded, the party will remain beholden to its Leave minority.
Corbyn: “Article 50 has to be invoked now”Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Note the date and time. Corbyn is ideologically pro-Brexit. He probably voted Leave in the privacy of the voting booth.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
As expected, this did not go down well. No chance of a soft landing Brexit, it's either a hard deal or bye bye with no-deal.
This is going to be really bad.
Video games are not entertaining enough, so they moved on to troll-playthroughs in real life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So, reading a recap of May's key decisions that influenced the Brexit outcome.
1. Delayed invoking Article 50 for several months after the vote.
2. Called snap election that reduced a great lead to a weak DUP-Tory government.
3. Kept ministers out of the loop from negotiations.
4. Delayed vote on deal while refusing to renegotiate.
There are others I am forgetting but I mean...she has to be willingly stacking the deck against a competent Brexit. I think May has been covertly sandbagging the whole process and making Brexit as bad of an option as possible.
Question is, is she incompetent and I am wrong or am I right? We will only find out at the very end. If she commits to No Deal and refuses a second referendum, then she really is the worst PM the UK has ever had. Otherwise if she "caves", my money is on her driving politics to be as chaotic as possible for the last two years to justify another direct vote by the people, with the remain camp more energized after two years of Brexit fatigue.
Or is it just the most difficult geopolitical act (outside total war) that any advanced and integrated state has attempted in modern history?
Visa-free travel to the EU for up to 90 days every 180 days. For the cost of under £7 every 3 years. And why? Because allowing this is beneficial to the EU (as well as the UK of course).
Oddly the article focuses on whether Gibraltar is called a colony or not... Otherwise this could make a no-deal Brexit seem less bad - and the Politicians are not interested in such messages.
What next? Pointing out that the Irish consistently point to the "Spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement at risk of being breached since even a hard boarder would no be breaching the legal agreement... An agreement that was in essence made with Terrorists.
~:smoking:
Perhaps, and once you've successfully completed it, you can celebrate your tremendous bravery in the ruins that used to be your cities. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Europe has had its share of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And will continue to have had it, Britain is not Europe anymore in April, it's an island and it's very special. Those won't just be ruins, they will be Great Ruins!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
No - the UK will be in Europe, not the EU. The two are very different. One is a geographic location, the other is a metastatised trade body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
~:smoking:
That snide remark dissing British exceptionalism flew right past your head? :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The difficulty of the act doesn't fully explain her actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Well, quite.
Having returned to mourn Fragony let me just leave you with this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135
I'd say negotiations are over, wouldn't you?
Also - Donald Tusk is apparently more of an arsehole than Donald Trump.
I have been trying to follow on what's going on with the whole Brexit negotiations. It seems to me that the primary sticking point is the Irish backstop? UK politicians (who are Leavers) are insisting on an open trading border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? And the EU government is unwilling to entertain this option? Do I have that correct?
Also, is this truly the crux of the failed Brexit plan? Or is it a fig leaf?
The GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI, requires an open border between NI and RoI. The UK wants to exit the customs union and single market. The EU, to allow these contradictory demands, has suggested an open border between NI and RoI (thus keeping the GFA), with the customs border only coming into effect between GB and NI. The DUP, whose votes are propping up the government on Brexit-related matters (since the Tories do not have a majority), won't accept a border between GB and NI. The newest revelations are that the UK will throw open the borders. Which will kill agriculture among other industries, as exports will be subject to tariffs (and will thus be uncompetitive), but imports will not (and thus will undercut homegrown produce). That's the rub when Brexit theorists talk about switching to a Singapore style globalised service economy. The UK has an agricultural industry. Singapore does not. Singapore can implement certain measures the UK cannot, if the UK wants to keep its agriculture. Free trade cities like Singapore and Hong Kong are also only possible because of a different, more urbanised mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If you can reconcile all these contradicting requirements with a practical solution that does not solely consist of hating the EU, feel free to email HM government. Tusk's announcement that PFH has taken exception to is the culmination of the EU's frustration with the UK not having any clear idea what it wants, except to blame the EU for all ills. And contrary to what PFH says, this is not the end of negotiations. Negotiations ended with May's withdrawal agreement, which was defeated in the Commons by the largest margin in recorded history. After May finalised that agreement, the EU said that was it; there will be no further changes without a change in the UK's position. The UK has not changed its demands, except to repeat them louder with louder threats of taking down the EU with us. And each time May and co has done this, the EU has repeated its position: there will be no further changes without changes in the UK's position. This day in, day out, repeat of this routine is the reason for Jean-Claude Juncker's quote, “I’m less Catholic than my good friend Donald. He strongly believes in heaven and by opposite in hell. I believe in heaven and I have never seen hell, apart [from] during the time I was doing my job here. It’s a hell,”
Another quote from Tusk, less highlighted by Brexiteers but of greater importance, is "There is little chance of the UK remaining in the EU as both May and Corbyn are “pro-Brexit” and there is “no effective leadership for Remain”. Corbyn, as leader of the loyal Opposition, should have been holding the loyal government's actions to account by scrutinising their suggestions. Instead, Corbyn was the first to call for an immediate exit, before any plans had been made, and has kept it up since. Farage said before the vote that a 52-48 result in favour of Remain would not mean the end of the story, but he and his mates would continue to campaign for Brexit. After the 52-48 result in favour of Leave, the main parties have been competing to interpret the result to mean the fringes of the Leave argument, that nearly every Leave campaigner had assured would not happen, while the Remainers have been completely ignored.
Wow, thanks for the synopsis, Pannonian. This is actually quite disturbing. Not much hope for progress in 7 weeks.
There is also a small difference in terms of population. Is there even enough demand for that many people in a new service economy? Surely you can transform into a service economy, but if noone wants that service, it may not turn out to be a very profitable decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
An easy answer would be to Signal that a single rulebook for goods is an end goal of the fta negotiations in the political declaration.
Goods can move, people can move regardless because of the cta.
We're not a million miles away with the backstop...
What does your signalling mean in concrete terms? This government has repeatedly indicated that informal agreements are there to be broken, and even bilateral treaties should be unilaterally breakable by the UK, so no one in their right minds will believe anything that isn't legally nailed down. Oh, and the deadline is due in less than 2 months, upon which we will be treated to your wonderland of no deal Brexit. Liam Fox reckons it's "survivable". Did that word appear on a bus during the campaign?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Not signalling from the UK, it is not in our gift to provide. No, by the EU.
Too much drama about no deal, let's face it the Eurozone lives with 10%unemployment and verges on a technical recession. Oh what a model to worship.
In other news, representatives of the food industry have urged cessation of discussions with the government on matters not related to Brexit, as their resources are already stretched dealing with the latter. "Businesses throughout the UK food chain - and their trade associations - are now totally focused on working to mitigate the catastrophic impact of a no-deal Brexit".Quote:
Originally Posted by David Davis
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Remember I talked about truck drivers and permits? Over 11k permits have been applied for, but fewer than 1k have been issued so far. Another 2.5k have been promised in time for Brexit, but the Haulliers Association say that's still 10% of what's needed. The food retailers probably had this in mind when they warned of higher prices and empty shelves. Still, food shortages are worth it in order not to be subject to the nefarious ECJ, which has ruled in favour of the UK in 95% of claims.
trucks and planes will still move:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit...ort-agreement/
Lucky you didn't post that in the reddit football forums. They've banned the Sun as a source there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Wow, secret deals and reports, I've got some more:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rse-EU-UK.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...order-backstopQuote:
No deal Brexit 'would be worse for the EU than Britain because red tape would slow down efforts to respond quickly, Brussels believes'
That secret deal of the Sun seems really new: https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shak...t-brexit-deal/Quote:
EU PLOT: Secret Brussels plan to 'CONTROL' Britain after Brexit REVEALED
The conspiracy is even worse though:Quote:
5 NOVEMBER 2018
UK and EU deny reaching a “secret Brexit deal”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNYpGakV8w
No, seriously, I'll believe it when it comes from something other than a neoliberal propaganda rag.
The Sun isn't banned on football forums because it's neoliberal. It's banned because it lies as a matter of course. The Mail doesn't have a good reputation either. The Express is notorious for its Diana-fixation and lack of trustworthiness on everything else that might be termed news. I'd be looking at the broadsheets for a good source. Preferably Financial Times, although the Times or Guardian will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Husar, I'm not going to check out the Sun story, so if you've read it, perhaps you can summarise it. However, from the headline, the closest I can find from reputable sources is the plan to waive checks on goods coming from the EU, which has been reported on numerous media including all the broadsheets, and one of the heads of the Haulliers Association, who handle the logistics taking goods into and from Britain, saying that the suggested 3.5k permits is only 10% of what is needed. If Furunculus's story from the Sun supersedes this, I'd like to know what their source is. The plan I cited above isn't secret and can be enacted unilaterally, although it isn't practical and is blatantly open to abuse, while the second is traceable to a named source who is an expert on the subject in practice. Furunculus's stories tend to come from theorists with little understanding of how things work. The better stories of his anyway.
Whence "neoliberal"? I could at least see where you're coming from if it were the Economist, but the Sun is but a standard tabloid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It's vituperation (a notch harsher than Pann-tone) against "Project Fear" but no sources, only links to older Sun articles. With a Google search I guess it must be prompted by something related to this EU press release dated Feb. 15:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Quote:
Basic road connectivity in the event of no-deal Brexit – Council agrees its position
The EU is introducing a set of temporary and limited measures to ensure basic road freight and road passenger connectivity in order to mitigate the most severe disruption in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a negotiated agreement. Today, member states' ambassadors in the Council's Permanent Representatives Committee approved a mandate for the Romanian presidency to negotiate with the European Parliament on enabling UK-licenced road hauliers and coach and bus operators to carry goods and passengers between the UK and the remaining 27 member states. The rights granted by these measures will be conditional on equivalent rights being conferred by the UK to operators from the 27 member states and subject to conditions ensuring fair competition.
The temporary measures are without prejudice to any future negotiations with the UK.
The regulation will cease to apply on 31 December 2019.
A meeting with the Parliament to agree on the final text will take place on 18 February.
Background
According to the overall principles for non-deal Brexit contingency measures, all such measures consist of unilateral EU-level action, on the assumption that the UK will reciprocate. The measures are exceptional in nature and strictly time-limited. The transport connectivity measures are not intended to replicate the status quo under EU law, but rather to preserve basic connectivity between the EU and the UK.
See what can be achieved when you remove the blinkers and cease trying to play the man.
Blinkers? I, like many English football fans, absolutely refuse to click on any Sun link, assuming as a matter of course that said rag will be lying. If you have a story to push, use another source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I think it is a junk rag to, but what twitter turned up was:
Interesting, &
informative, &
accurate
Quite frankly nothing else matters.
So, you're suggesting that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I specifically linked to untrustworthy ones as they all posted these crazy conspiracy bullhorn (it's a family forum...) stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The Financial Times is obviously a neoliberal capitalist rag and the Gruniad is a leftist biased newspaper that Furunculus would never take seriously. If I really wanted to convince him, I'd link to https://www.wsws.org for example. ~;)
It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and he wants to rule the world. Isn't that enough? :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The Torygraph is just as reliable as the Gruniard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I've apparently been dragged back in.
So here's my prediction, if we have a "no deal" Brexit the following will happen:
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
After all, there's no infrastructure to enforce a border and no present impetus from the UK to change any of our rules regarding agriculture, product safety, etc.
The EU may wish to impose Tariffs, that will probably take at least a month, but if it does so it will be at the EU's impetus, making them the "bad guys" and I understand, to add insult to injury, they have considered erecting the border in Mainland Europe and excluding Ireland for safety's sake.
If that's even seriously mooted it will cause serious, lasting, damage to the EU.
As regards to what I objected to - I object to Donald Tusk invoking the language of divine punishment which is usually reserved for mass-murders and child molesters.
The Grauniad is [the] paper I read before all others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Read daily.
While everyone is trying to negotiate, let's not forget a no-deal can still happen. And when that happens...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBQfSAVt0s
Can you explain how this works? IIRC the Maltese commissioner, whom I would have thought to be closer to us than some other EU countries, called for us to be made to suffer. It's the Germans in particular who've been toning down the language. Strictly enforcing the WTO rules and making us squirm would be rather popular in most parts of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Oh, and you might want to check out Mark Francois (Conservative MP) if you want inflammatory language, repeatedly. Or our defence secretary, for that matter, who's managed to screw up relations with China and Japan in the space of two weeks. Tusk? He was aiming at our politicians. Not so much our Brexiter MPs, who've been threatening whole countries. There's an entire faction who've been calling for unilateral tearing up of bilateral/multilateral treaties; the kind of stuff I've only read about in history books.
Are you sure? Or do you just read it to dismiss everything in there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-in-the-making
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...it-environment
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...er-madness-war
https://www.theguardian.com/business...mic-data-uk-eu
These are just from a quick headline search, I don't remember any Guardian articles that were particularly happy about Brexit or saying it would all be just fine.
In other news, Honda have announced the closure of the plant in Swindon (54.7% leave, 10k majority), with the loss of 3.5k jobs. Union reps explain that the usual formula is 3 related jobs to each one, so that's around 14k point and supply chain jobs lost, plus knock on effects on local prosperity. FT points to the loss of the JIT supply chain, with stockpiling components for 9 days requiring one of the largest buildings in the world.
Oh, and one of the richest men in the UK (well, he was in the UK), a Brexit supporter, has left the UK to live in a tax haven. Did I mention that Dyson, one of the most prominent businessmen supporting Leave, has disowned his company as "British"?
Regardless of what newspaper you read, we can agree on the fact that Brexit will be an economic problem. Leave the Irish backstops for a moment, think of the initial supply chain disruption that will happen in the first 6 months. Adding to that, if a no-backstop deal is done, then it will raise the problem of enforcing goods at the Irish border... and we all know what the Irish border means.
This is in no way shape or form a positive outcome for anyone. Brexit is going to be a huge mess, it already is in fact.
Brexiters already have a back up plan. Plan A is to threaten the EU and say that "they need us more than we need them", that damaging us would take the EU with us. Fall back plan should we exit with no deal is to blame the EU. You can see it in PFH's post where he says that enforcing WTO rules will cause serious, lasting damage to the EU, and that doing so will make them the bad guys. There are no plans for making it work. The only plans are to threaten or blame the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Liam Fox (trade secretary) has said that we will open up the borders, in effect requiring no tariffs to be paid. This will kill the agricultural industry, as produce with no tariffs or standards will be able to enter Britain while our farmers' own produce will have tariffs imposed should they want to sell abroad. Michael Gove (environment and food minister) has said that tariffs will be imposed on foreign produce. Two mutually contradicting positions on a fundamental issue with a month and a bit to go before no deal exit. Will Leavers accept responsibility for the results of Brexit? Or will they once more blame the EU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leave.eu in 2016
NB. Leave.eu and its backer Aaron Banks were fined for breaking electoral laws during the referendum campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by update in 2019
I need to let you in on a little secret. Two in fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
1) life is complicated, and people who try to boil it down to manichean simplicity of good and evil lack the mental tools to assess the world.
A bit like sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "neoliberalism!" whenever uncomfortable opinions Hove into view.
2) There is a vital distinction between news and editorial. One is fact, the other opinion, and the grauniad is a fine newspaper with batpoop crazy opinion writers.
fox news has lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial, as have the identity politics left who ignore facts when presented by a hated messenger.
I hope this proves a valuable response for you.
Oh, you mean like people who constantly harp on about how someone else uses the word "neoliberalism" too often without even understanding why they do that or that they're being triggered on purpose? Yeah, I think you exemplified your point very well! ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Yes and no, I thought you might say that, but news aren't fact per se, sometimes rumors are reported as news or the style of reporting is biased. Not to say this is the case for the Gruniad though. I'm happy that you're happy with the Gruniad as a news source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I saw that, but I forgot to post it over on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Sadly, pretty much all of our broadcast news on this side of the pond -- aside from some of the business-specialty programs -- have blurred that distinction to a fair-the-well. When I want news with the opinions kept to the editorial section, I listen to BBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And FOX has NOT lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial. It never had it in the first place. It was formed to be as distorted as its "mainstream" competitors but with a 'reverse-of-the-coin' slant.
There are complaints about the BBC having to be balanced in its coverage, where covering both sides is more important than actually reporting facts. Scientists have given up appearing on their discussion programmes, as the BBC balances their coverage by giving wingnut extremists the same weight as academics with decades of experience in specialist fields. I've talked before about us currently having the worst aspects of liberal democracy, with the Brexit debate showcasing them in all their glory. Rather than liberalism giving us rights rooted in western philosophy and democracy guarding us against tyranny by the few, we have liberalism giving us rights that we take for granted, and democracy giving parrots the same weight as informed opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
There is some pushing back though. Some in the BBC are now arguing that truth and accuracy is more important than balance, that proven lies should not be given the same weight or airing as proven truth.
Our cable news and broadcasters do the same (without even touching on print media). This is because they have the mission of reaching a broad audience, making entertainment and profitability the priorities - even in the case of the technically non-commercial NPR. Contra Seamus, this contributes to a pervasive conservative slant by default. FOX is sui generis because it was designed from the outset with an ideological agenda rather than a strictly commercial one (which is just the 'submerged' ideology of capitalism).Quote:
There are complaints about the BBC having to be balanced in its coverage, where covering both sides is more important than actually reporting facts. Scientists have given up appearing on their discussion programmes, as the BBC balances their coverage by giving wingnut extremists the same weight as academics with decades of experience in specialist fields.
Returning to Brexit, the EU has released a couple of statements regarding temporary arrangements for road and air traffic in the case of No Deal. How do these affect the outlook?
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...-its-position/
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...he-parliament/
Dang. I missed the truth again. Some days I wonder how I manage to get from A to B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
BroMr. Fermanagh, we offer one another disagreement often enough without apparent friction. What blooms dolorous in those few instances you snap so bitterly?
I think this covers the permits problem, raised by the Haulliers Association. Which allows us to look at the customs problem. We don't have the infrastructure or personnel to enforce a customs regime. The trade minister says we will effectively throw open the borders (not enforce the regime at the border). Our agriculture minister says we will enforce the regime. As you can see, that's two ministers saying contradictory things. And in case you want to dismiss the agriculture minister as holding a lesser office, he's the bookmaker's favourite to be the next PM when the Tories stab May in the back. And the trade minister was the one who welcomed the EU-Japan trade deal in January, proclaiming that it will bring greater prosperity to the UK in years to come, forgetting we're leaving the EU in March (and thus being flamed by readers for being an effing idiot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
NB. throwing open the border kills our agriculture and manufacturing industry. The latter looks to be a lesser problem now, as it's leaving anyway due to the loss of JIT. The former is why the agriculture minister assured panicked farmers that we will be enforcing a customs regime. Which we don't have the infrastructure or manpower for. However, enforcing a customs regime results in delays. Which is problematic for produce that can spoil. Hence the food industry is warning against Brexit.
You have a tendency to respond to those points with which you disagree without acknowledging those areas of commonality that do exist; coupled with your propensity to post both voluminously and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone, you come over somewhat dismissive to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As a communication scholar, I am well aware that such may not be your intent (and I presume very probably is not), and I am virtually certain that you bear me no personal animus, but at 55 with 45 years as a political observer -- and NOT one of the self-chosen ignorati endlessly numbed with the latest talent discovery or reality show soap opera -- it does sometimes rub me the wrong way.
If often find myself taking week-long breaks from the backroom to adjust my own attitude. As an academic, the line between the personal and the intellectual is not as sharply drawn as it probably should be in this age of websites, posts, and tweets.
And please call me Seamus. If we are going to go for titles and the like it gets too stuffy, and mister's not the correct formal title anyway.
"Master" will be closer to the mark. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
This is a well-established personality trait of mine, but at least it isn't personal - if you read my posts it's clear I interact with everyone that way eventually. It's more readily available for me to address disagreement than agreement, and indeed it is to the disagreement I seek to elicit a treatment from the readers; I hope that my silence gets interpreted as agreement or a lack of comment. I might also be less intense here than if the Backroom existed offline, since textual interaction affords more time to think. I tend to elide smoothing niceties of the general sort offline, making my default posture by turns a markedly reserved or abrasive one. Since in my mind the Backroom is the place for 'unrestricted political conversations', that's what I conform my presentation toward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Usually if I feel I'm drafting a gratuitous post it's easier for me to refrain from posting at all than to modify my approach. I do at times try to post more graciously, but without feedback on that score I don't know how well I'm doing.
I will make an effort to accommodate your feelings, but barring a concussive blow to the head or other epiphany my personality won't change. The way I see it there are two ways to orient my reception: take my tone in stride if it's my standard, or call me out when I'm being more of a bitch than you are willing to tolerate.
I'm sorry.Quote:
If often find myself taking week-long breaks from the backroom to adjust my own attitude. As an academic, the line between the personal and the intellectual is not as sharply drawn as it probably should be in this age of websites, posts, and tweets.
Ironically, the less activity in a space there is the more active I become. This too manifests offline.Quote:
your propensity to post both voluminously
I hedge my evaluations much of the time though.Quote:
and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone
Pannonian, do you support the agenda of the www.theindependent.group ? It seems that it might be up your street, at a glance.
Kind of you, Gil', though it would be "doctor" in fact. UT - Austin Summer 1997. Hook 'em Horns!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Without a new centrist party, I would have voted Lib Dem. If TIG turns into a party fielding a candidate in my constituency, I'll vote for them in the next election, and possibly the one after that, to give the new party a chance to strike roots. TIG has the advantage over both the Tories and Labour in that the front bench would not be batshit insane, and I, an ordinary joe off the street, do not feel superior to them in intellect, as I do the Tory and Labour front benches. It's remarkable that the extremely low bar, do not be an idiot, already produces better talent than the cabinet and shadow cabinet. And do not be a :daisy: produces better policy than both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I meant like Master Kenobi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
What is the Single Market? Professor Michael Dougan explains the key facts
Britain under Thatcher was one of the main drivers of this.
With a month to go until Brexit, and the government having promised a substantial vote on the matter, May has again postponed the vote. How is this acceptable?
Indeed. And, as has been evidenced before in this thread, most of the pro-brexit voices would be entirely happy with Britain reverting to the connection it shared with Europe under the EEC. That's not the part that engendered the 'leave' votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Rory cites the ECJ as his main barrier. The ECJ is the arbitrator for EU law, which primarily means common market law. Someone said that the UK is generally a law-abiding country. Which shows in the ECJ's overwhelmingly pro-UK body of judgements (around 95% of disputes involving the UK going in favour of the UK). Rory and other Brexiteers don't like the idea that a non-British institution can rule on UK affairs, even if said institution is overwhelmingly pro-UK. Hence the idea of unilaterally reneging on bi and multilateral agreements/treaties. And resulting from that, hence the EU's determination to nail everything down in law and not taking the UK's word for it. I've read about this kind of behaviour before, but it was usually from the bad guys during the inter-war years, when the Axis countries unilaterally left international bodies because the latter weren't amenable to their ambitions. Britain, so I read, were the good guys, supporting international bodies and obeying international treaties and so on. I was proud of Britain's behaviour from that period, standing up to the unilateralist bad guys, and being part of the new international community after the war as well. So I'm confused by our behaviour today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In other good news, "Ministers are planning a hardship fund for Britons hardest hit by a no-deal Brexit with cash handouts for those left out of work, leaked document reveals".
in addition to the many fine qualities you have taken time to elucidate; it is also an activist court driving forward its guiding mandate of ever closer union.
it has a remit that is wider than single market regulation, and yet also when necessary very capable of reinterpreting the treaties in order to define new areas of activity as falling under the single market regs it rules.
it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.
Can you point me to examples of where the ECJ has driven ever closer union over the borders of the UK's sovereignty? Because I'll point you to the demands made by other countries as preconditions for trade agreements. In many cases, they want more work visas or even free movement which is one of May's red lines. In the case of the US, there is a massive list that amounts to dropping EU standards. How is this better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
seems like a good start:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...2.2017.1281652
or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010...egal-political
it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.
What is your view on ever closer union with the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
a swift diversion to another another tendentious question?
firstly:
1. let us be clear, that any attempt to infer a plan for political union with the US would be a little dishonest. there is no comparison to be made between the political ambitions of the EU and the trade ambitions of US.
2. in principle I don't have a problem with chlorine washed chicken or hormone grown beef on a food safety basis. this is mainly because unless an area of activity is subject to catastrophic harm, over a time period that cannot be easily dealt with within the normal political horizon, then I prefer regulating based on demonstrable harm rather than the precautionary principle. food standards is a separate point entirely, but there is no food safety issue.
Postponing the exit will only make it worse IMHO - this should not have happened in the first place. Leave properly, and in orderly fashion, as you desire, or stay. Why 2 years and still no order?
Because the whole thing is a sham.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
For a start, the referendum was meant to be a remain victory with the government using tactics employed against the Scottish referendum. Whilst economic arguments might have won out for Scotland to remain, they severely underestimated the leave campaign of promise everything paradise from fantasy land for everyone and anyone. David Cameron shot himself in the foot and went "Well, that's that" and left. The Brexit leaders Nigel and Boris went "Well, we did this for the Popularity. Brexit would suicide... nevermind the fact we're totally incompetent" and they ran off to do their own thing. This left the biggest poo-fest in the hands of someone who actually voted for remain to lead the country into Brexit, Theresa May. Theresa May has a pretty horrible track record in cabinet and made a terrible job of our police force, but because she was a conservative of the supposed law & order party, this flew past people blindly.
There is also the fundamental problem of "What is Brexit?". You see, the leave campaign was completely unaccountable and promised everything to everyone, with lies blazoned across their own campaign bus. So you got a mixture of people who want to join leave the EU but remain in the EFTA, People who want to keep everything great about the EU except the part about smelly east Europeans coming in, then you go others who believe Britain can revive the Empire with a "Commonwealth Union" of sorts, and others with an outdated view of Britains position on the world stage that somehow without the 'shackles of Europe' we will soar like an eagle and dominant the seas & trade for a thousand years. All the nuance ends up thrown out the regardless of what anyone actually voted for because "Brexit means Brexit" which the entire thing hijacked by radicals who just want to see the world burn.
So you have a leader who no one wants, who is left to deal with the biggest international crisis of our current time against her will and better judgement, in the probably one of the biggest toxic British political environment in a long time with a barely tied together coalition government with the lunatic fringe minority grouping of Northern Ireland who would like the government to somehow detach Northern Ireland from the Republic Ireland and slap it somewhere near the North of England with a land-border despite the better judgement of all Irish peoples on bothsides of the border, the European Union and the United Kingdom itself.
Personally, I would love to see a second referendum. Not because "hurr durr you voted remains and just want to steal our Brexit!" like the Brexiteers would like you to believe. It is because the whole thing is a total sham and we actually need to get some paddles to steer us out of poo-creek with our head screwed on. There needs to be a well-defined referendum with multiple options of what people want or willing to accept. There should be things like "Remain", "Theresa May's Deal". "EFTA", "Opt-Out of Everything/Hard Brexit". Then we should get to vote, then when the results come out, we actually got something, even if it is as a country choosing to have a Hard Brexit, it has been done and decided. Instead of this constant wishy-washy time-wastey nebulous "Brexit means Brexit" we have had to endure for the last two years of deals, no deals, promised-nonsense deals which certainly would not be agreed to, etc. If we want to vote to see everything burn as a country, let's actually do that, opposed to pouring petrol upon ourselves because people voted to have free money because it was on the side of a bus.