EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

The BBC does do a good job, and tries for balance. One thing that they do routinely get wrong (IMHO) is conflating balance with equal air time. They had a piece on vaccines and had both a "pro" and an "anti" spokesperson present. The balance should if anything be in line with the current evidence - so in this case not 50:50 but something closer to 95:5 if not 99:1 else the BBC does sometimes give an unfair platform to the insane fringes in the name of "fairness".

I've heard on feedback on the BBC state that they view if they get a broadly equal of demands to shut them down from both sides on an issue then they're probably doing it right.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The BBC does do a good job, and tries for balance. One thing that they do routinely get wrong (IMHO) is conflating balance with equal air time. They had a piece on vaccines and had both a "pro" and an "anti" spokesperson present. The balance should if anything be in line with the current evidence - so in this case not 50:50 but something closer to 95:5 if not 99:1 else the BBC does sometimes give an unfair platform to the insane fringes in the name of "fairness".

I've heard on feedback on the BBC state that they view if they get a broadly equal of demands to shut them down from both sides on an issue then they're probably doing it right.

~:smoking:

---

The BBC, and all credible UK media, should use David Attenborough as the benchmark for journalism. Not just Attenborough the naturalist, but Attenborough the head of BBC 2, who upheld the tradition of looking to educate and inform as well as entertain.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/econ...n/tw/te/bl/ed/

Hardy a friend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

https://www.economist.com/blogs/econ...n/tw/te/bl/ed/

Hardy a friend

---

What are you trying to say with that? Who is hardly a friend and what does that tell us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What are you trying to say with that? Who is hardly a friend and what does that tell us?

---

The economist is hardly a friend of team-Brexit. Not trying to tell anything other than that UK seems to be doing fine at the moment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What are you trying to say with that? Who is hardly a friend and what does that tell us?

---

It tells us that the BofE predicted bad things would happen in the short term unless measures were taken, so those measures were taken, and bad things were put off for long enough for the government to formulate a longer term approach so as to clarify matters for business. Unfortunately, while those measures were taken that may well damage Britain's economy in the longer term (which was considered acceptable to stave off immediate disaster), the government hasn't taken the window of grace to usefully formulate a longer term approach.

NB. on just about every measure of economic success, the UK ranks bottom of the major-major-ish economies. Despite the BofE's cash injection which won't happen again.

The EU has decided to add further demands - including anyone from the EU has indefinite leave to remain. Oh, and should pay into the EU budget on an ongoing basis. If that sounds like extortion... it isn't because...uh.

I find it... interesting that whilst loudly demanding the UK states what they want, the EU when told refuses (unsurprisingly) and then from time to time adds in further things that they could have done a year ago. Almost like it is a strategy to up the ante by demonstrating there's no longer the time to adequately prepare for no-deal and as a consequence demanding more for a deal of sorts.

Cuba's economy has also done really badly. A lot due to internal mismanagement - but the USA has also prevented effective trade which has had a massive effect. The effect of the EU on the UK is of course less, but the EU is not going to do anything to help the UK deal with the uncertainly.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The EU has decided to add further demands - including anyone from the EU has indefinite leave to remain. Oh, and should pay into the EU budget on an ongoing basis. If that sounds like extortion... it isn't because...uh.

I find it... interesting that whilst loudly demanding the UK states what they want, the EU when told refuses (unsurprisingly) and then from time to time adds in further things that they could have done a year ago. Almost like it is a strategy to up the ante by demonstrating there's no longer the time to adequately prepare for no-deal and as a consequence demanding more for a deal of sorts.

Cuba's economy has also done really badly. A lot due to internal mismanagement - but the USA has also prevented effective trade which has had a massive effect. The effect of the EU on the UK is of course less, but the EU is not going to do anything to help the UK deal with the uncertainly.

~:smoking

---

Any reason why they should?

None.

But then they can drop the crap about wanting a reasonable outcome and just be honest and say they only have one concern and that is preserving the EU against all threats - the largest of which is countries leaving: everyone has to see the "value" of doing business through the EU and not without the EU. The more that leave obviously the calculation would change. So if anyone dares to leave, ensure that their deal is as bad as humanly possible, with as many demands on their money and oversight of their rules as humanly possible. As you say - and why not? They are there to survive, not be "nice" or "fair".

I expected such an approach of ratcheting up the demands whilst blaming everything on the UK - including being inadequately prepared although how on earth they were supposed to prepare for the constant changes to the goalposts who knows.

There are even claims about how on earth would air traffic control work after the UK leaves the EU - as if there was no process prior to the EU in existence!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Any reason why they should?

---

Because if a net-payer leaves the other net payers will have to cough it up to pay Juncker's booze-bill and the childless Merkel's emotional instabilty, making the EU even more unpopular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

None.

But then they can drop the crap about wanting a reasonable outcome and just be honest and say they only have one concern and that is preserving the EU against all threats - the largest of which is countries leaving: everyone has to see the "value" of doing business through the EU and not without the EU. The more that leave obviously the calculation would change. So if anyone dares to leave, ensure that their deal is as bad as humanly possible, with as many demands on their money and oversight of their rules as humanly possible. As you say - and why not? They are there to survive, not be "nice" or "fair".

I expected such an approach of ratcheting up the demands whilst blaming everything on the UK - including being inadequately prepared although how on earth they were supposed to prepare for the constant changes to the goalposts who knows.

There are even claims about how on earth would air traffic control work after the UK leaves the EU - as if there was no process prior to the EU in existence!

~:smoking:

---

When we've left, all the major trading blocs will be looking to screw us over. The EU less than the others, as their market has more in common with ours than the others. But we'll be screwed by them all, as the Remain campaign said would happen. If you're outraged by the EU's actions, I assume you'll be even more outraged by the Americans and Chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Because if a net-payer leaves the other net payers will have to cough it up to pay Juncker's booze-bill and the childless Merkel's emotional instabilty, making the EU even more unpopular

---

You do realize that Ad hominem jibes do not constitute substantive argumentation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

When we've left, all the major trading blocs will be looking to screw us over. The EU less than the others, as their market has more in common with ours than the others. But we'll be screwed by them all, as the Remain campaign said would happen. If you're outraged by the EU's actions, I assume you'll be even more outraged by the Americans and Chinese.

---

Trading blocks generally do one thing - tariff-free trade of agreed products. Many countries and blocs are welcoming to new members. Y'know, such as the South Korea trade agreement with the EU, or the Canada with the EU and so on and so forth.

The Chinese use WTO rules. We pay them nothing to trade. I do not believe there is currently an arrangement with the USA. Could you enlighten me on the "outrage" I should be having? I've got over the 13 states leaving and Hong Kong was given back over 20 years ago.

I do not imagine there will be a gold carpet rolled out for us to join the TPP / NAFTA etc but given that economies have pretty much always benefited from reducing tariffs it is likely we will manage to have bilateral and multilateral trade agreements without needing to pay for their civil service and so on.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You do realize that Ad hominem jibes do not constitute substantive argumentation?

---

Oh common, everybody knows Juncker is an alcoholic and Merkel's shoulders are so cramped that it looks that she hanged in the wardrope all day. With her dumb expression on what some call a face. But that freakshow has power over me.

Just look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU <- that has power over us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Oh common, everybody knows Juncker is an alcoholic and Merkel's shoulders are so cramped that it looks that she hanged in the wardrope all day. With her dumb expression on what some call a face. But that freakshow has power over me.

Just look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU <- that has power over us

---

Shallow criticism. When it comes to refugees you demand more european values and with Juncker you criticize that he embodies them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Trading blocks generally do one thing - tariff-free trade of agreed products. Many countries and blocs are welcoming to new members. Y'know, such as the South Korea trade agreement with the EU, or the Canada with the EU and so on and so forth.

The Chinese use WTO rules. We pay them nothing to trade. I do not believe there is currently an arrangement with the USA. Could you enlighten me on the "outrage" I should be having? I've got over the 13 states leaving and Hong Kong was given back over 20 years ago.

I do not imagine there will be a gold carpet rolled out for us to join the TPP / NAFTA etc but given that economies have pretty much always benefited from reducing tariffs it is likely we will manage to have bilateral and multilateral trade agreements without needing to pay for their civil service and so on.

~:smoking:

---

The US usually begins with normalising agricultural standards. In our case, this means us moving towards their accepted standards, when our standards are more European. There is no chance the US will adjust their standards to meet ours, as we're far smaller. Gove has already raised this issue.

China has explicitly set a goal of being the most technologically advanced country in the world in 20 years time. One of their methods of attaining that is tech stealing, requiring investors to share their tech. That's one of the few areas where we currently have an edge. If China require that of any trade deal, are we going to refuse? NB. we're much smaller than they are.

In the US case, we've already seen them throw their weight around over Bombardier. We were tangentially involved but significantly affected, and when we raised the damage it was causing to us, the US promptly further raised their tariffs so as to do even more damage to us. Are they going to be any kinder and more generous to us in the future?

Edit: Oooh, missed the bit in bold. Are you aware that we need an estimated 10,000 staff to deal with the changed customs arrangements post-Brexit, of which we've recruited around 1000 so far at 100k a pop? And that even 10k extra staff won't be enough to patrol the borders, so we're looking for volunteers, and you can imagine what kind of person will volunteer for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Shallow criticism. When it comes to refugees you demand more european values and with Juncker you criticize that he embodies them...

---

I demand an absolute stop of immigration and regional aid as best as possible, quite something different. These immigrants of which only a handfull are refugees ought to be Merkel's problem and of nobody else, schaf it

I actually sheltered a Syrian gay, don't think of me as heartless, I just do that. Would Merkel do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I actually sheltered a Syrian gay, don't think of me as heartless, I just do that. Would Merkel do that?

---

She did, eventually. She sheltered hundreds of thousands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

She did, eventually. She sheltered hundreds of thousands.

---

She never sheltered anyone herself, I did, why, he was scared of the people there, refugees ya sure. Real refugees leave their problems behind, real refugees don't bring it with them. By now that plumb eastblock farmhorse with her dumb smile and empty eyes and cramped shoulders realised that she das nich schaft and wants to spread the little children of her barren womb over Europe because she can't build a city the size of Berlin for them. Merkel should just get a small dog and peanut-butter and let it lick like Lassie, and don't bother us with her emotional problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

She never sheltered anyone herself, I did, why, he was scared of the people there, refugees ya sure. Real refugees leave their problems behind, real refugees don't bring it with them. By now that plumb eastblock farmhorse with her dumb smile and empty eyes and cramped shoulders realised that she das nich schaft and wants to spread the little children of her barren womb over Europe because she can't build a city the size of Berlin for them. Merkel should just get a small dog and peanut-butter and let it lick like Lassie, and don't bother us with her emotional problems.

---

Constructive debate at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Constructive debate at its finest.

---

If it weren't for me that guy would be dead, want to have a constructive debate with death? What are you going to say to it, just curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

She never sheltered anyone herself, I did, why, he was scared of the people there, refugees ya sure.

---

It was her responsibility to admit them or not, she made her choice. If people hadn't been satisfied with this choice, they wouldn't have elected her again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

It was her responsibility to admit them or not, she made her choice. If people hadn't been satisfied with this choice, they wouldn't have elected her again.

---

Sure, but it should also be their problem because of it, not ours. Merkel got a million baby's and she should care for them herself.

edit, total genius, just create another country outside the EU, just create an island. Geenstijl (Dutch blog) is crazy enough to just do it, they have done some crazy things before, nothing really surprises me anymore with these guys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If it weren't for me that guy would be dead, want to have a constructive debate with death? What are you going to say to it, just curious

---

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Merkel. When you wax poetic about a person, it's usually Merkel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sure, but it should also be their problem because of it, not ours.

---

She was/is responsible for her country only. If other countries can't resist her overruling mind, it is the problem of their leaders. And again, if, for example, the Dutch weren't satisfied with their government bowing down to Merkel, they could have elected others. But they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

She was/is responsible for her country only. If other countries can't resist her overruling mind, it is the problem of their leaders. And again, if, for example, the Dutch weren't satisfied with their government bowing down to Merkel, they could have elected others. But they didn't.

---

They did, but nobody wants to work with them, they are persona no grata in the way of things. They kinda owe that to themselve. The second-biggest party here is downright anti-EU, as am I, but I am much more moderate with other things, contrary to what some think here of me I don't dislike muslims at all, I just dispise the multicultural left. Things are going to change though there is a new kid in town and he's going to eat up a lot of votes, especially with the higher-educated 30 40'ish libertarian crowd. They are not a friend of the eurocrats.

@Pan's, np. But Merkel simply is the EU, Germany is a very powerful country and Merkel calls the shots. All the rest except France just pretend to have something to say. It's because of the people Merkel let in that I had to help this guy out, where he lived wasn't safe anymore he got serious deaththeats every day. So I helped him, no problem. Never heard from him again I hope he's ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Merkel. When you wax poetic about a person, it's usually Merkel.

---

Merkel is Fragony's MUSE?

The Brexit department's own assessments say that, in a best case scenario with absolutely everything going as planned and everyone bowing down to the UK, the UK will be 2% worse off than the status quo. In the list of likely scenarios, this goes up to 8% worse off. Nearly every sector will be affected adversely. NB. This is the DExEU's own assessments.

It are the eurocrats that should be worried

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Brexit department's own assessments say that, in a best case scenario with absolutely everything going as planned and everyone bowing down to the UK, the UK will be 2% worse off than the status quo. In the list of likely scenarios, this goes up to 8% worse off. Nearly every sector will be affected adversely. NB. This is the DExEU's own assessments.

---

Good thing we live in a Sovereign state and not a PLC which has to optimise return to shareholders.

~:smoking: