It's not just about Brexit

[clarethomer]

Conservative Party used disinformation ‘with new level of impunity’ during 2019 general election, report finds

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 82566.html

Their report said Tories had “employed overt disinformation” to secure votes, such as by altering a video of Sir Keir Starmer and posing as a fact-checker on Twitter during a leaders’ debate.
“Even if some of these tactics are not novel, the impunity with which they were employed appears new, at least in the UK,” it added.
“When found out, Conservative Party representatives were unapologetic for rebranding their Twitter account as a fact-checking site, and for editing video footage of the interview with Sir Keir.”

I think this has been discussed earlier in the thread. Still waiting for Andrew to evidence 87% of the media being biased against his beloved Corbyn. I think you will also find that a lot of the labour propaganda and campaigns of mis-information were spread through their little local gorilla activists by sharing posts on facebook - i.e. not paid ads which wouldn't be picked up on any of these studies.

There is even some evidence of the person who was in charge of these campaigns openly talking about carfully crafting emotional stories to play on the emotions of others - which translates into spreading project fear.

[CombatClaret]

I think you will also find that a lot of the labour propaganda and campaigns of mis-information were spread through their little local gorilla activists by sharing posts on facebook - i.e. not paid ads which wouldn't be picked up on any of these studies.

I must say it's very handy that all the Labour mis-information is un-provable and anecdotal.

Surely there would be pages of it all saved like all those Brexit ads about tea pots and polar bears that appeared on Facebook?

In separate research, the fact-checking organisation First Draft found that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats all published misleading advertising during the campaign.
But the Tories were “by far the most frequent”, with 88 per cent of their most shared online adverts between 1 and 4 December containing misleading information, compared to 6.7 per cent for Labour.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I thought Labour went more with Instagram?

[AndrewJB]

I think this has been discussed earlier in the thread. Still waiting for Andrew to evidence 87% of the media being biased against his beloved Corbyn. I think you will also find that a lot of the labour propaganda and campaigns of mis-information were spread through their little local gorilla activists by sharing posts on facebook - i.e. not paid ads which wouldn't be picked up on any of these studies.

There is even some evidence of the person who was in charge of these campaigns openly talking about carfully crafting emotional stories to play on the emotions of others - which translates into spreading project fear.

Evidence: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communi ... emy-corbyn

Not that you’re going to pony any evidence about your claims. All advertising attempts to tell a story that emotionally resounds with the public, but that doesn’t mean it’s false or misleading. Yet this is what you’re insinuating. Whatever there might have been, it’s nowhere near the scale of Tory misinformation we saw last year, and continue to see now.

[clarethomer]

I must say it's very handy that all the Labour mis-information is un-provable and anecdotal.

Surely there would be pages of it all saved like all those Brexit ads about tea pots and polar bears that appeared on Facebook?

In separate research, the fact-checking organisation First Draft found that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats all published misleading advertising during the campaign.
But the Tories were “by far the most frequent”, with 88 per cent of their most shared online adverts between 1 and 4 December containing misleading information, compared to 6.7 per cent for Labour.

Yes you can find ads but if you were to post a meme or a video on your page which had been provided to you by your local gorilla group of activists then they won't show up in ad libraries etc.

But as I have said - this has been discussed and I am not entering into a repeat of those posts.

[clarethomer]

Evidence: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communi ... emy-corbyn

Not that you’re going to pony any evidence about your claims. All advertising attempts to tell a story that emotionally resounds with the public, but that doesn’t mean it’s false or misleading. Yet this is what you’re insinuating. Whatever there might have been, it’s nowhere near the scale of Tory misinformation we saw last year, and continue to see now.

Im just taking your approach to things Andrew.

[Rileybobs]

Yes you can find ads but if you were to post a meme or a video on your page which had been provided to you by your local gorilla group of activists then they won't show up in ad libraries etc.

Sounds like Labour should be investigated on animal cruelty grounds.

[clarethomer]

Sounds like Labour should be investigated on animal cruelty grounds.

Apologies - Im quite a fan of animals too - should have known better - Guerilla Group.

[CombatClaret]

Yes you can find ads but if you were to post a meme or a video on your page which had been provided to you by your local gorilla group of activists then they won't show up in ad libraries etc.

We have all the ridiculous 2016 Brexit ads about Tea Pots because people saved and screenshot them.
Facebook Ad Library started in 2018.
So if there was this large but handily un-archived Labour mis-information campaign in 2019 surely there will be lots of pro-Tory blogs listing them, just like the Brexit ads no?

And I'm sure these below the radar 'guerrilla campaigns' were just as effective as say, creating a fake Labour Manifesto site then throwing enough money at Google Ads so it appeared above the genuine one.

[clarethomer]

Apparently 87% of the print media was against Corbyn...

Did you know that?

You would have thought if that was the case, someone like Andrew JB would be able to direct me towards some evidence of this too.

I don't read political blogs so I don't know if these are anywhere but even the article stated all parties were guilty of misinformation. Even if we could agree that one party did this more often than the other - don't you think the point is being missed. What's that phrase about stones and glass houses?

As I said, feel free to read back through the thread - I don't have the energy to go through this debate again. Its like groundhog day on these threads.

[CombatClaret]

Apparently 87% of the print media was against Corbyn...
Did you know that?
You would have thought if that was the case, someone like Andrew JB would be able to direct me towards some evidence of this too.
I don't read political blogs so I don't know if these are anywhere but even the article stated all parties were guilty of misinformation. Even if we could agree that one party did this more often than the other - don't you think the point is being missed. What's that phrase about stones and glass houses?
As I said, feel free to read back through the thread - I don't have the energy to go through this debate again. Its like groundhog day on these threads.

Like a lot of these things, happy to claim something was said or done (usually to someone else they heard about somewhere) as a kind of rebutal or false equivalence. But won't go as far as providing evidence to back up their claims.

Ironically the subject is misinformation.

[RingoMcCartney]

Sadly you’ve allowed your desire to get one over anonymous posters on an Internet forum to cloud the empathy and outrage for the care home policy you ought to have for the 40,000+ who have succumbed to the terrible virus. So much so that you now see PHE taking 5000 off the death toll as a personal victory (these people are still dead by the way).

But that’s the risk you run when you, as an ordinary member of the public, allow politics to consume you and to become your entire personality. One day you’ll grow up and realise that there are isn’t a single politician who gives a shiny shite whether you live or die, not even your blue- eyes Tories. It’ll be a harsh lesson but one sorely needed.

Anyway, I’ll you get on with it. Congratulations again. Never let a good crisis go to waste eh.

First you claimed I was "celebrating"

Now, you're claiming I've allowed "politics to consume you and to become your entire personality"

Of course this is just you being unable to accept that back in April/May, I said raw mortality rates shouldn't be used to come to conclusions, that nobody in the world had all the necessary facts to judge and that Public Health England may not be upto the job. You cant accept I was right.


Fair enough.

[RingoMcCartney]

You've been calling PHE incompetent for months. Not too early for that, presumably?

I said , in April, " I'll let time pass to a calmer time in the future when Public Health England's role will be scrutinised to ascertain whether they were upto the job."


I didn't call them "Incompetent for months". I simply suggested it would be wise to ascertain their credibility, in calmer times.....

It's not "too early" in fact its too late to "presumably" say "you're getting sacked in the morning!"

[martin_p]

First you claimed I was "celebrating"

Now, you're claiming I've allowed "politics to consume you and to become your entire personality"

Of course this is just you being unable to accept that back in April/May, I said raw mortality rates shouldn't be used to come to conclusions, that nobody in the world had all the necessary facts to judge and that Public Health England may not be upto the job. You cant accept I was right.


Fair enough.

The raw mortality rates for April and May haven’t really changed.

[ksrclaret]

First you claimed I was "celebrating"

Now, you're claiming I've allowed "politics to consume you and to become your entire personality"

Of course this is just you being unable to accept that back in April/May, I said raw mortality rates shouldn't be used to come to conclusions, that nobody in the world had all the necessary facts to judge and that Public Health England may not be upto the job. You cant accept I was right.


Fair enough.

Hey Ringo, have you heard the one about the trawler and the sardines? I think it might be one of Eric Cantona's x

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BldYlGqs7pA

[RingoMcCartney]

The raw mortality rates for April and May haven’t really changed.

P45's all round at Public Health England suggest someone messed up .

I feel another pedantry fest is just around the corner.

Not for me.

Accept I was right when I said , in April, nobody had all the facts, the facts alone shouldn't be the one and only determinant, and those responsible for the facts,
would be judged " in calmer times" . If you can't, its fine by me.

Done.

[RingoMcCartney]

Hey Ringo, have you heard the one about the trawler and the sardines? I think it might be one of Eric Cantona's x

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BldYlGqs7pA

Hey ksrclaret, see above!

[ksrclaret]

Hey ksrclaret, see above!

Oh I’m sorry I just can’t bring myself to accept that.

Thankfully that’s fine by you though.

Night babe speak tomorrow x

[martin_p]

P45's all round at Public Health England suggest someone messed up .

I feel another pedantry fest is just around the corner.

Not for me.

Accept I was right when I said , in April, nobody had all the facts, the facts alone shouldn't be the one and only determinant, and those responsible for the facts,
would be judged " in calmer times" . If you can't, its fine by me.

Done.

But they did have the facts in April, they haven’t changed. It’s June and July where the main differences were. What do we know now about the death rates in April that we didn’t know at the time?

But if you’re saying nobody had all the facts about the June/July death rates back in April then you’re right. Congratulations on your impeccable understanding of how time works.

[AndrewJB]

Apparently 87% of the print media was against Corbyn...

Did you know that?

You would have thought if that was the case, someone like Andrew JB would be able to direct me towards some evidence of this too.

I don't read political blogs so I don't know if these are anywhere but even the article stated all parties were guilty of misinformation. Even if we could agree that one party did this more often than the other - don't you think the point is being missed. What's that phrase about stones and glass houses?

As I said, feel free to read back through the thread - I don't have the energy to go through this debate again. Its like groundhog day on these threads.

87% of print media by circulation back the Tories. Probably more than that attacked Corbyn. I provided a link above to an academic paper. It’s not my fault if you won’t read it.

[TheFamilyCat]

First you claimed I was "celebrating"

Now, you're claiming I've allowed "politics to consume you and to become your entire personality"

Of course this is just you being unable to accept that back in April/May, I said raw mortality rates shouldn't be used to come to conclusions, that nobody in the world had all the necessary facts to judge and that Public Health England may not be upto the job. You cant accept I was right.


Fair enough.

Nobody claimed to have all the facts in April.
Nobody used raw mortality rates alone to draw conclusions on the government's handling of the pandemic.

You may have been right but nobody was disagreeing with you so hardly a cause for such patting of your own back.

As for PHE, there's very little evidence of any failings. Maybe more will come out but as it stands they seem to be nothing more than a scapegoat.

[dsr]

Nobody claimed to have all the facts in April.
Nobody used raw mortality rates alone to draw conclusions on the government's handling of the pandemic.

You may have been right but nobody was disagreeing with you so hardly a cause for such patting of your own back.

As for PHE, there's very little evidence of any failings. Maybe more will come out but as it stands they seem to be nothing more than a scapegoat.

Are you saying that PHE amply fulfilled that part of the job whereby we should be ready for a pandemic? Did they have ample supplies of PPE ready when needed? Did they have an adequate test and trace system in place?

If we were well prepared for the pandemic, that is thanks to PHE who have 5,000 staff, are not directly responsible to any minister, and have a specific duty to prepare for pandemics. The minister who has been in the job 6 months cannot take the credit - the UK's readiness for action is down to the professionalism and efficiency of the professionals in charge.

If, on the other hand, we were not well prepared for the pandemic ...

[AndrewJB]

P45's all round at Public Health England suggest someone messed up .

I feel another pedantry fest is just around the corner.

Not for me.

Accept I was right when I said , in April, nobody had all the facts, the facts alone shouldn't be the one and only determinant, and those responsible for the facts,
would be judged " in calmer times" . If you can't, its fine by me.

Done.

PHE procurement procedures were pushed aside and PPE was procured by a team run by the Cabinet Office, which we now know spaffed hundreds of millions on substandard PPE, and to companies without a history of providing PPE, but possibly ties to the Tory Party. Nothing like using a crisis to fill your pockets!

The failure sits with our part time PM and his government of dunces.

[AndrewJB]

Are you saying that PHE amply fulfilled that part of the job whereby we should be ready for a pandemic? Did they have ample supplies of PPE ready when needed? Did they have an adequate test and trace system in place?

If we were well prepared for the pandemic, that is thanks to PHE who have 5,000 staff, are not directly responsible to any minister, and have a specific duty to prepare for pandemics. The minister who has been in the job 6 months cannot take the credit - the UK's readiness for action is down to the professionalism and efficiency of the professionals in charge.

If, on the other hand, we were not well prepared for the pandemic ...

PHE works under the policies and with the budget set by the government. I’m entirely sure that a proper investigation will not discover the government instructed PHE to prepare for a pandemic (let’s not forget there was a war game played out which showed how poorly prepared we were, and which wasn’t shared with care homes), and provided the funding to do so, and PHE said; “No.”

[dsr]

PHE works under the policies and with the budget set by the government. I’m entirely sure that a proper investigation will not discover the government instructed PHE to prepare for a pandemic (let’s not forget there was a war game played out which showed how poorly prepared we were, and which wasn’t shared with care homes), and provided the funding to do so, and PHE said; “No.”

In year end March 2019, PHE's total expenditure was £4.25 billion. The quantities of consumable stock they had in reserve for emergencies was £6 million. About 0.15% of the total expenditure, and a tiny fraction of the reserves which were also over £1 billion. They don't have to go to the Department of Health for permission to spend any of their budget, as it happens, because they were given far too much autonomy; but if they did have to go for permission, it would only be for relatively large sums, not the odd few million.

[AndrewJB]

In year end March 2019, PHE's total expenditure was £4.25 billion. The quantities of consumable stock they had in reserve for emergencies was £6 million. About 0.15% of the total expenditure, and a tiny fraction of the reserves which were also over £1 billion. They don't have to go to the Department of Health for permission to spend any of their budget, as it happens, because they were given far too much autonomy; but if they did have to go for permission, it would only be for relatively large sums, not the odd few million.

And what was the governments policy at the time which informed the PHE?

[martin_p]

Are you saying that PHE amply fulfilled that part of the job whereby we should be ready for a pandemic? Did they have ample supplies of PPE ready when needed? Did they have an adequate test and trace system in place?

If we were well prepared for the pandemic, that is thanks to PHE who have 5,000 staff, are not directly responsible to any minister, and have a specific duty to prepare for pandemics. The minister who has been in the job 6 months cannot take the credit - the UK's readiness for action is down to the professionalism and efficiency of the professionals in charge.

If, on the other hand, we were not well prepared for the pandemic ...

No because the government ignored the recommendations from a pandemic planning exercise in 2016.

[aggi]

Jeez, I missed this news. Tony Abbott, who was a pretty poor PM for Australia, is set to be become the president of the UK's Board of Trade.

[Spijed]

Jeez, I missed this news. Tony Abbott, who was a pretty poor PM for Australia, is set to be become the president of the UK's Board of Trade.

Again, like the appointment of Dido Harding, it's absolutely nothing do with any experience but purely on keeping a job within the circle of friends, namely those who will be yes men to those in charge.

[martin_p]

This continues to go really well!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... SApp_Other

[tiger76]

This continues to go really well!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... SApp_Other

Sounds like the UK government are prepared to risk a no-deal brexit, so much for the easiest trade deal in history, the one thing the Conservative party normally demonstrates is pragmatism, sadly that's sorely lacking in these discussions, I wonder which civil servant will pay the price for this failure, one thing is certain no ministers will lose their jobs.

[martin_p]

Sounds like the UK government are prepared to risk a no-deal brexit, so much for the easiest trade deal in history, the one thing the Conservative party normally demonstrates is pragmatism, sadly that's sorely lacking in these discussions, I wonder which civil servant will pay the price for this failure, one thing is certain no ministers will lose their jobs.

They’ve painted themselves in a corner on that one as all the current negotiating team are hand picked Brexit yes men. Note the EU say they act more like messengers than negotiators though, doesn’t sound like they are allowed to do much.

[tiger76]

They’ve painted themselves in a corner on that one as all the current negotiating team are hand picked Brexit yes men. Note the EU say they act more like messengers than negotiators though, doesn’t sound like they are allowed to do much.

Yes I did note that phrase, the word that comes to mind is patsies, the reality is that we won't be allowed tariff free access to the SM, unless we sign up to the EU'S demands, but that shouldn't be a surprise, they've spelt that condition out very clearly from day 1, and they've also said the 4 freedoms are non-negotiable, so it's down to how much the UK wants or needs a deal, if we crash out without a deal, then the government should be explaining why this is case, and heaping the blame on the EU, won't wash with me, they promised they'd "get brexit done" leaving without a deal isn't getting brexit done, because at some point in the future we'll have to come to a settlement with our EU over trading arrangements, and other sticking points, so this will just drag on throughout this government's next 4 years of office, when their attention should be focussed on other priorities.

Now it could be that the UK is playing a blinder here, and the closer we get to the 31st December, the more concessions they can extract from the EU 27, but as it stands there's no obvious movement from them, and TBH I think they're sick to the back teeth with talking about brexit, when they've all got their own domestic matters, plus future EU projects to concentrate their efforts on.

[dsr]

Even the Guardian says that the EU are pratting about with the fisheries rules before moving on to trade. (That's not the form of words the Guardian used.) Why? What has fishing rights got to do with trade? The trade negotiators should be discussing trade and the fisheries negotiators should discuss the separate issue of fish.

As for the EU's demands that a chunk of their laws should automatically apply to the UK, an open ended commitment that they can vote anything past the UK parliament, that's an absurd suggestion. Of course the UK negotiators can't budge on that.

Free trade would be easy to agree. The EU doesn't want free trade, it wants strings attached and it wants control of the strings. A Canada type deal would be fairly easy too, but the EU doesn't want that. A deal whereby the UK is in the same position as now but without any input into future dealings would also be easy but the UK doesn't want that. The UK wants a level playing field, the EU doesn't.

It's true that we were told by some of the more pro-EU people on this board that if it came down to it the EU would play nasty and would be happy to make themselves poorer if it affects us worse; and they were right. But it is also true that some of us don't see that as a valid reason for loving the EU, and also think that we will in the long term be financially and politically better off outside that sort of organisation anyway.

[AndrewJB]

Yes I did note that phrase, the word that comes to mind is patsies, the reality is that we won't be allowed tariff free access to the SM, unless we sign up to the EU'S demands, but that shouldn't be a surprise, they've spelt that condition out very clearly from day 1, and they've also said the 4 freedoms are non-negotiable, so it's down to how much the UK wants or needs a deal, if we crash out without a deal, then the government should be explaining why this is case, and heaping the blame on the EU, won't wash with me, they promised they'd "get brexit done" leaving without a deal isn't getting brexit done, because at some point in the future we'll have to come to a settlement with our EU over trading arrangements, and other sticking points, so this will just drag on throughout this government's next 4 years of office, when their attention should be focussed on other priorities.

Now it could be that the UK is playing a blinder here, and the closer we get to the 31st December, the more concessions they can extract from the EU 27, but as it stands there's no obvious movement from them, and TBH I think they're sick to the back teeth with talking about brexit, when they've all got their own domestic matters, plus future EU projects to concentrate their efforts on.

I think a last minute deal will end up getting signed, but if this happens it won’t be to our advantage (but will be better than no deal at all, and will get sold as: “Boris rescues the U.K. from oblivion”). One thing for certain now is there was never an “oven ready” deal.

In terms of being a crap PM Johnson has exceeded even what I (not a fan) thought. I thought a strength of his, and Cummings is supposed to be radical thinking, combined with knowledge of history - finding different ways to overcome problems. But that has clearly not happened with the pandemic, and I can’t see it happening with either the looming recession, nor the Brexit endgame. It all looks to me like blame the civil service and replace experienced people with yes people. No matter how many failures and U turns, not a single minister has resigned. Instead civil servants have been pushed out with taxpayer hush money. It leads to the conclusion there is us, the governed, and them, the decision makers who never have to take responsibility for the decisions they make.

[AndrewJB]

Even the Guardian says that the EU are pratting about with the fisheries rules before moving on to trade. (That's not the form of words the Guardian used.) Why? What has fishing rights got to do with trade? The trade negotiators should be discussing trade and the fisheries negotiators should discuss the separate issue of fish.

As for the EU's demands that a chunk of their laws should automatically apply to the UK, an open ended commitment that they can vote anything past the UK parliament, that's an absurd suggestion. Of course the UK negotiators can't budge on that.

Free trade would be easy to agree. The EU doesn't want free trade, it wants strings attached and it wants control of the strings. A Canada type deal would be fairly easy too, but the EU doesn't want that. A deal whereby the UK is in the same position as now but without any input into future dealings would also be easy but the UK doesn't want that. The UK wants a level playing field, the EU doesn't.

It's true that we were told by some of the more pro-EU people on this board that if it came down to it the EU would play nasty and would be happy to make themselves poorer if it affects us worse; and they were right. But it is also true that some of us don't see that as a valid reason for loving the EU, and also think that we will in the long term be financially and politically better off outside that sort of organisation anyway.

I guess fisheries must be important to the EU.

The EU wants a free trade deal in which the U.K. can’t lower our labour laws, and standards below theirs to compete. You’ve always pointed out that ours are higher, so there should be no problem with acquiescing with this. It would be a level playing field.

I remember people on this board crowing that our departure might lead to the disintegration of the EU, but I can’t remember anyone being happy while pointing out the EU holds all the cards. More, I think, as a warning to those who insisted that we held all the cards and everything will be hunky dory - which we now know isn’t the case.

When you now look at things and, as you’ve said, we need an input into these rules we’ll have to follow - do you not remember we had all this as a member?

[JohnMcGreal]

Even the Guardian says that the EU are pratting about with the fisheries rules before moving on to trade. (That's not the form of words the Guardian used.) Why? What has fishing rights got to do with trade? The trade negotiators should be discussing trade and the fisheries negotiators should discuss the separate issue of fish.

As for the EU's demands that a chunk of their laws should automatically apply to the UK, an open ended commitment that they can vote anything past the UK parliament, that's an absurd suggestion. Of course the UK negotiators can't budge on that.

Free trade would be easy to agree. The EU doesn't want free trade, it wants strings attached and it wants control of the strings. A Canada type deal would be fairly easy too, but the EU doesn't want that. A deal whereby the UK is in the same position as now but without any input into future dealings would also be easy but the UK doesn't want that. The UK wants a level playing field, the EU doesn't.

It's true that we were told by some of the more pro-EU people on this board that if it came down to it the EU would play nasty and would be happy to make themselves poorer if it affects us worse; and they were right. But it is also true that some of us don't see that as a valid reason for loving the EU, and also think that we will in the long term be financially and politically better off outside that sort of organisation anyway.

I don't think anybody on here 'loves' the EU, dsr. It's just that it was obvious 4 years ago that being outside the EU would be worse for us, in almost every conceivable way.

The stubbornness of the EU over fishing and the level playing field might seem silly to you, but ultimately, they're just protecting their members interests. Which used to include us, but now we are a third country. They have no obligation to protect the interests of non-members.

This is simple stuff that has been predictable for a long time. Like tiger76 said, their position has been clear and consistent since day one.

The only people who seemed surprised by it are the ones who thought this would all be easy, and the EU would bend over backwards for a departing member. If the promises you believed have turned out to be false, you should turn your anger and frustration on the people who sold them to you.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I don't think anybody on here 'loves' the EU, dsr. It's just that it was obvious 4 years ago that being outside the EU would be worse for us, in almost every conceivable way.

The stubbornness of the EU over fishing and the level playing field might seem silly to you, but ultimately, they're just protecting their members interests. Which used to include us, but now we are a third country. They have no obligation to protect the interests of non-members.

This is simple stuff that has been predictable for a long time. Like tiger76 said, their position has been clear and consistent since day one.

The only people who seemed surprised by it are the ones who thought this would all be easy, and the EU would bend over backwards for a departing member. If the promises you believed have turned out to be false, you should turn your anger and frustration on the people who sold them to you.

Don't think either side should bend over backwards to suit the other, but if a deal can't be agreed that suits both sides equally then one or both sides should walk away selecting no deal.

[JohnMcGreal]

Don't think either side should bend over backwards to suit the other, but if a deal can't be agreed that suits both sides equally then one or both sides should walk away selecting no deal.

That may well happen, and all the signs are pointing towards a no-deal crash out for us.

But if that happens, it won't be the end state. Make no mistake that would be an absolute catastrophe for us. So much so that we'll be rushing back to the negotiating table in no time.

What demands will the EU make then? At the very least, I'd imagine they'd want their current concerns resolved, like fishing, level playing field, state aid, before going any further with the talks. So basically, the exact same demands as they're making now.

Only in February 2021, we'll be in an even weaker position with no leverage at all. We'll be on our knees, and we'll be agreeing to anything.

[dsr]

I don't think anybody on here 'loves' the EU, dsr. It's just that it was obvious 4 years ago that being outside the EU would be worse for us, in almost every conceivable way.

The stubbornness of the EU over fishing and the level playing field might seem silly to you, but ultimately, they're just protecting their members interests. Which used to include us, but now we are a third country. They have no obligation to protect the interests of non-members.

This is simple stuff that has been predictable for a long time. Like tiger76 said, their position has been clear and consistent since day one.

The only people who seemed surprised by it are the ones who thought this would all be easy, and the EU would bend over backwards for a departing member. If the promises you believed have turned out to be false, you should turn your anger and frustration on the people who sold them to you.

But why is the EU behaving this way? How does it protect their members to make themselves poorer by making an apparently huge negative effect on trade with a large trading partner?

I can see why the politicians don't want Brexit to be a success because it could encourage other countries to go the same way, though obviously they wouldn't claim that's what they're doing because that's the opposite of protecting their members. And this is not how it should happen. When Scotland was voting about independence, there was no suggestion that if they voted to leave the UK there would be border controls and no free trade unless they applied English laws and England would still have the fishing rights. The suggestion is that the UK would have dealth with Scotland in a mutually fair way. Maybe you thing this would be the wrong thing to do? But I suspect if that had been the UK attitude, Scotland would have voted to leave. You can't make people like or respect you by threatening to bully them.

It was obvious to you 4 years ago that being in the EU was better than out in almost every conceivable way? That's just another way of saying that you were right because you were right and the majority were wrong because they didn't agree with you. It is still not obvious to me that being in the EU would be a good thing, especially because they are throwing their weight around in an attempt to prove they are bigger and better.

Sometimes divorce is necessary even if it does make you financially poorer. And "if you divorce me I will try to make you poorer even at cost to myself" isn't a good argument against divorce.

[AndrewJB]

But why is the EU behaving this way? How does it protect their members to make themselves poorer by making an apparently huge negative effect on trade with a large trading partner?

I can see why the politicians don't want Brexit to be a success because it could encourage other countries to go the same way, though obviously they wouldn't claim that's what they're doing because that's the opposite of protecting their members. And this is not how it should happen. When Scotland was voting about independence, there was no suggestion that if they voted to leave the UK there would be border controls and no free trade unless they applied English laws and England would still have the fishing rights. The suggestion is that the UK would have dealth with Scotland in a mutually fair way. Maybe you thing this would be the wrong thing to do? But I suspect if that had been the UK attitude, Scotland would have voted to leave. You can't make people like or respect you by threatening to bully them.

It was obvious to you 4 years ago that being in the EU was better than out in almost every conceivable way? That's just another way of saying that you were right because you were right and the majority were wrong because they didn't agree with you. It is still not obvious to me that being in the EU would be a good thing, especially because they are throwing their weight around in an attempt to prove they are bigger and better.

Sometimes divorce is necessary even if it does make you financially poorer. And "if you divorce me I will try to make you poorer even at cost to myself" isn't a good argument against divorce.

The EU are looking after their member’s interests (and the interests of the U.K. public) by calling for a level playing field. All this does is prevent the U.K. from undercutting EU labour and environment laws (which you have always said are lower than ours). The only reason the U.K. government wouldn’t agree is if they plan to weaken our labour and environmental protections.

[clarethomer]

They are a protectionist state which I agree with and why they are seeking these assurances but the reason for us not agreeing to them isn’t because we want to weaken them at all.

There are other reasons we don’t want to agree to them but for you to understand these you need to accept the direction of travel with us leaving the EU and what accepting these would do to that.

Until you can consider this, you are left with your narrow minded view.

[dsr]

The EU are looking after their member’s interests (and the interests of the U.K. public) by calling for a level playing field. All this does is prevent the U.K. from undercutting EU labour and environment laws (which you have always said are lower than ours). The only reason the U.K. government wouldn’t agree is if they plan to weaken our labour and environmental protections.

It's an irreconcilable difference. you believe that if the EU makes all the rules then it's a level playing field. I don't. It's like the boy who owned the football deciding who plays and where - you might accept it if you don't have a football of your own, but that doesn't mean it's all fair and equal.

Seriously, can you not see that the UK government will not accept that our laws should be ultimately decided by a foreign power? I don't ask you to accept that it's a good thing to set our own laws; just to accept that it's a point of view with some validity. It's not as if all trade deals have a rule that one country makes the rules and the other accepts it. I'm sure there was no facility in the deals with Canada or Japan that Canadian and Japanese law are subordinate to EU law in their own countries.

[aggi]

It's an irreconcilable difference. you believe that if the EU makes all the rules then it's a level playing field. I don't. It's like the boy who owned the football deciding who plays and where - you might accept it if you don't have a football of your own, but that doesn't mean it's all fair and equal.

Seriously, can you not see that the UK government will not accept that our laws should be ultimately decided by a foreign power? I don't ask you to accept that it's a good thing to set our own laws; just to accept that it's a point of view with some validity. It's not as if all trade deals have a rule that one country makes the rules and the other accepts it. I'm sure there was no facility in the deals with Canada or Japan that Canadian and Japanese law are subordinate to EU law in their own countries.

Given it's such an issue why did they include it in the Political Declaration? The EU proposals are pretty close to what was initially in there whereas the UK proposals have significantly moved away from that.

[AndrewJB]

It's an irreconcilable difference. you believe that if the EU makes all the rules then it's a level playing field. I don't. It's like the boy who owned the football deciding who plays and where - you might accept it if you don't have a football of your own, but that doesn't mean it's all fair and equal.

Seriously, can you not see that the UK government will not accept that our laws should be ultimately decided by a foreign power? I don't ask you to accept that it's a good thing to set our own laws; just to accept that it's a point of view with some validity. It's not as if all trade deals have a rule that one country makes the rules and the other accepts it. I'm sure there was no facility in the deals with Canada or Japan that Canadian and Japanese law are subordinate to EU law in their own countries.

If leavers had said right from the beginning that there would be an irreconcilable difference, rather than insisting it would all be perfectly fine, and we’d quickly negotiate a trade deal, then we wouldn’t be in this position right now because remain would have won.

[KateR]

there is an oven ready deal, it's just that one of the guest sitting at the table is still arguing over the starters rather than getting ready to open the oven and get his deal.

If the EU are so adamant about the starters, which has been stated and we all agree with, why did they not months ago just walk away and say, no we are not discussing because you have our demands, sorry our notification of what we would like, once you agree we can start to open the oven. They have not, there are 27 countries, not all of them are interested in the fisheries, but a few, Germany, Netherlands, France, etc. are definitely interested. If it goes no deal, then a lot of people will be completely out of work rather than reduced, they will try until the very last second to have the demands they deem critical to meeting the EU demands, prior to opening the oven to look at and discuss the deal.

[nil_desperandum]

It's an irreconcilable difference. you believe that if the EU makes all the rules then it's a level playing field. I don't. It's like the boy who owned the football deciding who plays and where - you might accept it if you don't have a football of your own, but that doesn't mean it's all fair and equal.

That's a pretty poor analogy (IMO). But if you want to use football:
We were in the team but chose to leave because (to a large extent) we didn't like the rules and some members of the squad. (Our decision, just like Jeff Hendrick).
So now we've cancelled our contract and aren't in the team, but we can't play on our own, so would like to play with some other teams. But one problem is that most of the teams that would offer us a contract are lower division teams, and to do business with one of the bigger clubs, we will also need to sign a contract with them and agree terms and conditions.
Additionally, although we don't want to be part of the (EU) team, we might like to have the odd game with them. Problem is they've already got a large squad of 27, and many of them - quite understandably - aren't too keen on us picking and choosing what games we play in. They recognise that the team is stronger when we are a part of it, but they're not prepared risk disharmony within the club and the total break-up of a strong squad in order to accommodate us. Effectively they'll offer us a new deal on their terms, and if we don't agree to it by the end of the year then we'll be like an out of contract player without a club. But we can't play on our own, so we'll then have to continue negotiating with new clubs or go back to our old club and ask them what terms they can offer us.

[clarethomer]

What do you get when you cross a remainer and labour MP together?

Screenshot 2020-08-28 at 19.53.31.png (392.07 KiB) Viewed 1572 times

[clarethomer]

What do you get when the EU are worried about no deal but remainers tell you that the EU don't need the UK?

Screenshot 2020-08-28 at 19.56.13.png (1.02 MiB) Viewed 1570 times

[aggi]

What do you get when the EU are worried about no deal but remainers tell you that the EU don't need the UK?

Screenshot 2020-08-28 at 19.56.13.png

I don't think anyone had said that. Just that in the big scheme of things the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK.

Plus it's pretty telling that according to that they aren't stepping in to get the EU members to compromise. That doesn't sound that desperate.