Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

In the Red Box this week this, who are the 6-10% of the population that seriously think the Mail and the Express are anti-Brexit and the Guardian and the BBC are pro-Brexit?

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

This pretty much sums up the Brexit debate

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexiteer-tells-james-obrien-to-stop-giving-facts/

 

 

I like James O'Brien and I quite enjoy some of his Brexit takedowns but he does this with 'facts' time and again. And then he spends the rest of the show referring people calling him a legend and the ultimate purveyor of truth.  Just citing export figures isn't useful, he has no knowledge of the elasticities involved or even what the arrangement would be outside of CAP and if they might import more fish if they can't fish our waters. And of course he doesnt know how other trade would replace it. Those that use the gravity model to tell us how daft it is to think we can just trade with the world instead, would surely tell us it's daft that the EU is just going to replace their imports of fish from us (Yes they'd probably find it easier that replace imports than us exports, certainly short term).

 

It'd be a bit like me saying to you 'the nhs currently receives record funding so it can't be underfunded and it must be the nhs' fault'. And you'd say 'Well I've seen myself how much it's struggling because there's not enough money' and i'd say 'yeah but record funding'. And then you get flustered like her(probably wouldn't) and saying I don't care about that, and then me jumping in and saying so you don't care about facts. But of course my fact doesn't tell the full story in the slightest and my conclusion rests on numerous implicit assumptions.

 

I mean I don't care about the fishing industry but the sneering folks in the London bubble is part of why Brexit happened in the first place and still they don't learn 

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

In the Red Box this week this, who are the 6-10% of the population that seriously think the Mail and the Express are anti-Brexit and the Guardian and the BBC are pro-Brexit?

 

The number of "don't knows" is also interesting - and maybe proves that most people don't pay much attention to the Brexit debate, just waiting to react when/if it eventually happens?

 

Understandable that people might not have much idea about papers they don't read (54%-73%).

But even 41%-60% don't have a clue about the main TV channels. 

[Rogstanley]

47 minutes ago, MattP said:

In the Red Box this week this, who are the 6-10% of the population that seriously think the Mail and the Express are anti-Brexit and the Guardian and the BBC are pro-Brexit?

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The number of "don't knows" is also interesting - and maybe proves that most people don't pay much attention to the Brexit debate, just waiting to react when/if it eventually happens?

 

Understandable that people might not have much idea about papers they don't read (54%-73%).

But even 41%-60% don't have a clue about the main TV channels. 

It shows how little the everyday person really knows or cares about politics and why results of referendums and elections might not be an accurate reflection of what "the people want", or would want were they to know a bit more about what they are voting for.

Edited 23 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[David Guiza]

56 minutes ago, MattP said:

In the Red Box this week this, who are the 6-10% of the population that seriously think the Mail and the Express are anti-Brexit and the Guardian and the BBC are pro-Brexit?

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The number of "don't knows" is also interesting - and maybe proves that most people don't pay much attention to the Brexit debate, just waiting to react when/if it eventually happens?

 

Understandable that people might not have much idea about papers they don't read (54%-73%).

But even 41%-60% don't have a clue about the main TV channels. 

 

I watched some of that 'New Cold War' programme on ITV last night about the Salisbury poisoning etc and they had asked a few questions to 3000 people, such as:-

 

1. Do you think May has been too aggressive in her response to the Kremlin?

2. Should England go to the World Cup?

 

And the percentage of people who said that they didn't have a clue on every occasion was at least 35%. Really insightful broadcasting . 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I watched some of that 'New Cold War' programme on ITV last night about the Salisbury poisoning etc and they had asked a few questions to 3000 people, such as:-

 

1. Do you think May has been too aggressive in her response to the Kremlin?

2. Should England go to the World Cup?

 

And the percentage of people who said that they didn't have a clue on every occasion was at least 35%. Really insightful broadcasting . 

Could interpret that as 35% of them were thoughtful and honest

[Strokes]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The number of "don't knows" is also interesting - and maybe proves that most people don't pay much attention to the Brexit debate, just waiting to react when/if it eventually happens?

 

Understandable that people might not have much idea about papers they don't read (54%-73%).

But even 41%-60% don't have a clue about the main TV channels. 

I genuinely could not tell you on the TV channels, I haven’t watched a news bulletin for years.

[CarbonVirtine]

30 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

the sneering folks in the London bubble is part of why Brexit happened in the first place and still they don't learn 

Indeed not. It's not just Brexit that's dividing the nation... I don't know what I'd call the underlying issue (not that there is just one), whether it's class, social divisions or poverty, but I feel there's a lack of empathy. I can understand the disdain for facts, or should I say how facts are presented and used. 

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Could interpret that as 35% of them were thoughtful and honest

This is a key part of it, and arguably the biggest flaw of direct democracy.

 

The loudest, gobbiest view often wins (whichever side of the ideology you're looking at) and the more nuanced views are dismissed simply because those articulating them aren't as confident in airing them, because of their uncertainty about the topic.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

In the Red Box this week this, who are the 6-10% of the population that seriously think the Mail and the Express are anti-Brexit and the Guardian and the BBC are pro-Brexit?

 

 

 

Why the general public should never have been allowed to make such an important decision in a nutshell.

[Alf Bentley]

Just trying to get my head around some of the raw power politics of where Brexit goes from here. Particularly regarding the Irish border and the negotiation of trade agreements after March 2019.

The whole situation seems a lot more unpredictable than most people seem to reckon.

 

Irish border:

This could cause a massive crisis this autumn, couldn't it? Bearing in mind numbers of MPs: Con 317, Opposition (Lab/LD/SNP etc.) 315, DUP 10, Sinn Fein 7, Speaker 1

- If the UK signs N. Ireland alone up to the "backstop" option (customs alignment with EU/RoI to avoid hard border; different customs regime in GB), the DUP surely jump ship, possibly a few ultra-unionist Tories, too...

- If the UK signs the whole UK up to the "backstop" option (whole UK customs aligned with EU), that risks a Tory Brexiteer backlash...though they might accept it if they believe divergence will be possible post-Brexit

- If the UK reneges on its "backstop" promise and insists on customs divergence, that surely collapses the negotiations, leaving us 6 months from a cliff-edge Brexit with no transition period or trade deals, and probably an unpredictable general election as Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers would surely rebel in large numbers

- That leaves the chance that (a) the UK produces a miracle solution allowing customs divergence but no border controls; (b) the EU backtracks and accepts border controls; (c) there's a fudge, so that the issue is settled alongside subsequent UK/EU trade talks. Everything suggests that there's now zero chance of (a) or (b), and only a small chance of (c).

 

The most likely scenario seems to be that we agree to the whole of the UK keeping its customs closely aligned to EU customs (though probably still leaving the Customs Union) - and that the Tory Brexiteers swallow that. They'd presumably do so out of a hope that we'll be able to negotiate new external trade deals during the transition period and that greater divergence will be possible via EU/UK trade negotiations or post-Brexit....and out of fear of Brexit and/or the Govt collapsing altogether.

 

EU/UK trade talks

This is seen as the big "win" for the UK in the transition deal. But how much of a win is it - and is it also an opportunity for the EU to "see how the UK will play its hand"?

 

What sort of trade deals and how many will the UK be able to negotiate during the 21-month transition period? Worth remembering that we will not only be negotiating a deal with the EU and new deals worldwide but dozens of external EU deals with other countries....and will be seeking to do so over a timespan shorter than usually required to negotiate trade agreements. I suppose some third countries might be happy to offer the UK the same terms as the EU, but not better terms, surely? Indeed, as the UK market is much smaller than the EU market, they might offer poorer terms....or not be interested in negotiating any deal, certainly not a generous one, before it knows what an EU/UK trade deal might bring.

 

Aside from maybe duplicating a few EU trade deals, the other thing that the UK could do is to offer external countries terms much more generous than EU terms (lower import tariffs, fewer regulations, lower product/social/employment standards etc.). Undercutting the EU in external markets in this way might yield a few trade deals from Asia or elsewhere (though it might not - would those countries want to jeopardise their trade relations with a much larger bloc?). But it would surely also "show the EU our hand" and effectively torpedo any chance of a good EU/UK trade deal, making trade with our main market much more difficult. Of course, the EU may not be inclined to offer generous terms on trade, fisheries or anything else anyway. How will Tory Brexiteers react if the transition period is running down with little sign of us getting the freedoms, divergence and deals they want? 

 

If we don't take the "undercutting" route, where do we end up in December 2020? Fully leaving the EU, either with a UK/EU trade deal similar to what we have now or with no deal whatsoever, maybe with a few similar trade deals around the world, on terms similar to EU terms. Will Tory Brexiteer MPs stomach that? Will they be happy to effectively sign off on an Ultra-Soft Brexit in the hope that they'll be able to diverge and do completely new deals to take proper "control" some time after 2020? 

 

 

Seems to me that this whole process - and govt - could still easily collapse before March 2019, never mind December 2020.

[Fox Ulike]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

Why does it include 2017-2018 borrowing?

I don't know. Why does it take about the "immediate impact of Brexit"?

 

This report is not the benchmark nor the Success Criteria for Brexit. People want to know how Brexit is going to be better than what we have now.

 

It is irrelevant that Brexit will exceed the expectations of a single report which is: two years old, describes a scenario that never came to pass, is inaccurate in its representation of Article 50 timescales, overplays the financial impact of Brexit, and includes no consideration of a transition period.

 

It's just a shame that you don't apply such critical thinking, and independent thought processes, against the more recent sector analyses and other reports about the financial impact of Brexit.

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I don't know. Why does it take about the "immediate impact of Brexit"?

 

This report is not the benchmark nor the Success Criteria for Brexit. People want to know how Brexit is going to be better than what we have now.

 

It is irrelevant that Brexit will exceed the expectations of a single report which is: two years old, describes a scenario that never came to pass, is inaccurate in its representation of Article 50 timescales, overplays the financial impact of Brexit, and includes no consideration of a transition period.

 

It's just a shame that you don't apply such critical thinking, and independent thought processes, against the more recent sector analyses and other reports about the financial impact of Brexit.

I’m not biting today to your obvious trolling but if you can find me an unbiased report I’d be amazed. Every single one that comes out has something to gain from brexit either not happening or happening. Every single one has credibility issues due to over predicting pluses and minuses in the past. You just only accept the ones that suit your agenda and I accept the ones that suit mine. But even if you and your reports are right, which they won’t be, I’ll still be happy with my choice and would still make the same choice again and again given the chance.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Just trying to get my head around some of the raw power politics of where Brexit goes from here. Particularly regarding the Irish border and the negotiation of trade agreements after March 2019.

The whole situation seems a lot more unpredictable than most people seem to reckon.

 

Irish border:

This could cause a massive crisis this autumn, couldn't it? Bearing in mind numbers of MPs: Con 317, Opposition (Lab/LD/SNP etc.) 315, DUP 10, Sinn Fein 7, Speaker 1

- If the UK signs N. Ireland alone up to the "backstop" option (customs alignment with EU/RoI to avoid hard border; different customs regime in GB), the DUP surely jump ship, possibly a few ultra-unionist Tories, too...

- If the UK signs the whole UK up to the "backstop" option (whole UK customs aligned with EU), that risks a Tory Brexiteer backlash...though they might accept it if they believe divergence will be possible post-Brexit

- If the UK reneges on its "backstop" promise and insists on customs divergence, that surely collapses the negotiations, leaving us 6 months from a cliff-edge Brexit with no transition period or trade deals, and probably an unpredictable general election as Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers would surely rebel in large numbers

- That leaves the chance that (a) the UK produces a miracle solution allowing customs divergence but no border controls; (b) the EU backtracks and accepts border controls; (c) there's a fudge, so that the issue is settled alongside subsequent UK/EU trade talks. Everything suggests that there's now zero chance of (a) or (b), and only a small chance of (c).

 

The most likely scenario seems to be that we agree to the whole of the UK keeping its customs closely aligned to EU customs (though probably still leaving the Customs Union) - and that the Tory Brexiteers swallow that. They'd presumably do so out of a hope that we'll be able to negotiate new external trade deals during the transition period and that greater divergence will be possible via EU/UK trade negotiations or post-Brexit....and out of fear of Brexit and/or the Govt collapsing altogether.

 

EU/UK trade talks

This is seen as the big "win" for the UK in the transition deal. But how much of a win is it - and is it also an opportunity for the EU to "see how the UK will play its hand"?

 

What sort of trade deals and how many will the UK be able to negotiate during the 21-month transition period? Worth remembering that we will not only be negotiating a deal with the EU and new deals worldwide but dozens of external EU deals with other countries....and will be seeking to do so over a timespan shorter than usually required to negotiate trade agreements. I suppose some third countries might be happy to offer the UK the same terms as the EU, but not better terms, surely? Indeed, as the UK market is much smaller than the EU market, they might offer poorer terms....or not be interested in negotiating any deal, certainly not a generous one, before it knows what an EU/UK trade deal might bring.

 

Aside from maybe duplicating a few EU trade deals, the other thing that the UK could do is to offer external countries terms much more generous than EU terms (lower import tariffs, fewer regulations, lower product/social/employment standards etc.). Undercutting the EU in external markets in this way might yield a few trade deals from Asia or elsewhere (though it might not - would those countries want to jeopardise their trade relations with a much larger bloc?). But it would surely also "show the EU our hand" and effectively torpedo any chance of a good EU/UK trade deal, making trade with our main market much more difficult. Of course, the EU may not be inclined to offer generous terms on trade, fisheries or anything else anyway. How will Tory Brexiteers react if the transition period is running down with little sign of us getting the freedoms, divergence and deals they want? 

 

If we don't take the "undercutting" route, where do we end up in December 2020? Fully leaving the EU, either with a UK/EU trade deal similar to what we have now or with no deal whatsoever, maybe with a few similar trade deals around the world, on terms similar to EU terms. Will Tory Brexiteer MPs stomach that? Will they be happy to effectively sign off on an Ultra-Soft Brexit in the hope that they'll be able to diverge and do completely new deals to take proper "control" some time after 2020? 

 

 

Seems to me that this whole process - and govt - could still easily collapse before March 2019, never mind December 2020.

If we start undercutting during the transition there's no way on earth the EU will give us a good deal.

 

I expect a fudge which will leave us in a customs union as it's hard to see any other way out of the Irish dilemma. 

 

Whatever happens, the government are still insisting that if MPs reject the deal then we'll simply crash out. That's the most childish response to a hugely important issue I've ever had the misfortune to hear. I don't believe they could do that, particularly as you'd have to assume public opinion would be against crashing out if it appeared we are on the verge. The Tories might be inept but they put themselves first and won't want to be out of office for a generation by taking a ridiculous decision like that. That's my hope, anyway.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Strokes said:

I’m not biting today to your obvious trolling but if you can find me an unbiased report I’d be amazed. Every single one that comes out has something to gain from brexit either not happening or happening. Every single one has credibility issues due to over predicting pluses and minuses in the past. You just only accept the ones that suit your agenda and I accept the ones that suit mine. But even if you and your reports are right, which they won’t be, I’ll still be happy with my choice and would still make the same choice again and again given the chance.

Without having the same argument we've had hundreds of times I think people need to stop making claims about the inaccuracy of forecasts.

 

No forecast will ever be 100% correct. Economic forecasts are wrong from one month to the next but that isn't really the point. As Amber Rudd has said, they're a useful tool in understanding the likely direction of the economy in different circumstances. The percentages might be out but the probability of a better or worse outcome than the starting point is what one can derive by viewing multiple analysis. 

 

The analysis of Brexit would appear to conclude that we'd be wealthier staying in.

 

As that isn't the be all and end all for you I don't really know why you don't just accept that this might be the case.

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

Without having the same argument we've had hundreds of times I think people need to stop making claims about the inaccuracy of forecasts.

 

No forecast will ever be 100% correct. Economic forecasts are wrong from one month to the next but that isn't really the point. As Amber Rudd has said, they're a useful tool in understanding the likely direction of the economy in different circumstances. The percentages might be out but the probability of a better or worse outcome than the starting point is what one can derive by viewing multiple analysis. 

 

The analysis of Brexit would appear to conclude that we'd be wealthier staying in.

 

As that isn't the be all and end all for you I don't really know why you don't just accept that this might be the case.

I’ve said before and I will say it again, it’s credible that they could predict the immediate aftermath of brexit within the margin of error but no more because after that there are a million variants, it’s ridiculous to suggest anything else. 

[Buce]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not biting today to your obvious trolling but if you can find me an unbiased report I’d be amazed. Every single one that comes out has something to gain from brexit either not happening or happening. Every single one has credibility issues due to over predicting pluses and minuses in the past. You just only accept the ones that suit your agenda and I accept the ones that suit mine. But even if you and your reports are right, which they won’t be, I’ll still be happy with my choice and would still make the same choice again and again given the chance.

1

 

The very definition of pig-headed stubbornness, mate (no offence).

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

The very definition of pig-headed stubbornness, mate (no offence).

What good does economy growth mean to you? We haven’t had a recession for nearly 10 years, and wages haven’t grown in that time. The economy doesn’t help me or you, it helps the wealthy make more profits, what do all the rich businessmen and women almost universally want? FOM, Single market membership, Custom Union. Basically EU membership, I’m surprised you give a shit about them.

[Fox Ulike]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What good does economy growth mean to you? We haven’t had a recession for nearly 10 years, and wages haven’t grown in that time. The economy doesn’t help me or you, it helps the wealthy make more profits, what do all the rich businessmen and women almost universally want? FOM, Single market membership, Custom Union. Basically EU membership, I’m surprised you give a shit about them.

It's a good post.

 

Strokes you continue to surprise me.

 

I think though, if there was acceptance of the economic hit that we're all gonna take from Brexit, we could all move on.

 

It's the continual fudging and disingenuousness of the economic case against Brexit that grinds.

 

We should all make a pact not to talk about the economic impact of Brexit. Because I agree, all other reasons are woefully under-represented on here.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

It's a good post.

 

Strokes you continue to surprise me.

 

I think though, if there was acceptance of the economic hit that we're all gonna take from Brexit, we could all move on.

 

It's the continual fudging and disingenuousness of the economic case against Brexit that grinds.

 

We should all make a pact not to talk about the economic impact of Brexit. Because I agree, all other reasons are woefully under-represented on here.

 

coughscientificcooperationcough

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

coughscientificcooperationcough

See, things like this although I’m woefully informed. I’m happy for UK to pay and contribute too to remain part of but the trouble is the debate becomes so divisive that this either gets swept under the carpet or either side won’t budge based on a worry of weakness. 

Obviously I don’t care as much or consider it as important as yourself but I’m not so besotted with brexit that I don’t think we can’t/shouldn’t ever cooperate with the EU and it’s members in the future.

[Fox Ulike]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

See, things like this although I’m woefully informed. I’m happy for UK to pay and contribute too to remain part of but the trouble is the debate becomes so divisive that this either gets swept under the carpet or either side won’t budge based on a worry of weakness. 

Obviously I don’t care as much or consider it as important as yourself but I’m not so besotted with brexit that I don’t think we can’t/shouldn’t ever cooperate with the EU and it’s members in the future.

You mean, some sort of European Co-operation Community?

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

coughscientificcooperationcough

What about air travel. I remember hearing that cheap air travel to the EU might be a thing of the past once we leave?

 

Also, seems a shame that Brits who want to retire in the sun might find it harder to up-sticks and move to sunny Spain at the end of a working life. Or that young people can't just move to Paris or Rome if they want to...

[Strokes]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

You mean, some sort of European Co-operation Community?

 

 

I just don’t want a Political Union, I would have been happyish with a common market and rules for just those that wish to trade within it. There was no need for it’s jurisdiction to extend into internal politics and no consent for our sovereignty to be eroded.

That doesn’t mean I don’t accept there to be positives to what’s happened and forgetting the cake and eat it argument for a moment, doesn’t mean I don’t think we can incorporate those positives or work on better.

Brexit isn’t black or white, there’s a shit load of grey and we are all very obsessed with winning, our opponents are painted in the image we choose and often it’s not even close to the mark.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

See, things like this although I’m woefully informed. I’m happy for UK to pay and contribute too to remain part of but the trouble is the debate becomes so divisive that this either gets swept under the carpet or either side won’t budge based on a worry of weakness. 

Obviously I don’t care as much or consider it as important as yourself but I’m not so besotted with brexit that I don’t think we can’t/shouldn’t ever cooperate with the EU and it’s members in the future.

And all this time you've got the poor science sods who care nothing for the politics wondering if the research they were hoping to do will go up in smoke.