Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Pac1Man

That's my favourite title change so far. Good work.

FrancieBrady

Anita Blow wrote: »

All the IRA/Unionist talk is a bit irrelevant so a funny story this evening to get back on topic- UKIP Welsh MP, who campaigned for Brexit, has asked First Minister of Wales to ask Ireland to draw down EU funds to help pay for Welsh motorways after Brexit.
Carwyn Jones replied

amazing that these people managed to convince so many to back Brexit.

Sand

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38143122If those civil servants were on £33K a year then it would be a billion pounds a year.

Also if the staff are only needed for the trade negotiations then they've no incentive to do a quick job.

A lot more than that - on top of wages staff need to be insured, regulated, need facilities, desks, hardware, tech support, HR, etc, etc. The total cost of having someone on the payroll can be a couple of times their actual salary.

The important thing to remember is this is not necessarily a bad thing overall - London is going to lose a lot of jobs and investment with Brexit. Increased government 'make work' like Brexit itself may be able to take up some of the slack.

The real cost of Brexit is that with the UK busily punching itself in the face for the next 10 years, they're going to have a hard time focusing on anything else productive. Brexit is simply going to be the single biggest problem a UK government has for a decade or more. And its completely needless and self inflicted. I have to shake my head when I see apparently sane people who can see Brexit is a disaster on British TV saying they accept the referendum result and just want to secure the best possible Brexit. As if Brexit is a reasonable outcome to be managed rather than an outbreak of mass stupidity.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

amazing that these people managed to convince so many to back Brexit.

Just goes to demonstrate the absolute fantasists that were behind the Leave campaign. Honestly, the UK needs to be studied for the next few years because its going to be fascinating watching it slowly dawn on those who voted Leave that actually there was a little more to this whole EU thing than what the Sun and the Daily Mail told them.

luckyboy

Sand wrote: »

Brexit is simply going to be the single biggest problem a UK government has for a decade or more. And its completely needless and self inflicted. I have to shake my head when I see apparently sane people who can see Brexit is a disaster on British TV saying they accept the referendum result and just want to secure the best possible Brexit. As if Brexit is a reasonable outcome to be managed rather than an outbreak of mass stupidity.



Just goes to demonstrate the absolute fantasists that were behind the Leave campaign. Honestly, the UK needs to be studied for the next few years because its going to be fascinating watching it slowly dawn on those who voted Leave that actually there was a little more to this whole EU thing than what the Sun and the Daily Mail told them.

Just on that last point implying Leave voters swallowed anti-EU propaganda in the Sun and Daily Mail, why do you cite only those newspapers? The Guardian, The Mail on Sunday, The Times, The Independent, and the Daily Mirror all backed Remain. Is it not also possible that the Remain vote was bolstered by the pro-EU rhetoric in those papers? Why attribute media influence only to the winning side and assume that this made the difference?

Sand

luckyboy wrote: »

Just on that last point implying Leave voters swallowed anti-EU propaganda in the Sun and Daily Mail, why do you cite only those newspapers? The Guardian, The Mail on Sunday, The Times, The Independent, and the Daily Mirror all backed Remain. Is it not also possible that the Remain vote was bolstered by the pro-EU rhetoric in those papers? Why attribute media influence only to the winning side and assume that this made the difference?

Oh, you misunderstand - I highlight the Sun and the Daily Mail because they were exceptionally untruthful and malicious in their portrayal of the EU over decades. Not their influence in the 12 weeks prior to the vote itself.

FrancieBrady

Sand wrote: »

Oh, you misunderstand - I highlight the Sun and the Daily Mail because they were exceptionally untruthful and malicious in their portrayal of the EU over decades. Not their influence in the 12 weeks prior to the vote itself.

Absolutely this. It was the cumulative effect of mindless and often xenophobic rants by a lowest common denominator media and the shocking inability of Cameron's Tories and a distracted Labour party to counter it. I'm not sure on reflection and reading some of the posts here if a reasoned argument would have been heard never mind understood. But it wasn't offered nonetheless.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Deloitte, the big four consulting firm?

If they told me I needed 30,000 staff for a project, I'd budget for 500.

You don't dish potential clients they way they dished the UK govt. Ergo they weren't touting for business.
The photographed notes on Brexit said it all. They were the fantasy, the Deloute report was more like the reality. The UK govt think these negotiations are a game of poker. The enormity and complexity of the task means it must be a collaborative process. The secrecy means the UK govt have and will continue to run into unforseen issues.

steddyeddy

Unionists at it again. Arlene Foster makes the claim that the UK wants to extend their border to Ireland. Arelene's not the brightest tool in the box.

Northern Ireland's First Minister makes the claim on an upcoming episode of the BBC programme Hardtalk.
Arlene Foster says the UK is considering moving its border to include the Republic, as way to 'protect the two islands against terrorism.'

Northern Ireland's First Minister was keen to stress that the government in the Republic were not yet in negotiations, but were merely discussing it with their British and Northern Irish counterparts.

She also said that the move was being discussed before the summer's Brexit vote initiated Britain's move away from the European Union.

"They were speaking about this long before the European Union exit vote was taken. How do we protect ourselves as two islands against terrorism?" she asked on the BBC show.

"How do we protect ourselves in other ways? And the way they were talking about was using the common travel area and having that special relationship recognised by working very closely together.

"Of course this will have to be accepted by the other member states in Europe.

"We can't enter into negotiations into any of this until Article 50 is triggered and the Republic's government is very keen to point out that they are not in negotiation at the moment they are in discussion."

Foster added that she would be 'concerned' if the UK's plans for leaving the EU had been finalised, given the fact that they were still negotiating over the implications for Northern Ireland.

"It should be no surprise to anyone that the UK has not yet finalised its plans for leaving the EU, indeed if they had I would be concerned, given that they are in detailed discussions with us to help shape the plan," insisted Foster.

"They are still at the information-gathering and analysis stage which is a huge task covering many areas of government.

"We are currently feeding our own assessment of the issues into this process through the Joint Ministerial Committee and extensive bi-lateral engagement between officials."

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

You don't dish potential clients they way they dished the UK govt. Ergo they weren't touting for business.
The photographed notes on Brexit said it all. They were the fantasy, the Deloute report was more like the reality. The UK govt think these negotiations are a game of poker. The enormity and complexity of the task means it must be a collaborative process. The secrecy means the UK govt have and will continue to run into unforseen issues.

maybe they should ask you, you seem to be an expert :rolleyes:

Deloitte are setting budget expectations, it is what consultancy companies do. The bigger the budget, the more potential revenue for them.

FYI, the eu employ around 33,000 people. will the UK really need to employ a similar number just to negotiate trade agreements?

catbear

She also said that the move was being discussed before the summer's Brexit vote initiated Britain's move away from the European Union.

Yip, Britain moving away from Ireland.

"How do we protect ourselves in other ways? And the way they were talking about was using the common travel area and having that special relationship recognised by working very closely together.

The only potential threat of terrorism will come from her community so I totally get why Britain will pull up the drawbridge.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe they should ask you, you seem to be an expert :rolleyes:

Deloitte are setting budget expectations, it is what consultancy companies do. The bigger the budget, the more potential revenue for them.

Deloitte are the experts and again, they are not potential clients: Why ridicule a potential client calling them "chaotic and dysfucntional" if they were touting for business as May claimed?

FYI, the eu employ around 33,000 people. will the UK really need to employ a similar number just to negotiate trade agreements?

You don't get it. Just look at one aspect: The great Repeal Bill that needs to be ready by April 2019:

According to this report Whitehall are absolutely swamped with this alone.

Legal experts across the civil service are being forced to study tens of thousands of pages of EU law dating back over four decades, according to The Times. This is estimated to include over 40,000 legal acts, 15,000 court verdicts, and 62,000 international standards. This means that there could be over 120,000 pieces of EU law that require either amendment or total transposition. The task is absolutely mammoth.

This is just the British legislation needed to replace the 1972 EEC Act. This is not a part of the EU negotiation and that is before touching on any 'Trade Deal'.

Also the EU27 will need time to reply to the UK's Article 50 letter (3 months) and time to ratify the negotiation 6 months so Britain has effectively 15 months to negotiate the divorce, draft the repeal act, negotiate a trade deal (normally 7 years) and probably negotiate a transition deal.

It will take any army. Perhaps you though they could send James Bond, and a bottle of Martini to the negotiations?

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Deloitte are the experts and again, they are not potential clients: Why ridicule a potential client calling them "chaotic and dysfucntional" if they were touting for business as May claimed?

Deloittes are not the experts (no one is, this has never been done before), they are touting for business.

You have obviously never engaged a top consulting firm before, this is what they do.

demfad wrote: »

You don't get it. Just look at one aspect: The great Repeal Bill that needs to be ready by April 2019:

According to this report Whitehall are absolutely swamped with this alone.

This is just the British legislation needed to replace the 1972 EEC Act. This is not a part of the EU negotiation and that is before touching on any 'Trade Deal'.

Also the EU27 will need time to reply to the UK's Article 50 letter (3 months) and time to ratify the negotiation 6 months so Britain has effectively 15 months to negotiate the divorce, draft the repeal act, negotiate a trade deal (normally 7 years) and probably negotiate a transition deal.

I do get it, it is a mammoth task. I just think Deloitte's figures need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

demfad wrote: »

It will take any army. Perhaps you though they could send James Bond, and a bottle of Martini to the negotiations?

nice petty little remark there. Well done

A Little Pony

catbear wrote: »

She also said that the move was being discussed before the summer's Brexit vote initiated Britain's move away from the European Union.

Yip, Britain moving away from Ireland.

"How do we protect ourselves in other ways? And the way they were talking about was using the common travel area and having that special relationship recognised by working very closely together.

The only potential threat of terrorism will come from her community so I totally get why Britain will pull up the drawbridge.

We did it before and who knows about the future

A Little Pony

Sand wrote: »

luckyboy wrote: »

Just on that last point implying Leave voters swallowed anti-EU propaganda in the Sun and Daily Mail, why do you cite only those newspapers? The Guardian, The Mail on Sunday, The Times, The Independent, and the Daily Mirror all backed Remain. Is it not also possible that the Remain vote was bolstered by the pro-EU rhetoric in those papers? Why attribute media influence only to the winning side and assume that this made the difference?

Oh, you misunderstand - I highlight the Sun and the Daily Mail because they were exceptionally untruthful and malicious in their portrayal of the EU over decades. Not their influence in the 12 weeks prior to the vote itself.

I think this is a flawed argument. The Guardian and plenty of other papers supported the Remain side. It is not the fault of the Daily Mail that the people voted to leave. Just how neutral was the mainstream media too? I think this belief that the Daily Mail swung the election is not correct.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe they should ask you, you seem to be an expert :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

nice petty little remark there. Well done

:rolleyes:

MrPudding

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think this is a flawed argument. The Guardian and plenty of other papers supported the Remain side. It is not the fault of the Daily Mail that the people voted to leave. Just how neutral was the mainstream media too? I think this belief that the Daily Mail swung the election is not correct.

I don't think it is as simple as you are trying to say it is, and this has already been pointed out, in the post you quote in fact. The first thing, those poisonous rags, The Sun and the Mail, have very high circulations, they are read by a very large number of people. In the run-up to the vote there were lies and misinformation every day. Now, you are quite right, there were other media outlet on the remain side, and they were putting their side forward, albeit to a smaller proportion of the population, but that isn't the point. Whilst the Sun and Mail may have had some impact on the run-up to the vote, the bigger impact is from their decades long campaign to poison the population against the EU. That is where the damage was done. I don't believe the EU is perfect, and I genuinely believe it needs to reform to survive, but the utter lies and misinformation that has been promulgated by the like of these two rags is breathtaking. The EU Commission had to set up a website to correct the lies and myths. It a shame a few more people didn't look at it before idiotically believe everything they were fed. Added to this, numerous UK governments have also used the EU as an excuse for their own failings. Very hard for the pro-remain side to fight against that.

MrP

luckyboy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely this. It was the cumulative effect of mindless and often xenophobic rants by a lowest common denominator media and the shocking inability of Cameron's Tories and a distracted Labour party to counter it. I'm not sure on reflection and reading some of the posts here if a reasoned argument would have been heard never mind understood. But it wasn't offered nonetheless.

Were those "mindless and often xenophobic rants" not simply a printed reflection of the misgivings of a large section of the UK electorate who - prior to June 23rd - had not been consulted on matters EU since the 1975 vote on whether to remain in the Common Market? In other words, were those newspapers (and others - Boris Johnson made his name writing articles hostile to the EU in the Daily Telegraph) not simply giving voice to the constituency who may have been thinking, post-1992 in particular, "Hang on a minute! Did we sign up for this?"

Remember, the UK is an island nation that values its independence. Having been rejected (humiliated?) by De Gaulle in 1963, it joined the Common Market at what turned out to be a point of uncommon weakness in 1973. The 1970s were a tough decade for the UK. As would later be seen with the various opt outs on issues like the Social Chapter and the single currency, the U.K. was always something of a halfhearted member. Sometimes, as with a struggling marriage, it can be better for all parties in the long run, if they go their separate ways ...

One very telling factor, I felt, was that during the recent referendum campaign, even the Remain side - David Cameron in particular - acknowledged that "If we weren't already in the EU, we wouldn't be looking to join". It was a strange way to try to convince undecided voters by pitching a message of "None of us particularly like the EU but to leave would be a huge risk", as Cameron effectively did ...

ambro25

luckyboy wrote: »

Just on that last point implying Leave voters swallowed anti-EU propaganda in the Sun and Daily Mail, why do you cite only those newspapers?

Statistical frequency?

Just a SWAG (Simple Wild-Assed Guess) :pac:

demfad

I think western nations have to consider just how much influence outside agents
have had on recent elections.

This article demonstrates how Russian Bots both human and computer influenced trending topics and fake news in the US election and in Brexit. Thanking/retweeting pro Trump/Brexit stories (e.g from the mail. sun. express etc.) until they trended and latching themselves onto trigger accounts like Trumps campaign managers and many alt-right accounts.

Here's an example from buzzfeed of huge fake news sites originating from Macedonia.

Here's Obamas take on fake news.

Germany are taking action before general elections there.

A Little Pony

MrPudding wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think this is a flawed argument. The Guardian and plenty of other papers supported the Remain side. It is not the fault of the Daily Mail that the people voted to leave. Just how neutral was the mainstream media too? I think this belief that the Daily Mail swung the election is not correct.

I don't think it is as simple as you are trying to say it is, and this has already been pointed out, in the post you quote in fact. The first thing, those poisonous rags, The Sun and the Mail, have very high circulations, they are read by a very large number of people. In the run-up to the vote there were lies and misinformation every day. Now, you are quite right, there were other media outlet on the remain side, and they were putting their side forward, albeit to a smaller proportion of the population, but that isn't the point. Whilst the Sun and Mail may have had some impact on the run-up to the vote, the bigger impact is from their decades long campaign to poison the population against the EU. That is where the damage was done. I don't believe the EU is perfect, and I genuinely believe it needs to reform to survive, but the utter lies and misinformation that has been promulgated by the like of these two rags is breathtaking. The EU Commission had to set up a website to correct the lies and myths. It a shame a few more people didn't look at it before idiotically believe everything they were fed.  Added to this, numerous UK governments have also used the EU as an excuse for their own failings. Very hard for the pro-remain side to fight against that.

MrP

People read the daily mail because they either agree with the papers views or enjoy the paper. It isn't the daily mail fault that more people agree with them than the left wing Guardian.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

People read the daily mail because they either agree with the papers views or enjoy the paper. It isn't the daily mail fault that more people agree with them than the left wing Guardian.

Interesting logic. Equivalent to It isn't the fault of the propaganda that people believe it essentially.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

People read the daily mail because they either agree with the papers views or enjoy the paper. It isn't the daily mail fault that more people agree with them than the left wing Guardian.

The Daily Mail educated where the quotient that won the referendum.
Those who mumble about 'control' and 'independence'.

A Little Pony

Christy42 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

People read the daily mail because they either agree with the papers views or enjoy the paper. It isn't the daily mail fault that more people agree with them than the left wing Guardian.

Interesting logic. Equivalent to It isn't the fault of the propaganda that people believe it essentially.

No one is forced to read the Guardian or the Daily Mail. I can make sure I don't read the websites of either paper or buy either paper. People read them because they want to read them, mostly because they agree with the political views of that paper.

Are the papers biased and have a political agenda? Absolutely, it is called the real world. Everyone has an agenda, a political viewpoint and how they see the world.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

FYI, the eu employ around 33,000 people. will the UK really need to employ a similar number just to negotiate trade agreements?

The UK will have to look at all the laws they want to keep and those they want to throw away, because they are taking control back. Then they need to negotiate with the EU on their new deal. At the same time they will have to negotiate new trade deals with all the countries that the EU has deals (Canada and South Korea etc.) and they have to then start negotiations with other countries that the EU is in negotiation with as well.

I would guess that the 7 year negotiated Canada deal will not just be replicated as the terms for the deal has changed (size of market for Canada to trade with has at least, so I am sure they will be looking for more favourable conditions in the deal). The UK doesn't have the EU size market so any terms would need to be re-negotiated.

So if the EU has 33 000 employees I can see how the UK will need just as much for trade deals alone. You get the feeling that some feel that these complicated deals are as easy as negotiating to buy a car. You go in and say what you want and wait for an answer, when I am sure there are many factors that need to be resolved and cleared up between the countries before a trade deal can be concluded.

MrPudding

A Little Pony wrote: »

It isn't the daily mail fault that more people agree with them than the left wing Guardian.

I agree, but surely they are to blame for knowingly and intentionally printing lies...?

MrP

Sand

A Little Pony wrote: »

People read the daily mail because they either agree with the papers views or enjoy the paper. It isn't the daily mail fault that more people agree with them than the left wing Guardian.

So people like being lied too, and its not the fault of the liar that they do. That's a very cynical and amoral take on things.

Junkyard Tom

It was funny to hear Arlene Foster saying that people travelling from the north to Britain having to produce their passports would be a crossing of her 'red line'. As if she has any power to tell the British what to do.

Also the Irish government should refuse point blank to police immigration at our ports and airports for the British which would probably force them to cross Arlene's red line. Imagine unionists having to prove their nationality when entering Britain?

Schadenfreude.

:pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It was funny to hear Arlene Foster saying that people travelling from the north to Britain having to produce their passports would be a crossing of her 'red line'. As if she has any power to tell the British what to do.

So if people from the EU can't get to the UK directly they they can come to Ireland because of EU free travel and then go to the UK because of the Common Travel Area ?

I love it when a plan comes together
- Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith

Capt'n Midnight

From the Support the wall... thread

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

We could just align ourselves with Putin and annex NI.
But do we actually want it back...

Can we have Scotland instead

Agreed.

qft

Junkyard Tom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So if people from the EU can't get to the UK directly they they can come to Ireland because of EU free travel and then go to the UK because of the Common Travel Area ?

The CTA is an Irish-British arrangement. The most efficacious method of policing immigration to the UK would be screening people at British air and sea ports meaning that coming to Ireland as a back door to Britain would be a waste of time. Unfortunately for special snowflake unionists that would require them to produce their ID when travelling to Britain the poor lambs.