Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia · 15-06-2021 8:01am

Strazdas wrote: »

The British position is full of contradictions. They claimed they didn't even need the EU and the Brexit press said that No Deal was by far the most preferable outcome (as the UK didn't need a trade deal). So how they can spin future problems for Britain as being 'caused' by the EU is going to be mighty tricky for them.

It’s not though, the public are used to watching movies and tv shows with glaring plot holes and inconsistencies, we are perfectly capable of ignoring in the suspension of disbelief if the overall narrative is something we feel we can root for

The media will just declare themselves to be telling the truth and they will get away with it if it is what the public expect to hear, just like the trumpist cohort can just declare any news they don’t like to be ‘fake news’ and it just gets accepted by their supporters

The brexiteers and Tory press were always going to scapegoat the EU for every post Brexit problem all the while claiming that the EU is weak and Britain is strong.

They will spin the news to unite the pro Brexit public against the common enemy while dividing the opposition against each other through identity politics

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 8:12am

Looks like Australia did not walk away - so new trade agreement - first that is not just an EU roll over.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57478412

UK and Australia agree broad terms of trade deal

The broad terms of a trade deal between the UK and Australia have been agreed, the BBC understands, with a formal announcement expected on Tuesday.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian PM Scott Morrison agreed the deal over dinner at Downing Street.

CelticRambler · 15-06-2021 8:17am

Time to move on, folks. Today's celebration of Britain's buccaneering success will the announcement of the conclusion of the behind-closed-doors negotiation of an Australia-UK trade deal, one which was so important Johnson had to snub parliament and deliver his lockdown prolongation directly to the press so that he could have dinner with the Australian PM.

schmoo2k · 15-06-2021 8:19am

Was this "expeditated" to ensure that reentering the common market is now not an option?

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 8:21am

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s not though, the public are used to watching movies and tv shows with glaring plot holes and inconsistencies, we are perfectly capable of ignoring in the suspension of disbelief if the overall narrative is something we feel we can root for

The media will just declare themselves to be telling the truth and they will get away with it if it is what the public expect to hear, just like the trumpist cohort can just declare any news they don’t like to be ‘fake news’ and it just gets accepted by their supporters . . .

The thing is, the success of this strategy depends on their supporters remaining sufficiently numerous to constitute an election-winning bloc.

We are all capable of believing complete shîte, but when it's obvious shîte you need some kind of motivation to keep believing it. People choose to believe Brexiter shîte because they like the Brexiter narrative that accompanies it, of a proud resurgent Britain which will flourish globally once freed from the pettifogging embrace of Europe.

They'll keep beleiving that for as long as they can because it's an attractive belief; what British person wouldn't want to believe in the flourishing of Britain. But its much easier to believe that as a future promise than it is when it's suppose to be a present reality. An awful lot of people in the fishing industry who supported Brexit no longer do, because they can't reconcile that attractive belief with the lived experience of Brexit. The same is true of more and more farmers. And, as the ripples of Brexit spread, more and more people will find themselves in this position - small business owners, then small business employees. And so on.

I think the Brexiter strategy will be to replace optimistic belief in the flourishing of Britain with angry belief in the malice of the EU as the cause of Britain's failure to flourish. But that will be a difficult sell because the angry, bitter belief is much less attractive than the bright, optimistic one. People just won't feel as good about themselves clinging to the new belief as they did clinging to the old one. And embracing all the shîte that Brexiters shovel at them will become much less psychologically rewarding.

And that's a long-term weakness for Brexitry. It's support base will be hugely vulnerable to an opposing but more attractive belief. At some point, someone will come along with the message of "It doesn't have to be like this! We don't have to be at daggers drawn with the EU all the time! We don't have to cut off our own noses just to spite the EU's face! Brexit is done! It's not going to be undone! It's time to build a new, constructive relationship with the EU which is based on securing the UK's advantage rather than expressing its anger!" Etc, etc. This probably won't be a remain/rejoin message; more a message that, since remain/rejoin is completely off the table, Britain can safely contemplate greater co-operation, greater alignment, greater trustworthiness, where that delivers benefits for Britain. Hard Brexiters will of course denounce this as covert remain/rejoin, but I don't think that will be an attractive message to enough people to hold together a sufficiently large coalition of the miserable to retain power.

Panrich · 15-06-2021 8:22am

schmoo2k wrote: »

Was this "expeditated" to ensure that reentering the common market is now not an option?

That’s both a cynical and plausible take on what might be going on here. It’s depressing to see an erstwhile responsible country willing to see the world crash and burn.

RobMc59 · 15-06-2021 8:28am

CelticRambler wrote: »

Hey Rob, nice to see you back!

This is the time bomb already ticking under Johnson. "We're better off on our own" will only work in his favour as long as the UK is better off, or has the appearance of having the potential to be better off. If Johnson (and the tabloids) keeps pushing the line "the EU made us sign it" or "the EU are stopping us from ... [whatever]" at least some of the working class are going start thinking for themselves, and wondering what advantage there was in going it alone when - according to their hero - the EU's still calling the shots, year after year.

Thanks Celtic.

Johnson and his cronies appear Teflon coated.Lies from Johnson and other high profile cabinet members caught out 'feathering their own nests' goes unpunished.
Also, I hope the UK hasn't compromised on standards in the haste to agree the proposed trade deal with Australia.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 8:29am

schmoo2k wrote: »

Was this "expeditated" to ensure that reentering the common market is now not an option?

No. Re-entering the EU is not currently an option anyway; nor could it be for many years. Accelerating the Australian trade deal by a few months - if that is what was done - would make no difference one way or the other.

The trade deal was expedited so that the UK could point to a trade deal it has made with a country that it didn't already have a trade deal with as an EU member. That's also why the trade deal is being announced at a time when it's terms are still not settled. Johnson badly needs something positive inject into the news cycle to counterbalance coverage of the G7 summit which went not so much as planned by him but rather more as predicted by his critics.

It is not likely that the trade deal would prevent re-Brentry, if the British actually wanted to rejoin. Unlike peace treaties, trade deals always come with termination provisions. If the UK decides to rejoin the EU and the EU decides to let it, the UK can terminate any trade deals it has made with third countries as from re-entry date and thereafter trade with those countries on whatever terms they have for trading with the EU. That's what happened in 1973; no reason why it can't happen again

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 8:36am

Panrich wrote: »

That’s both a cynical and plausible take on what might be going on here. It’s depressing to see an erstwhile responsible country willing to see the world crash and burn.

Australian PM said they were happy to walk away - presumably to get a few more concessions from a desperate UK. It must have worked.

Not good for us though.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 8:37am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Australian PM said they were happy to walk away - presumably to get a few more concessions from a desperate UK. It must have worked.

Not good for us though.

That depends on what's in the trade deal, surely?

Leroy42 · 15-06-2021 8:37am

Even the reporting is misleading. It is only an agreement on the broad terms, not an actual trade deal. So they agree that they should hae a trsde deal, that argi, services etc should be included.

THere is no trade dea, between Aus & UK. There will be, and relatviely soon, but not today or this week

ONe would assume that the Aus PM has got pretty much everything he wanted, as otherwise I don't see the advantage to Australia of this PR exercise. Coupled with the lack of trust tha Johnson has with agreements, I would wager that in Australia serious questions are being asked as to what this actually covers and what the benefits are to Australia to be first in line.

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 8:44am

Peregrinus wrote: »

That depends on what's in the trade deal, surely?

Well, it is secret - negotiated behind closed doors.

The EU negotiated a deal with the USA behind closed doors T-TIP - all agreed - which fell to nothing once the doors opened and the details were made public.

The question of GMO and hormone and antibiotic treatment of animals might be an issue. We shall see. Whatever has been agreed will not be good news for UK farmers.

It will be bad news for our farmers too.

Leroy42 · 15-06-2021 8:46am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, it is secret - negotiated behind closed doors.

The EU negotiated a deal with the USA behind closed doors T-TIP - all agreed - which fell to nothing once the doors opened and the details were made public.

The question of GMO and hormone and antibiotic treatment of animals might be an issue. We shall see. Whatever has been agreed will not be good news for UK farmers.

It will be bad news for our farmers too.

The difference is that while it was negotiated behind closed doors, the TTIP deal needed to be passed by individual governments which meant scruntiny.

IN the UK, the government does not need any vote to sign this deal so unless the Aussies start to bring up the details then very few in the UK will get a chance to review it and see the actual details.

landofthetree · 15-06-2021 8:50am

https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1404707599858253828

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 8:51am

Leroy42 wrote: »

The difference is that while it was negotiated behind closed doors, the TTIP deal needed to be passed by individual governments which meant scruntiny.

IN the UK, the government does not need any vote to sign this deal so unless the Aussies start to bring up the details then very few in the UK will get a chance to review it and see the actual details.

Yes that is true.

That is exactly what happened with the WA and TCA, and look what a fine mess that has created. Who will they blame when the details come out that Welsh lamb and Scottish beef farmers go out of business?

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 8:54am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, it is secret - negotiated behind closed doors.

It's not just secret - it's also incomplete.

This is being described in the Australian media as an "agreement in principle" - meaning, I think, we have agreed some stuff, but not other stuff. It remains to be seen what the some stuff and the other stuff is. We may — or may not — have a clearer idea about this after today's press conference.

As far as media coverage on the Australian side goes, the big issues seem to be:

Meat exports: to what extent will the UK not only lower or abolish tariffs, but also accept meat produced to Australian rather than UK standards? It's the standards, more than the tariffs, which largely keep Aussie meat out of the UK.

Labour access: It seems to be expected that the trade deal will give Aussie a largely unrestricted right to go and work in the UK. Australia will not reciprocate, but may relax slightly the visa conditions that apply to UK citizens coming to work in Australia. In particular, it's currently a condition of the working holiday visa, as used by British backpackers, that to extend the visa from 1 year to 2 you have to do at least 88 days work, during your first year, in a rural area. This rule helps ensure a supply of low-cost seasonal labour for farmers. There is a suggestion that UK citizens will be exempted from this rule - i.e. they can get a second year in Australia without having worked in a rural area.

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 8:59am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not just secret - it's also incomplete.

This is being described in the Australian media as an "agreement in principle" - meaning, I think, we have agreed some stuff, but not other stuff. It remains to be seen what the some stuff and the other stuff is. We may — or may not — have a clearer idea about this after today's press conference.

As far as media coverage on the Australian side goes, the big issues seem to be:

Meat exports: to what extent will the UK not only lower or abolish tariffs, but also accept meat produced to Australian rather than UK standards? It's the standards, more than the tariffs, which largely keep Aussie meat out of the UK.

Labour access: It seems to be expected that the trade deal will give Aussie a largely unrestricted right to go and work in the UK. Australia will not reciprocate, but may relax slightly the visa conditions that apply to UK citizens coming to work in Australia. In particular, it's currently a condition of the working holiday visa, as used by British backpackers, that to extend the visa from 1 year to 2 you have to do at least 88 days work, during your first year, in a rural area. This rule helps ensure a supply of low-cost seasonal labour for farmers. There is a suggestion that UK citizens will be exempted from this rule - i.e. they can get a second year in Australia without having worked in a rural area.

Maybe the UK could have a similar rule so that they can get some slave low cost labour to pick the fruit that is currently rotting on the vines because the East European EU citizens can no longer can get the work.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 9:03am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe the UK could have a similar rule so that they can get some slave low cost labour to pick the fruit that is currently rotting on the vines because the East European EU citizens can no longer can get the work.

Aussies won't go to England to do minimum-wage farm work. They can do that in Australia for a much higher minimum wage.

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 9:06am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Aussies won't go to England to do minimum-wage farm work. They can do that in Australia for a much higher minimum wage.

Obviously, but think of the raspberries and strawberries - who will pick them?

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 9:10am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Obviously, but think of the raspberries and strawberries - who will pick them?

Not the Aussies. If the UK wants them picked it will have to open the doors to workers from economies where wage rates are so low that a UK minimum wage job in harsh conditions looks attractive. Australia is not that country.

KildareP · 15-06-2021 9:21am

RobMc59 wrote: »

Also, I hope the UK hasn't compromised on standards in the haste to agree the proposed trade deal with Australia.

Not a problem.

If they have agreed to something in haste that it transpires they don't like, they can just unilaterally change it.

schmoo2k · 15-06-2021 9:29am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Re-entering the EU is not currently an option anyway; nor could it be for many years. Accelerating the Australian trade deal by a few months - if that is what was done - would make no difference one way or the other.

The trade deal was expedited so that the UK could point to a trade deal it has made with a country that it didn't already have a trade deal with as an EU member. That's also why the trade deal is being announced at a time when it's terms are still not settled. Johnson badly needs something positive inject into the news cycle to counterbalance coverage of the G7 summit which went not so much as planned by him but rather more as predicted by his critics.

It is not likely that the trade deal would prevent re-Brentry, if the British actually wanted to rejoin. Unlike peace treaties, trade deals always come with termination provisions. If the UK decides to rejoin the EU and the EU decides to let it, the UK can terminate any trade deals it has made with third countries as from re-entry date and thereafter trade with those countries on whatever terms they have for trading with the EU. That's what happened in 1973; no reason why it can't happen again

I wasn't suggesting any of that - with an AU agreement it rules out equivalence and any reentry to the single market (I never meant to imply rejoin).

15-06-2021 9:30am

KildareP wrote: »

Not a problem.

If they have agreed to something in haste that it transpires they don't like, they can just unilaterally change it.

I've seen that argument a lot the last week. The EU were naive to think such a good deal for them would be kept in place. It's like watching lads who have no idea of the law or contracts taking over a business and just winging it.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 9:32am

schmoo2k wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting any of that - with an AU agreement it rules out equivalence and any reentry to the single market (I never meant to imply rejoin).

But the same applies. If the UK wants to re-enter the Single Market (e.g. by joining EFTA) then it will terminate its trade deal with Australia (and any other trade deal it may have made by then that is inconsistent with EFTA membership).

Peregrinus · 15-06-2021 9:34am

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen that argument a lot the last week. The EU were naive to think such a good deal for them would be kept in place. It's like watching lads who have no idea of the law or contracts taking over a business and just winging it.

It's not "such a good deal" for the EU. On the contrary, it's a huge concession on the part of the EU; it's the EU trusting a third country to operate a chunk of the EU's external border, but that doesn't produce any better outcome for the EU than operating the border itself would have produced. Its objective is to avoid a hard border in Ireland, which was a UK red line as well as an EU one.

Leroy42 · 15-06-2021 9:46am

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen that argument a lot the last week. The EU were naive to think such a good deal for them would be kept in place. It's like watching lads who have no idea of the law or contracts taking over a business and just winging it.

So what should the deal have been then? What is so monumentally good for the EU that they strectched too far?

Remember, that the UK as a sovereign nation, did not have to sign any deal. They were prepared to walk away, at any time. No deal is better than a bad deal.

So this is far from a bad deal from the UK, as otherwise they obviously would have walked away. This was a negotiated deal, and Johnson & Frost sold it as a major win for both themselves and the country.

dogbert27 · 15-06-2021 9:57am

landofthetree wrote: »

https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1404707599858253828

Lets see what the figures are like in September after 3 months without furlough payments.

Sam Russell · 15-06-2021 10:04am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Johnson has failed to deliver, yet again. And yet again, it is already yesterdays news as everyone is talking about a broad terms agreement on a trade deal, which is reality means nothing much at all.

But will the Ausie trade deal mean more cheese? Truss likes cheese and particularly likes more cheese.

15-06-2021 10:12am

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what should the deal have been then? What is so monumentally good for the EU that they strectched too far?

Remember, that the UK as a sovereign nation, did not have to sign any deal. They were prepared to walk away, at any time. No deal is better than a bad deal.

So this is far from a bad deal from the UK, as otherwise they obviously would have walked away. This was a negotiated deal, and Johnson & Frost sold it as a major win for both themselves and the country.

I wasn't actually stating that as my opinion. I was quoting that as the argument I've seen gain traction. It of course makes no sense.

landofthetree · 15-06-2021 11:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Aussies won't go to England to do minimum-wage farm work. They can do that in Australia for a much higher minimum wage.

Its a pound an hour more. Plus its not Aussies who do the picking in Australia. Its generally foreigners who are exploited by farmers.

All over the EU fruit picking are exploited,physically abused,sexually abuse and many are under the age of 14.

Animals have more rights than they do.

https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/17/invisible-workers-underpaid-exploited-and-put-at-risk-on-europe-s-farms

The EU’s common agricultural policy – which accounts for over a third of the bloc's budget – aims to support farm owners and pumps nearly €60 billion into the sector each year. The working conditions of those employed by these farms, however, are not even mentioned in the subsidies scheme.

"At the moment we have this crazy situation where we actually have better protection for animals than for some of these workers on our farms," said German Green MEP Daniel Freund.

UN calls out 'shocking' abuse of migrants picking strawberries in Spain
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/25760/un-calls-out-shocking-abuse-of-migrants-picking-strawberries-in-spain

The EU hands over billions every year to farmers who exploit these poor women.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments