Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

demfad

Shelga wrote: »

https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1130820277187825664

Andrea Jenkyns is a complete moron. She falls apart at the most basic of questions, namely, could she name one other country who trades with the EU on WTO rules alone.

"Why do people care so much about trade with the EU anyway?? I want a global Britain!" she says, practically stamping her feet.

Erm, because 45% of the UK's total exports go to the EU, and you import 53% of your goods from them, you complete, utter, simpleton. It's kind of important. You are also willing to have trade agreements with 60 other countries be ripped up overnight.

The thick-headedness of 30-40% of the population of the UK still dumbfounds me so much, every day! The gift that keeps on giving...?

In the last few months there has been a million poured into online propaganda promoting 'WTO exit' (by Lynton Crosby).

These campaigns skillfully target influencers (politicans, journalists etc.) and target their influencers.

The lesson (IMO) is not that UK politicians or people are thick.
The lesson is that advanced western democracies can be subverted in this way.

A sign of truly understanding that lesson would be to immediately harden our democracy against such attack.

joe40

demfad wrote: »

In the last few months there has been a million poured into online propaganda promoting 'WTO exit' (by Lynton Crosby).

These campaigns skillfully target influencers (politicans, journalists etc.) and target their influencers.

The lesson (IMO) is not that UK politicians or people are thick.
The lesson is that advanced western democracies can be subverted in this way.

A sign of truly understanding that lesson would be to immediately harden our democracy against such attack.

Advanced democracies could not be subverted in this way, to such a large extent, unless large sections of the population were either thick or wilfully ignorant.
I get the sovereignty argument, even if economically damaging (Don't agree with it though) but the idea that there is all this untapped potential for global trade as soon as they leave the EU is mind boggling.

SleetAndSnow

https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-abandons-brexit-withdrawal-agreement-bill-after-cabinet-mutiny-2019-5?r=US&IR=T

Well.. there goes the WAB. She's really trying to cling on

Tell me how

demfad wrote: »

In the last few months there has been a million poured into online propaganda promoting 'WTO exit' (by Lynton Crosby).

These campaigns skillfully target influencers (politicans, journalists etc.) and target their influencers.

The lesson (IMO) is not that UK politicians or people are thick.
The lesson is that advanced western democracies can be subverted in this way.

A sign of truly understanding that lesson would be to immediately harden our democracy against such attack.

Actions taken to prevent such events happening or adequately prosecuting those responsible for engaging in them should be receiving high priority now as the longer it goes on, the more adept such people/groups will become at this.

It's a 21st century weapon and could be very harmful, if it hasn't been already.

Akrasia

Mezcita wrote: »

To me the problem with maintaining the status quo is that is does nothing to actually fix the problem. So I agree, the EU could agree to extension after extension in the hope that (eventually) the UK might come to their senses. But that does not fix the issue of the large trumpeting elephant in the room which is that a large number of people in the UK want out. Fair enough Brexit fans were misinformed before the last vote. They are also lied to on a regular basis by the likes of Farage and Johnson. But yet here we on a day when Farage is about to get a huge number of votes for an anti EU party.

The UK simply has to leave at this stage. For their sake but crucially for the long term integrity of the EU. At least if Johnson gets in he might actually choose a definitive position on this. Compared to May who tried to appease everyone unsuccessfully.

Let them bounce out, blame everyone except themselves for the repercussions and then eventually come back to the table when they realise what being an EU member actually got them. That type of scenario is the only way which politics in the UK would actually change for the better.

A large number of people who used to want brexit have changed their minds, including lots of some prominent members of the leave campaign and radio broadcasters like Nick Ferarri.

A large number of leave voters have also changed their mind, such that the leavers are so terrified of a 2nd referendum that they are determined to prevent it from happening.

The brexit vote was on the basis of lies and promises that could never be kept. Of the large number of people who now support a 'no deal' a lot of them do so on the basis of 'lets just get on with it'

Lets just get on with it is not a good enough reason to implement a radical change with immense social and economic consequences.

Any UK PM who crashes the UK out of the EU will go down in history for all the wrong reasons

LeinsterDub

Mezcita wrote: »

Let them bounce out, blame everyone except themselves for the repercussions and then eventually come back to the table when they realise what being an EU member actually got them. That type of scenario is the only way which politics in the UK would actually change for the better.

BoJo will have the opposite problem to May. Parliament wouldn't allow Brexit on May's deal . Parliament wont allow it on no deal either. I foresee at least one more extension for a GE.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Reminder of the charter

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

Don't be calling people morons

Akrasia

LeinsterDub wrote: »

BoJo will have the opposite problem to May. Parliament wouldn't allow Brexit on May's deal . Parliament wont allow it on no deal either. I foresee at least one more extension for a GE.

Parliament doesn't have to vote for no deal, they just have to fail to prevent it. Multiple failures of the UK parliament are the reason they are in this mess in the first place.

As long as the EU keep offering extensions, the parliament will probably keep kicking the can, but eventually, they'll have to either accept a deal, revoke A50, or crash out of the EU.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

BoJo will have the opposite problem to May. Parliament wouldn't allow Brexit on May's deal . Parliament wont allow it on no deal either. I foresee at least one more extension for a GE.

It's impossible to quantify exactly, but much of the Brexiteer rhetoric is simply a convenient vehicle for ambition. Johnson will contort himself into any form of creature you like as long as he gets your vote. Ditto Raab and Gove. When real politik kicks in, they'll essentially be in the same position as May. They know this but they don't care because they'll have got the boss's job at last.

CelticRambler

joe40 wrote: »

Advanced democracies could not be subverted in this way, to such a large extent, unless large sections of the population were either thick or wilfully ignorant.

Populations are made up of individuals, and it's a grave error of judgement to think that individuals need to be either thick or ignorant to be led towards making a decision already identified by a third party as the "ideal" outcome. There are plenty of books and videos explaining how subliminal cues in our environment trigger certain reactions in our "lizard brain" upon which we subsequently base a supposedly rational decision.

So I agree with demfad: an advanced democracy that purports to respect "the will of the people" is at risk of being undermined by external forces that exploit techniques of psychological manipulation en masse to achieve their preferred outcome.

In one sense, it's quite impressive how Dark Forces have been able to convince a significant number of white voters across the Western Hemisphere that the biggest threat to their freedom is a rag-tag bunch of Middle-Eastern religious zealots, sucking cash and power from voters who vociferously defend the very people manipulating them.

LeinsterDub

Akrasia wrote: »

Parliament doesn't have to vote for no deal, they just have to fail to prevent it. Multiple failures of the UK parliament are the reason they are in this mess in the first place.

As long as the EU keep offering extensions, the parliament will probably keep kicking the can, but eventually, they'll have to either accept a deal, revoke A50, or crash out of the EU.

I'm aware of that but if BoJo even suggests a no deal a motion of no confidence would be triggered in his government

demfad

Just an explainer as regards Brexit Party funding:

A permissable donor is defined under PPERA 2000 as donating over £500 and having electoral or company address in UK etc. with certain conditions attached etc. This information must be verified and recorded by the donee Party.

For example: If an individual donor donates £10,000 that individual MUST be on the UK electoral register.

If the person makes the £10k donation in one lump some or in 25 payments of £400 it doesn't matter: a donation of £10k has been made and the law around permissable donors apply.

PPERA 2000 does say that a donation of under £500 does not have to be recorded. THis was poorly written in a time when such donations were rare and the digital possibilities of mass donation and crowd funding were not understood.

But it doesn't matter for The Brexit Party to not record a payment of under £500 it must know that this is a once off payment.
By not recording ANY sums of under £500 the Brexit Party is disregarding the law on impermissable donors.

THe Brexit Party's entire funding structure is based around donations of £500 and under (that could be multiple). Only the PayPal username is known.
The donations structure has no defence against automation or multiple upload.

Also the 'Registered Supporter' data base is open. Does not require payment and does not have constraints on the fields.

Multiple users could be automatically uploaded from another database and multiple Paypal donations could be uploaded to match.

The fact that the EC has started investigating before the electionis significant.

Contrary to what Farage/Tice is claiming: anyone from any country can donate any amount up to £500 in one go with no checks

20silkcut

joe40 wrote: »

Advanced democracies could not be subverted in this way, to such a large extent, unless large sections of the population were either thick or wilfully ignorant.
I get the sovereignty argument, even if economically damaging (Don't agree with it though) but the idea that there is all this untapped potential for global trade as soon as they leave the EU is mind boggling.

Yes 80% of world trade is outside the EU.
80% of the worlds poverty is also outside the EU.

VinLieger

20silkcut wrote: »

Yes 80% of world trade is outside the EU.

Which the EU already has trade deals setup with quite favourable terms.


The UK will not be able to A replicate anything close to the same terms or B get the same amount of deals in place in time to avoid massive pressure on their economy.

Rjd2

Akrasia wrote: »

Boris could just as easily flip to becoming a born again remainer if he thinks this furthers his own career.
You don't necessarily always rely on those who got you into power to keep you there. He will play the numbers and decide on what is best for himself.

He's actually quite close to Rudd which might surprise some so that is not impossible. Their was an article in the Times I think which some of the remainers were more worried about Raab and other leavers, but with Johnson the feeling is he could be controlled as he has no loyalty to Brexit whatsoever.

Mezcita

Akrasia wrote: »

A large number of people who used to want brexit have changed their minds, including lots of some prominent members of the leave campaign and radio broadcasters like Nick Ferarri.

A large number of leave voters have also changed their mind, such that the leavers are so terrified of a 2nd referendum that they are determined to prevent it from happening.

The brexit vote was on the basis of lies and promises that could never be kept. Of the large number of people who now support a 'no deal' a lot of them do so on the basis of 'lets just get on with it'

Lets just get on with it is not a good enough reason to implement a radical change with immense social and economic consequences.

Any UK PM who crashes the UK out of the EU will go down in history for all the wrong reasons

But it's not like over the last few years there has been a massive shift in public opinion in leaving or staying. From the look of this leave is at around 40% while remain is 43%. That could easily be tipped the other way once the Brexit loving UK press ramp up the rhetoric in the event of a second vote.

My point is not to just get on with it. It's that things won't be magically fixed by the EU issue being put on the long finger indefinitely. I'm not saying it wouldn't be economically bad for them, it definitely would. But to me it's only that type of huge shock which would actually cause the average Brexit fan to question what exactly their government is doing to make their lives better. The disparity in wealth outside of London is actually staggering at times here.

The EU is a convenient scapegoat for UK politicians currently when they describe how life would be better for the average punter outside of the EU. Remove that villain and they have nobody left to blame but themselves. It also sends a very clear message to other countries that life outside the EU would not be a walk in the park.

demfad

joe40 wrote: »

Advanced democracies could not be subverted in this way, to such a large extent, unless large sections of the population were either thick or wilfully ignorant.
I get the sovereignty argument, even if economically damaging (Don't agree with it though) but the idea that there is all this untapped potential for global trade as soon as they leave the EU is mind boggling.

People dig to a certain depth for their information. But mainly, we (almost) all are informed conciously or unconciously by the people's opinion we trust and our own influencers.

Maybe a parent in early life/adulthood, then friends, journalists, opinion formers.

The question then is can our opinion formers be influenced?

You can make people do things through emotion. You can copper fasten this by giving a 'rational' argument to top it. Like an iceberg, the crux of the position is submerged and formed by emotion. We see the easily refuted 'rational' 10% and are incredulous. They don't care, they BELIEVE. They will keep rationalising no matter how you tear their argument down. What about this, what about that, what about the other etc.

I agree that austerity, lack of education, poor media make this a lot easier.

But inroads are still made into Sweden, Germany etc.

We need to reflect on how prepared we are should a massive dedicated campaign of dispruption target ourshores (eg in the case of the UK crashing out)

Leroy42

Mezcita wrote: »

Remove that villain and they have nobody left to blame but themselves. It also sends a very clear message to other countries that life outside the EU would not be a walk in the park.

Of course there will always be more villains. Probably the subvention to NI will be among the 1st. Then the Scots will be blamed for the constant complaining. Then US for not agreeing to a trade deal. Then back to the EU for imposing tariffs when all the UK wants is a FTA.

And on, and on, and on it will go. The only thing we can be certain of is that they will never blame themselves.

demfad

Reports of serious voter registration ireegularities (supression) of EU Citizens. Not appearing on registers, crossed off voting papers, having to ring officials to confirm eligibility etc. Jolyan Maugham of 'The Good Law Project' has set up an advice line etc.

Very serious indeed if true

#deniedmyvote trending in UK.

An Ciarraioch

demfad wrote: »

Reports of serious voter registration ireegularities (supression) of EU Citizens. Not appearing on registers, crossed off voting papers, having to ring officials to confirm eligibility etc. Jolyan Maugham of 'The Good Law Project' has set up an advice line etc.

Very serious indeed if true

#deniedmyvote trending in UK.

Full article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/23/eu-citizens-denied-vote-european-election-polling-booths-admin-errors

Zubeneschamali

Mezcita wrote: »

My point is not to just get on with it. It's that things won't be magically fixed by the EU issue being put on the long finger indefinitely.

Things won't be fixed if they just remain. But things will get rapidly and substantially worse if they leave, and catastrophically worse if they leave with no deal.

Seth Brundle

More spin from Katya...
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1131458539598372864

Strazdas

Seth Brundle wrote: »

More spin from Katya...
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1131458539598372864

Most Eurosceptics on the continent simply want reform of the EU though. The hard Brexiteers are unique in wanting to take a sledgehammer to the entire EU and to destroy it (I would argue they are the most extreme Eurosceptics / Europhobes of all......they don't believe in any European identity).

Faugheen

Wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if TM called a general election, get it through Parliament, then resigned a week later, leaving the Tories with no leader and no plan.

It would be the least they all deserve for the absolute shambles they, and I mean all of them, have left Brexit in.

peddlelies

demfad wrote: »

They don't care, they BELIEVE. They will keep rationalising no matter how you tear their argument down. What about this, what about that, what about the other etc.

I agree that austerity, lack of education, poor media make this a lot easier.

But inroads are still made into Sweden, Germany etc.

Very ironic isn't it, how easily people are duped. The Russian collusion narrative springs to mind.

VinLieger

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Full article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/23/eu-citizens-denied-vote-european-election-polling-booths-admin-errors

It really reads like some councils might have been doing this intentionally if the forms were hand delivered on May 2nd but not stamped until May 16th.

Would love to see an analysis after this of what parties controlled the councils where this has occurred.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course there will always be more villains. Probably the subvention to NI will be among the 1st. Then the Scots will be blamed for the constant complaining. Then US for not agreeing to a trade deal. Then back to the EU for imposing tariffs when all the UK wants is a FTA.

And on, and on, and on it will go. The only thing we can be certain of is that they will never blame themselves.

Exactly. The whole idea that they leave, and then realise the error of their ways is to completely miss the kinds of people we are dealing with here.

If the UK leaves without a deal or with a hard brexit negotiated by whoever the future PM is, and their economy crashes, they're not going to blame themselves. The brexiteers will blame everyone else, and the remainers will blame the brexiteers. It would be extremely divisive, much more divisive than simply having a 2nd referendum on either May's deal or remain.

The hardcore brexiteers will never be happy with any outcome. If Brexit is cancelled, they'll be angry. If Brexit is delivered but in a form they don't like, they'll be mad, if Brexit is delivered under 'wto terms' they'll be mad that the rest of the world are trying to sabbotage the UK economy by giving them exactly what they asked for.

Enzokk

demfad wrote: »

Just an explainer as regards Brexit Party funding:

A permissable donor is defined under PPERA 2000 as donating over £500 and having electoral or company address in UK etc. with certain conditions attached etc. This information must be verified and recorded by the donee Party.

For example: If an individual donor donates £10,000 that individual MUST be on the UK electoral register.

If the person makes the £10k donation in one lump some or in 25 payments of £400 it doesn't matter: a donation of £10k has been made and the law around permissable donors apply.

PPERA 2000 does say that a donation of under £500 does not have to be recorded. THis was poorly written in a time when such donations were rare and the digital possibilities of mass donation and crowd funding were not understood.

But it doesn't matter for The Brexit Party to not record a payment of under £500 it must know that this is a once off payment.
By not recording ANY sums of under £500 the Brexit Party is disregarding the law on impermissable donors.

THe Brexit Party's entire funding structure is based around donations of £500 and under (that could be multiple). Only the PayPal username is known.
The donations structure has no defence against automation or multiple upload.

Also the 'Registered Supporter' data base is open. Does not require payment and does not have constraints on the fields.

Multiple users could be automatically uploaded from another database and multiple Paypal donations could be uploaded to match.

The fact that the EC has started investigating before the electionis significant.

Contrary to what Farage/Tice is claiming: anyone from any country can donate any amount up to £500 in one go with no checks

So it comes down to, you can receive donations of less than £500 from overseas, but you are not supposed to as you should put checks in place so it doesn't happen?

Either way the rules and the EC seems so out of date. At the very least there should have been a clarification to state what the rules are and what the responsibility of the parties or individuals are. At the moment it seems like they will know that donations have come from overseas but because it is less than £500 they cannot do anything about it. It is legal but illegal is somehow not the way things should be.

PokeHerKing

Faugheen wrote: »

Wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if TM called a general election, get it through Parliament, then resigned a week later, leaving the Tories with no leader and no plan.

It would be the least they all deserve for the absolute shambles they, and I mean all of them, have left Brexit in.

I believe that's currently how the Tories stand.

funkey_monkey

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I believe that's currently how the Tories stand.

Does the deputy (Liddington?) not take over in the interim period?