• Welcome to The National Midday Sun. Please login or sign up.
June 20, 2019, 00:03:35 am

Brexit watch

Started by Nick, October 20, 2016, 17:02:39 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Nïckslïkk2112

March 28, 2017, 21:46:25 pm #886 Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 21:56:34 pm by Nïckslïkk2112
Quote from: DavidL on March 28, 2017, 20:08:34 pm
They're getting really upset now. Bloody hilarious!

There's plenty of reasons behind the "60 years of unparalleled peace". Let's ignore the Balkans. Let's ignore the EU fomented troubles in Ukraine. Let's forget that EU nations have been involved in poking the Hornet's nest of Islamist terror.
You could make just as good an argument for Rock and Roll being the source of recent unparalleled "peace " - so long as you turn a blind eye to Mods v Rockers...

An ever more federalised EU will be the trigger for ending peace in Europe. One size does not fit all. Quarts into pint pots will not go.
Maybe this could be the chance for the EU to come to their senses and concede. Ho-ho.

I must say though, I love all these folk who think they won't be "European" any more. Suppose that says it all about the Blairite dumbing down of the education system. Are the Swiss not European? The Icelanders? Albanians? Ukrainians?
Legend in my own Mind


döm

Quote from: Slim on March 28, 2017, 16:52:21 pm
Peter Bone on the BBC's lamentable pro-EU bias. We must fix this if their coercion-based funding model is to continue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StAzZJ9kn0I



Came across as being paranoid and hysterical. As the other guy said let OFCOM accuse the BBC of being biaised and then it will be worthy of debate.
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

Slim

Quote from: döm on March 28, 2017, 23:44:56 pm

Came across as being paranoid and hysterical. As the other guy said let OFCOM accuse the BBC of being biaised and then it will be worthy of debate.


No, he came across as rational, measured and genuinely concerned.

We have at least another eight or nine years to fix this, and I believe we will.

döm

March 29, 2017, 07:07:51 am #889 Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 07:09:46 am by döm
Quote from: Slim on March 29, 2017, 00:34:39 am
No, he came across as rational, measured and genuinely concerned.

We have at least another eight or nine years to fix this, and I believe we will.



He spoke calmly and so appeared rational but the content was paranoid hysteria.


Why would the BBC appoint 2 pro brexit commentators in such high profile political shows with the 2 Andrews, Marr and Neil if the BBC really was institutionally pro EU?



You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

DavidL

March 29, 2017, 07:15:09 am #890 Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 07:22:37 am by DavidL
The Britain Bashing Corporation is really upping the ante this morning. Clegglet is on Breakfast in a minute, probably to spout his usual garbage about the huge benefits of being in the EU.
Last night, Newsnight devoted about 10 minutes to a piece from Calamity where he visited Ebbw Vale. Overwhelmingly Brexiteers, the people of the town gave their reasons for voting out whilst Calamity tried to convince them they were wrong. Plenty of EU investment ....but no jobs - few nice buildings and a lovely statue of a dragon. He managed to gather a few kids who were disappointed we were leaving but they won't be hanging around for too much longer.
Clegg returned home with his tail between his legs. A good attempt by BBC but seemed to,ultimately, fail to make their case convincingly.

Slim

Quote from: DavidL on March 29, 2017, 07:15:09 am
The Britain Bashing Corporation is really upping the ante this morning. Clegglet is on Breakfast in a minute, probably to spout his usual garbage about the huge benefits of being in the EU.


Yes, they wheeled him out for the 5 Live breakfast programme as well. Still -  we are leaving the EU and I believe we have plenty of time to fix the BBC, as well.

döm

Quote from: döm on March 29, 2017, 07:07:51 am

He spoke calmly and so appeared rational but the content was paranoid hysteria.


Why would the BBC appoint 2 pro brexit commentators in such high profile political shows with the 2 Andrews, Marr and Neil if the BBC really was institutionally pro EU?



not to mention Katya Adler, I don't think anyone could describe the BBCs European Editor as being pro-eu. 


This stuff is pure nonsense, up there with conspiracy theorists believing that Man hasn't landed on the Moon or that 9/11 was an inside job
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

DavidL

Quote from: döm on March 28, 2017, 23:44:56 pm

Came across as being paranoid and hysterical. As the other guy said let OFCOM accuse the BBC of being biaised and then it will be worthy of debate.

A comment on this piece:
"I work for the BBC and it is very biased - but the problem is with the types of people it employs. The BBC gives special preference to candidates who are under 35 and from ethnic minority backgrounds who are staunchly left wing and exasperatingly politically correct. Then there are the rich kids who are able to afford unpaid internships at the BBC in London for many months on end. They effectively buy themselves a job within the corporation. These kids are what most of us would call 'trustafarians' - very left wing, never had to work hard for anything and have a general disdain for anyone who didn't go to university or doesn't agree with their world view. The problem with the BBC is the people it chooses to employ and that is reflected in its output - which is incredibly slanted towards neoliberalism and staunch support of the status quo - whatever that may be"

Says it all

Thailand Express

Quote from: döm on March 29, 2017, 09:25:38 am
This stuff is pure nonsense, up there with conspiracy theorists believing that Man hasn't landed on the Moon or that 9/11 was an inside job



Don't go there, this thread is tortuous enough as it is!


döm

Quote from: Thailand Express on March 29, 2017, 10:35:31 am

Don't go there, this thread is tortuous enough as it is!

Fair point - I'll watch my step - it is pretty risible though
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

Slim

Quote from: DavidL on March 29, 2017, 10:25:44 am
A comment on this piece:
"I work for the BBC and it is very biased - but the problem is with the types of people it employs. The BBC gives special preference to candidates who are under 35 and from ethnic minority backgrounds who are staunchly left wing and exasperatingly politically correct. Then there are the rich kids who are able to afford unpaid internships at the BBC in London for many months on end. They effectively buy themselves a job within the corporation. These kids are what most of us would call 'trustafarians' - very left wing, never had to work hard for anything and have a general disdain for anyone who didn't go to university or doesn't agree with their world view. The problem with the BBC is the people it chooses to employ and that is reflected in its output - which is incredibly slanted towards neoliberalism and staunch support of the status quo - whatever that may be"

Says it all


Yes, no surprises there. Laughable that people can't see the painful pro-left bias evident in the BBC's output, and not only in news and current affairs either.

But we have time to fix this.

döm

Quote from: DavidL on March 29, 2017, 10:25:44 am
A comment on this piece:
"I work for the BBC and it is very biased - but the problem is with the types of people it employs. The BBC gives special preference to candidates who are under 35 and from ethnic minority backgrounds who are staunchly left wing and exasperatingly politically correct. Then there are the rich kids who are able to afford unpaid internships at the BBC in London for many months on end. They effectively buy themselves a job within the corporation. These kids are what most of us would call 'trustafarians' - very left wing, never had to work hard for anything and have a general disdain for anyone who didn't go to university or doesn't agree with their world view. The problem with the BBC is the people it chooses to employ and that is reflected in its output - which is incredibly slanted towards neoliberalism and staunch support of the status quo - whatever that may be"

Says it all



wonder who wrote that - Pol Pot ?


it's unverified and unsubstantiated but seems to be written by someone with a right of centre view point - you or Slim perhaps ?


You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

NeilP

This is from blogger Pete North, he knows a lot more than most people about the EU, I repost his thoughts on A-Day, as he calls it here, thought some of you might appreciate it.

A-Day. The clock starts ticking. Now we can expect a torrent of clueless opining on what happens next from people who know absolutely nothing about trade - or even the EU for that matter.
As to what precisely does happen next is actually the first item on the agenda. When nothing quite like this has been done before we must first establish the order of battle. First and foremost comes the terms of departure. There will be a bill to settle along with the many administrative chores necessary to become an independent state. This includes our WTO membership reconfiguration. That should come high up on the agenda in order to get started as soon as possible.
That much will deal with future subsidy quotas and schedules - a singularly opaque process best left to the officials. It won't be until this is settled that we see any serious discussion about the mode of transition and the new framework for future trade relations. It will be some months before any serious work is done in that regard and not until the French and German elections are over. It will take some time for the new French administration to get bedded in.
Beyond that I do not care to speculate on what the various outcomes will be. What we do know is that the EU will insist on ECJ jurisdiction for the duration of any transition and that we will linger under the EU umbrella for some considerable time to come - assuming we don't see an accidental Brexit.
There will be two strands of negotiation here. We will see the political element which promises to be as dramatic as it is tedious and then there's the technical which is far beyond the wits of anyone in our media. Carving up the CAP and CFP promises to be an intensely political and hyper bureaucratic affair.
For me it will be a bittersweet process. Now we get to see who is right about what. I rather expect to see a torrent of Toryboy whining about trade barriers and regulation, seeking to present the EU as obstinate and unreasonable when in fact we will simply be seeing the natural conclusion to domestic political choices made some months ago. I'm not going to be magnanimous or even polite about this. In fact I am going to be deeply unpleasant like you have never seen.
I have now endured years of overly assertive ignorance on these such matters, and now we are looking at losing substantial operating rights within the single market I am going to make damn sure their excuses do not stand.
I think the first casualty of Article 50 will be the notion that the process can be completed inside two years. It is likely that we will surrender a good deal of leverage in seeking an extension not least because of the timing. We're on their clock. They hold most of the cards.
The second bogus assumption will be the notion that we can simply carry over EU rules onto the statute book. We could do it were we retaining the single market components but without membership of EU governance systems the whole idea starts to fall apart. Further to that, I expect the main reason a lot of third party agreements cannot be carried over will be the same absence of EU institutions.
As much as trade deals set out terms of trade and the means by which they are administered, they also include a statements giving effect to working bodies, arbitration mechanisms and surveillance systems. Data capture and market surveillance is central to most trade administration.
Because the government barely recognises the need for such instruments we do not know what form they will take and we will see a last minute fudge - either borrowing Efta constructs or leaving things as they are. We will see a number of embarrassing climb downs for the government as a number of key Brexit promises melt away. As much as the chickens will be coming home to roost, they'll be thumbing through the ikea catalogue and measuring the curtains. They're in it for the long haul.
At every turn we could have done ourselves a favour by opting for off the shelf instruments but instead we'll be wasting our time and their talking about bespoke systems to bring about functionality our government has overlooked. There are undisturbed pygmy tribes in the upper Amazon with a greater grasp of EU trade than David Davies.
Put simply, if you think Brexit has been a farce to date, you ain't seen nothing yet. There are many unknowns even for those who do have a clue. It will rapidly become a shambolic mess as a number of overly confident assumptions collide with reality.
Nick Clegg put it best the other day. This will be the first round of trade talks in history where the outcome is less trade on worse terms. This is not a result of Brexit. The EEA would, for the most part, safeguard "frictionless" trade. What we get instead will be a shadow of it - and it's purely a consequence of Tory tribal idiocy.
The great unknown is when exactly the penny will drop. It won't take long for politicians to realise they have faulty information and a flawed understanding. Whether or not there is time to correct it is anyone's guess. It may be possible to pause the proceedings while we hammer out a clone of the EEA agreement. That will likely see us backtracking on ending freedom of movement. That will be the price for bailing us out. It might well be that the EU saves us from ourselves. Mr Banier is not a hard liner and he is a pragmatist. He could very well be the voice of reason.
I get the impression that on the opposite side of the table there is a sense of bewilderment and disbelief that our government could be so ill-prepared and under informed. That will cost us. It is ironic that our best hopes to avoid a spectacular failure now lie with the much maligned EU. These are strange times indeed.

Slim

I think these ultra-pessimistic pieces will be seen in a rather different light in a couple of years.

A few calmer words from John Redwood on the forthcoming negotiations which I think maintain the proper perspective:

Article 50 put in the two year exit provision to prevent a reluctant EU delaying a country's departure by refusing to negotiate an exit agreement sensibly. The UK's despatch of the letter now places the obligations on the rest of the EU to see what they can salvage from their departing member. They should have a long list of things they do not want to lose which is realistic, and another list of things they don't want to lose which are unrealistic.

The first list will encompass protecting their access our lucrative export market, ensuring the position of EU nationals in the UK, keeping access to the City for the money their companies and individuals need to raise, keeping their flying rights into the UK, keeping UK involvement in European defence, and preserving and developing many collaborations on research and joint investment. All of those the UK is willing to grant in return for a punishment free settlement.


The second list may encompass an exit fee, continuing contributions to their budget, and continuing freedom of movement between the UK and the EU. Asking for those will show they still have not understood why we are leaving, nor the weakness of their legal and political position.

Important to remember that the remaining EU countries have a lot to lose. I think the prospect of doing so will help them to concentrate on a sensible settlement.