Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

dePeatrick

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/licence-fee-bbc-could-become-a-subscription-service-says-director-general-g7wgh0vbk

Good way of keeping the BBC in line as it is felt that moving to a subscription model will reduce revenue...

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

'Getting Brexit done!' is a nonsense in terms of passing the current deal and it is all over. It is just a basic lie. The 'deal' is only the withdrawal agreement (WA) and leads onto the next step - a future relationship agreement - a trade agreement.

The future agreements are much more than just about trade and trade related.

Lots of previously mutual agreements have been moved under the common EU umbrella. They will cease to exist with a 'No Deal' or with a WA at the end of the transition period(s).
Schengen is an example. It was first agreed outside EU reign in 1985 by just 5 states and was first included in the EU by Amsterdam 1999 - with UK/RoI opt-outs (and since by some new member states not yet Schengen-ready)

Open Sky with all 9 freedoms of the air, airplane safety, 95% of UK long haul lorries traffic, REACH, ERASMUS, "Horizon Europe", much security cooperation, CFP (the 200 nm economic zones are from post UK's EEC membership, as are UN sustainability rules for fishing), EHIC, etc. etc.

It is literally hundreds of agreements that will and must be negotiated, agreed and included in the new UK 'top-level' association-agreement with the EU27.

In addition there are new areas like GDPR (data and privacy protection) that will be urgently needed for the UK to be able to participate in almost all future activities - 'Digital' is the name of any future 'game' - involving the EU/EEA countries.

Trade tariffs are the least of the UK's future Brexit problems (after the auto industry, farm export and much fishing export are no longer).

Lars

PS! And 'Level Playing Field' rules are partly moved to the PD, where the EU27 will be extremely firm in its negotiation positions - it is already 'deep red lines' for the EU.

murphaph

hotmail.com wrote: »

You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it.

It's not us leaving the EU after all.

This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.

Nobody is fighting any battles here. It's a discussion forum so we are discussing it. We all know it's a UK matter.

MrMusician18

murphaph wrote: »

Nobody is fighting any battles here. It's a discussion forum so we are discussing it. We all know it's a UK matter.

Could've fooled me tbh.

Field east

robinph wrote: »

It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.

Cannot agree with you. If we are back in the previous centenary , then yes I would be in agreement when the media ie TV station owners, newsreel and radio station owners were in total control as to what was fed to the public. But now we have got loads of platforms to communicate with the public and the traditional media have no control over. By way of example - look how Trump built up his followers on Facebook and completely by passing mainstream media.
The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.

Letwin_Larry

the Brexit virus seems to be spreading to the EU.
having infected UK politics, i hope the EU has the resilience to deal with this contagion and that they can contain it.

dePeatrick

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I hope the EU don't offer an extension until minutes before deadline, this would wreck UK markets and provide the much needed taste of no deal Brexit to Johnson

How so, I was under the impression that it had fortified member states?

prawnsambo

Field east wrote: »

The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.

That's not correct. They tried to explain why the soundbites from the leave campaign were wrong, but when you're explaining, you're losing. And the leave campaign presented a moving target. They just kept saying stuff that either wasn't true or so vague as to be meaningless. Look back at the likes of Gove saying that "of course we're not going to leave the SM" etc. So it was 'project fear' every time remain said something negative about leaving and reassuring nonsense when they were being questioned. They didn't define what leave meant, so they wouldn't have to defend a position and could just keep moving the goalposts. And the average voter didn't know much about the EU, never mind the SM or the CU. In fact there are MPs who to this day don't understand the CU.

Danzy

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I hope the EU don't offer an extension until minutes before deadline, this would wreck UK markets and provide the much needed taste of no deal Brexit to Johnson

The EU will do whatever it takes to facilitate him getting the deal passed or re-elected and then passing it.

They have no personal problem with him. Ideologically he would be centre right if he was a Commissioner.

Danzy

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the Brexit virus seems to be spreading to the EU.
having infected UK politics, i hope the EU has the resilience to deal with this contagion and that they can contain it.

More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.

prawnsambo

Danzy wrote: »

More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I took the OP's remark to be semi-jocularly referring to the stalemate in the EuCo about the length of the extension.

Strazdas

Danzy wrote: »

More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.

Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems.

A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

ALL European countries have been "at odds" (literally at war) with their neighbours for centuries. That's why most have the common sense to see the benefit of the EU!

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

Letwin_Larry

Strazdas wrote: »

Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems.

A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).

it's as if they are thinking, "if only we could free ourselves of the EU, then we could return to those glorious days of Empire"
kinda like Sean Quinn before he took to gambling on CFDs

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

I was reminded about that whilst reading those posts. It was (and is) such a sharp insight into British government; both permanent and elected.

Itssoeasy

prawnsambo wrote: »

I was reminded about that whilst reading those posts. It was (and is) such a sharp insight into British government; both permanent and elected.

Yes, minister and yes, prime minister are like a documentary not a tv series.

hotmail.com

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

The level of knowledge on these details would be poor among Remainers as well.

Anyway, the Leavers simply don't agree with you. They want Britain out and are willing to suffer the consequences. The arguments you're making about the ECHR isn't persuasive enough to change their minds I'm afraid.

Itssoeasy

Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal.
Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha.
Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations.
Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
Hacker: So why did the French go into it, then?
Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition.
Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans.
Sir Humphrey: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.
Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism! At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons.
Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in.
Hacker: Very sensible central location.
Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg? Minister, it's like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering!

I doubt this scene from yes minister is that wide of the mark even now.

serfboard

prawnsambo wrote: »

I was reminded about that whilst reading those posts. It was (and is) such a sharp insight into British government; both permanent and elected.

It's amazing how relevant Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are nowadays - it just shows that the mentality hasn't changed.

Leroy42

Field east wrote: »

Cannot agree with you. If we are back in the previous centenary , then yes I would be in agreement when the media ie TV station owners, newsreel and radio station owners were in total control as to what was fed to the public. But now we have got loads of platforms to communicate with the public and the traditional media have no control over. By way of example - look how Trump built up his followers on Facebook and completely by passing mainstream media.
The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.

Completely untrue. Trump was given massive free media coverage both before he announced his candidacy and even more so afterwards.

His entire speeches, including simply waiting (sometimes for over an hour with a camera pointed at a empty podium with only the Trump MAGA sign) were shown live and repeated.

That is even before we mention that Fox News are basically his mouth piece, 24/7 and the largest media TV newschannel in the US.

Back to brexit.

Tell me how

serfboard wrote: »

It's amazing how relevant Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are nowadays - it just shows that the mentality hasn't changed.

I think the representation shown in 'The Thick of it' is a truer reflection of modern day politics. Less clipped accents, lunches at the club and knighted permanent secretaries and more Phd advisers who need advice on society, profane ridden communications managers and 85% of effort going in to thinking about leaking, actually leaking or trying to hide/find the leak.

theological

Strazdas wrote: »

Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems.

A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no drawbacks to being a member of the European Union?

I'd understand if you said the benefits of being a member of the European Union are better than the drawbacks but it is incorrect to argue that one can't point out any flaw in the European Union especially when member states have pooled a lot of sovereignty. (I'd argue losing control over their own affairs but I'll use the more favourable language).

From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent.

This needs to be done. Either MPs need to work towards implementing the withdrawal bill or the UK needs a general election at the earliest opportunity.

robinph

theological wrote: »

From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent.

This needs to be done. Either MPs need to work towards implementing the withdrawal bill or the UK needs a general election at the earliest opportunity.

I'd say that parliament has done a pretty good job of implementing the opinion of the public as requested by at 52/48 poll where the request of the 52 wasn't defined. That its been on a knife edge of will they won't they for the last year is pretty much spot on with matching the will of the people where it is totally unknown what the public really wants.

MrMusician18

Strazdas wrote: »

Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems.

A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).

I don't think that is entirely true.. There is an EU directive on Family Reunification from third countries for example.

MrMusician18

theological wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no drawbacks to being a member of the European Union?

I'd understand if you said the benefits of being a member of the European Union are better than the drawbacks but it is incorrect to argue that one can't point out any flaw in the European Union especially when member states have pooled a lot of sovereignty. (I'd argue losing control over their own affairs but I'll use the more favourable language).

From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent.

This needs to be done. Either MPs need to work towards implementing the withdrawal bill or the UK needs a general election at the earliest opportunity.

Point out any failing or flaw of the EU and you'll be rounded on.

I have highlighted the failures of European migration policy and one clown here therefore declared that I wanted to see people drown in the Mediterranean.

That's what you are up against

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent.

The UK decided to "go a different way" long before the glorified opinion poll three years ago, with their opt-outs and rebate and other special terms&conditions. But (a) none of that was ever recognised as the generous gift it was from the EU to the UK; and (b) in the meantime, the UK chose to implement EU directives in ways that deviated from so many other member states, e.g. not restricting freedom of movement, or adding extra layers to food safety regulations.

As was mentioned above, the British people have been encouraged to blame the EU for British problems that were entirely created by the action - or inaction - of successive British governments.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that (as a whole) the British people have adjusted their view on this. The delay to "getting Brexit done" is 100% entirely and completely due to the MPs in Westminster failing to agree between themselves how to manage the process - British MPs elected by British voters in British constituencies according to a dysfunctional protocol that the British electorate refused to change in their last referendum.

GM228

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely.

The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question.

A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).

+1, a 2011 Eurobarometer report found 82% of UK respondents knew little or nothing about the EU, a 2015 report found UK citizens knew the least about the EU out of all the EU member states.

No doubt those numbers may have risen directly due to Brexit in recent time I would say they are still a good indication of the UKs knowledge of the EU.

Oh and on the point of the ECHR and the ECtHR I would guess many in the UK are of the opinion that it is just another charter and institution of the EU, little do they (probably) realise.

SeaBreezes

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Point out any failing or flaw of the EU and you'll be rounded on.

I have highlighted the failures of European migration policy and one clown here therefore declared that I wanted to see people drown in the Mediterranean.

That's what you are up against

I would be interested in the flaws... I've heard a lot of untruths about the problem with the EU but I imagine posters such as yourselves have your homework done and I'm genuinely curious. What are these disadvantages?

Enzokk

A penny for the thought of those Labour MPs that have declared they would back Johnson's deal,

Fears rise over post-Brexit workers’ rights and regulations

The British government is planning to diverge from the EU on regulation and workers’ rights after Brexit, despite its pledge to maintain a “level playing field” in prime minister Boris Johnson’s deal, according to an official paper shared by ministers this week.

The government paper drafted by Dexeu, the Brexit department, with input from Downing Street stated that the UK was open to significant divergence, even though Brussels is insisting on comparable regulatory provisions.

This paragraph seems to sum up why any Labour MP backing this deal should hang their head in shame,

In a passage that could alarm Labour MPs who have backed the Brexit bill, the leaked government document also said the drafting of workers’ rights and environmental protection commitments “leaves room for interpretation”.

The paper appears to contradict comments made by Mr Johnson on Wednesday when he said the UK was committed to “the highest possible standards” for workers’ rights and environmental standards.

Kate Hooey was on Newstalk this morning and said on Brexit she believed strongly that MPs should honour the referendum result and she was putting country over party in this case. I wish someone would ask her what about the above or the loss of GDP in Johnson's deal is putting the country over her party who is supposed to protect workers? More like ideology over sense in her case.

GM228

Leaked Dexeu report on workers rights showing a possible divergence on workers rights from those of the EU, is it really a surprise?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1187815316228919297?s=19

So much for the level playing field.

Edit: Enzokk beat me to it.