The Brexit Thread (topical thread)

[Aractus]

[The latter example, a billboard from Ukip showing what appeared to be masses of Syrian refugees lining up somwhere, yet this image was used to promote the idea of stopping free movement........which is something granted to EU citizens only, in what can only be described as a racist move on Farage's part] which got the people rowled up. From then on, no matter what you told them it was 100% about stopping people coming here and taking our jobs or something. 

Again, I KNOW that isn't the point, but try telling that to any layman in the street and you'd be surprised on what the general masses think this is/was even about.

Okay so the billboard that Farage unveiled (not Vote Leave) was divisive and VL disowned it. However, I will say that Farage's point was completely valid: what it showed was a horde of young unaccompanied men crossing into Europe: there is no credible case that the majority of them are refugees. They're illegal migrants. However explaining that to people is not at all easy. What about the people that are refugees? And yes some of them will be young unaccompanied men - but what the billboard showed was a lack of the other cohorts: women, children, older people.

As for immigration being a primary factor, of course it was. Dominic Cummings says as much. However - 59% of voters that voted leave were Middle Class, and 41% were working class. The narrative that it was the uneducated working class racists that voted leave is misplaced.

As far as racism goes - until you left the EU your immigration policy was none other than what we here call the White Australia policy. You now have a chance to make immigration colourblind. To say that ethnicity and where you're born doesn't matter. What matters - like here in Australia - is if you share our core western values: freedom, democracy, equality, common law (all are equal under the law), the open market. I know that I have told the story many times of where I worked with a Saudi that hated Australia. As a colleague I wished I had the power to deport him. He thought the idea that women can vote was atrocious. He thought the idea that women had their own agency was atrocious. He thought that allowing women to drive was appalling. Now I'm more than happy to have Saudi immigrants to Australia, but not people that hate our values and way of life. It's fair to say that he unfavourably shaped my opinion of the Islamic religion as a whole - for example he he would say Allah would punish me, and make physical threats of violence saying things like "when we take over the world you'll be a slave". His ideology was not just offensive, but it scared me. On more than one occasion he told me that he would bring people into Australia to kill me if I disrespected him. He expected me to respect his royalty, whereas I thought he was full of shit. Of course there is a more moderate wing to the Sunni Muslim religion, one that's a minority globally but a majority in countries like Australia. We in Australia don't care where you're from as long as you share our core values, that's what matters.

I've never seen a wog behave in that way - they just argue very loudly and obtrusively amongst themselves. Most of the time they're as pleasant as anyone else. I would say though that most Australians are offended by the way the Greeks behave to each other. One of my mum's favourite cafes is run by Greeks and she was telling me (a few months ago) that she had seen the owners yelling at each other numerous times before but she accepted it. Then one day she saw the man hit his wife. Not hard or anything, he just hit her over the head and said something like "you stupid woman" or whatever (there's a good chance they were arguing in Greek not Australian). She said she can never feel comfortable in their cafe again. It wasn't an egregious act of violence, but it was an act of violence nonetheless in full view of the customers, and as mum said "what does he do to her at home?" One of the local shops here the wogs that owned the place pushed out the Asian tenants. I can count the number of times I've gone there since on one hand - and it all comes down to one experience. I went there and the owner and his son were yelling at each other like crazy, but they stopped when I came in. After I left, before the door had even closed they were yelling in heated aggressive angry argument at each other again. I had the experience like that once in a restaurant (owned and run by Thai nationals, not Greeks not that it matters) where all night while we were having our dinner, what was supposed to be a nice night out, we heard screaming and arguing from the kitchen. This was on mother's day too, so it's not like it was just some completely random day plucked out of the year. We wanted to have a peaceful environment to have a family dinner, that was more important than if the food was bad (and they messed up a number of orders) - I've never gone back to that restaurant and every time it's raised as an option I veto it.

Cultural appropriation is a joint endeavour. You can bring your culture, as long as it's compatible with our values. That all the ordinary Aussie expects from multiculturalism. But if you want to say you hate our values, if you want to beat your women in front of us, we're not going to appreciate that. To claim that's xenophobic is ridiculous.

[OakTree500]

Okay so the billboard that Farage unveiled (not Vote Leave) was divisive and VL disowned it. However, I will say that Farage's point was completely valid: what it showed was a horde of young unaccompanied men crossing into Europe: there is no credible case that the majority of them are refugees. They're illegal migrants. However explaining that to people is not at all easy. What about the people that are refugees? And yes some of them will be young unaccompanied men - but what the billboard showed was a lack of the other cohorts: women, children, older people.

As for immigration being a primary factor, of course it was. Dominic Cummings says as much. However - 59% of voters that voted leave were Middle Class, and 41% were working class. The narrative that it was the uneducated working class racists that voted leave is misplaced.

The billboard itself was done to promote some sort of "fear" of hordes of people coming into the UK. It itself show this mass of "brown faces" with the tag line "Breaking point - The EU has failed us. It's time to take back control of our boarders". The problem being A) those pictured would most likely NOT be EU citizens B) We DO have control of our boarders yet don't enforce it and C) has nothing to do with free movement of EU citizens. 

It's hard not to say something like this isn't based upon race (working class or otherwise) but more and educational problem on what the EU law is, and what the UK laws are, and which ones effect relevant subjects. Said billboard highlights refugees coming into the country and not EU citizens, which the EU stance on refugees is that they must seek asylum in the first instance in France or Germany. Even then, coming here [to the UK specifically] illegally, isn't going to stop if we're members of the EU or not AND to take it further, all non EU citizens are subject to UK government review, via application. So if people outside of the EU apply to live here, its the UK that let them in, not the EU forcing us to take them. Even then, the EU suggest to have various objects in place [such as many other countries] that include having suitable income to live in your desired country and so forth, yet the UK itself chooses not to enforce this rule as it ins't mandatory. That isn't the EU's fault, that's OUR fault. People want control on the borders for non EU immigrants? We've always had control. Scaremongering people into thinking hundreds and hundreds of people are standing in Dover is just ridiculous and those that over took it as gospel are equally to blame really.

For EU free movement, it has it's pluses and minus. The overall part is the aforementioned suggested controls by the EU to have all relevant set ups BEFORE you move which the relevant member countries can enforce if they choose to. So in short, we have control, and by being members of the EU we can have a say in potentially changing that [which we also had slightly more say than others as well] - now we're out, we can't do shit and the government will still allow people to come into the country anyway, if anything it'll be potentially more non EU citizens, which will piss off those who thought this was about closing down their local polish shop.

Don't get me wrong, immigration is something that is always a hot topic, but it has to come down to facts and not "iTs Da eViL eU MaKiNg Us Do AlL ThIs ShIT".

As far as racism goes - until you left the EU your immigration policy was none other than what we here call the White Australia policy. 

No - the immigration policy was "If you are an EU citizen, you have free movement" and "anybody outside the EU has to apply accordingly". It worked very very well, and to suggest no people of colour, other than white people, are EU citizens is bonkers, and that we didn't allow anybody else to come here is also bonkers. Most towns/cities in the UK have very large communities of either (or all) Indian/Chinese/Japanese/Pakistani/etc, which only very recently [within the past 15-20 years in my experience] changed to include the 'White' European areas such as Poland/otherwise.

Edit to add: My step father is the son of a Caribbean immigrant, of which their are also MANY of in the UK.

I know that I have told the story many times of where I worked with a Saudi that hated Australia. As a colleague I wished I had the power to deport him. He thought the idea that women can vote was atrocious. He thought the idea that women had their own agency was atrocious. He thought that allowing women to drive was appalling. 

Now I'm more than happy to have Saudi immigrants to Australia, but not people that hate our values and way of life. It's fair to say that he unfavorably shaped my opinion of the Islamic religion as a whole - for example he he would say Allah would punish me, and make physical threats of violence saying things like "when we take over the world you'll be a slave". 

His ideology was not just offensive, but it scared me. On more than one occasion he told me that he would bring people into Australia to kill me if I disrespected him. He expected me to respect his royalty, whereas I thought he was full of shit. Of course there is a more moderate wing to the Sunni Muslim religion, one that's a minority globally but a majority in countries like Australia. We in Australia don't care where you're from as long as you share our core values, that's what matters.

I've never seen a wog behave in that way - they just argue very loudly and obtrusively amongst themselves. Most of the time they're as pleasant as anyone else. I would say though that most Australians are offended by the way the Greeks behave to each other. One of my mum's favourite cafes is run by Greeks and she was telling me (a few months ago) that she had seen the owners yelling at each other numerous times before but she accepted it. Then one day she saw the man hit his wife. Not hard or anything, he just hit her over the head and said something like "you stupid woman" or whatever (there's a good chance they were arguing in Greek not Australian). She said she can never feel comfortable in their cafe again. It wasn't an egregious act of violence, but it was an act of violence nonetheless in full view of the customers, and as mum said "what does he do to her at home?" One of the local shops here the wogs that owned the place pushed out the Asian tenants. I can count the number of times I've gone there since on one hand - and it all comes down to one experience. I went there and the owner and his son were yelling at each other like crazy, but they stopped when I came in. After I left, before the door had even closed they were yelling in heated aggressive angry argument at each other again. I had the experience like that once in a restaurant (owned and run by Thai nationals, not Greeks not that it matters) where all night while we were having our dinner, what was supposed to be a nice night out, we heard screaming and arguing from the kitchen. This was on mother's day too, so it's not like it was just some completely random day plucked out of the year. We wanted to have a peaceful environment to have a family dinner, that was more important than if the food was bad (and they messed up a number of orders) - I've never gone back to that restaurant and every time it's raised as an option I veto it.

Cultural appropriation is a joint endeavour. You can bring your culture, as long as it's compatible with our values. That all the ordinary Aussie expects from multiculturalism. But if you want to say you hate our values, if you want to beat your women in front of us, we're not going to appreciate that. To claim that's xenophobic is ridiculous.

A lot of the above, I don't even know where to start with. 

Your experience, as you said was shaped by one [or maybe more] people who where basically assholes, which unfortunately gave you personally a bad view on a culture/religion as a whole. In reality, all lifestyles are compatible with the "western" lifestyle because one of those things you yourself quoted is "Freedom" - As in the right to be free, and the right to do what the fuck makes you happy [within confines of the law obviously]. In this case, live however the fuck you want/believe how you want/dress how you like and so forth. The basically covers everything that most people complain about. "Oh have you seen that mans wife in the Burka?" , yeah....well who gives a shit. You can wear one if you like, It's not for me, but I'd not stopping you from living your life.

The problem with "freedom" is that places like Aus, the UK and the US are all about "We're Free......but you can only be free if its OUR freedom, and not yours." The majority on none UK born people I have ever met are so HAPPY to be here, it's unreal. I've worked with people from all over the world, and still do to this day. Some things are culturally different, but that's a good thing in my estimation because it'd be boring as fuck otherwise.

Again, some things I can agree with: Lets get people in who do jobs that our country outright NEEDS. But to deny somebody the right to escape a WARZONE or persecution based upon how they dress or what they believe in is fucking shocking. Some people are just assholes, that doenst change depending on where they come from, that doesn't also mean that the ENTIRE country is like that or the entire religion is either. It's give and take.

Just because you or your mum "feel uneasy" when two people have a shouting match in their native language, doesn't mean it's cool to boot people out of your country. And just because one asshole talks shit because he doesn't know how good he has it, isn't also reason either - The plus of all of THAT is the longer anybody live in another country, their eventual family by proxy becomes part of the overall populas [Looks/dress sense/morals etc] because they then grow up in that system AND those same people then carry on parts of their own heritage, which can never be taken away. If some bloke is knocking his wife about - tell the fucking police, and don't assume it's because they are foreign.

[Aractus]

In other news, Michael Gove has finally killed the idea that the UK will enjoy frictionless trade with Europe for good saying businesses needed to prepare for inevitable border checks on Jan 1. "Almost everybody" who trades with the EU would face border checks from Jan 1 Gove warned. He said friction was necessary: "You have to accept we will need some friction. We will minimise it but it is an inevitability of our departure."

His comments come following similar comments from other senior government ministers over the past couple of weeks, including Sajid Javid.

I've pointed out previously that this unrealistic promise was made by Theresa May, and it has been an unwelcome political Brexit burden for the UK government ever since. Their strategy is very clear, it's the one that Theresa May originally rejected: prepare for full customs checks. Dominic Cummings warned the Tories back in 2018 that the May/Hammond plan was surrender, that they had made multiple mutually incompatible promises, and that it was delusional with "no basis in reality". What we're seeing now is a shift by the Conservatives out of la la land and back to reality.

This week Australia signed our Free Trade Agreement with Indonesia. It took 10 years to negotiate, and Indonesia is projected to be the 4th largest economy in the world by 2050. Indonesia does not have an FTA with the EU. This highlights our different approach - it's the view of the Australian government that diversifying our trade with as many strongly performing economies as possible insulates us from the effects of any one of those nations (or regions) facing a sharp financial downturn. This is clearly the same goal now set out by the UK - it's ambitious, and will open up the UK to international trade.

So should Britons be worried about disruption? Well they're Poms they worry about everything, even the Brexiteers won't allow themselves to enjoy Brexit without worrying about it and carrying on. I jest. On the positive side, the UK government are finally acting like adults and are not in denial about the negative outcomes from Brexit. Optimistically the negative outcomes in terms of trade friction with the EU will be limited, short-term, or both. There's certainly cause for concern, after all this is a massive disruptive reform, and while I think they will have some kind of deal by the end of the year it's clear that it almost certainly won't cover 100% of goods and services. The fact the UK Government are no longer in denial about "frictionless trade" is I think a cause for cautious optimism.

No - the immigration policy was "If you are an EU citizen, you have free movement" and "anybody outside the EU has to apply accordingly". It worked very very well, and to suggest no people of colour, other than white people, are EU citizens is bonkers, and that we didn't allow anybody else to come here is also bonkers. Most towns/cities in the UK have very large communities of either (or all) Indian/Chinese/Japanese/Pakistani/etc, which only very recently [within the past 15-20 years in my experience] changed to include the 'White' European areas such as Poland/otherwise.

Edit to add: My step father is the son of a Caribbean immigrant, of which their are also MANY of in the UK.

It's still Europe-first immigration, and that's the problem.

Also you can say it has its "ups and downs" but it has negatives for the whole of Eastern Europe, it's leading to depopulation and outbound skilled migration to Western Europe.

A lot of the above, I don't even know where to start with. 

Your experience, as you said was shaped by one [or maybe more] people who where basically assholes, which unfortunately gave you personally a bad view on a culture/religion as a whole. In reality, all lifestyles are compatible with the "western" lifestyle because one of those things you yourself quoted is "Freedom" - As in the right to be free, and the right to do what the fuck makes you happy [within confines of the law obviously]. In this case, live however the fuck you want/believe how you want/dress how you like and so forth. The basically covers everything that most people complain about. "Oh have you seen that mans wife in the Burka?" , yeah....well who gives a shit. You can wear one if you like, It's not for me, but I'd not stopping you from living your life.

You're stretching the imagination thin to claim all "lifestyles" (cultures?) are intricately compatible with Western values. ISIL took up arms to fight for the right to have a caliphate. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, ruled by a monarchy with religious police.

[Aractus]

I neglected to mention, one reason why the Johnson government is determined not to prolong the transition period is because it puts a 3-year buffer between the worst effects of Brexit and the next general election. If it were extended by two years, that would put just one year and a few months between the "cliff edge" and the next GE.

It's also interesting to see the EU's attitude. On Brexit Day, Manfred Weber said this:

"Ich bin für keine harte Position, sondern für eine überzeugt europäische. Jede Union wird ihre Einheit verlieren, wenn jeder aus der Gemeinschaft nur das rauszieht, was ihm gerade passt oder nützt. Johnsons Brexit darf nicht zum Stichwortgeber für Le Pen, Kaczyński oder Orbán werden. Es gibt viele Kräfte auf dem Kontinent, die nur einen offenen Markt wollen, aber eine politische Union, die Grundwerte und den Europäischen Gerichtshof als Wächter darüber ablehnen. Wenn der Brexit gefühlt ein Erfolg wird, dann ist er der Anfang vom Ende der EU."

I apologise in advance for the crude Google-translate: "I am not for a hard position, but for a positive European one. Every Union will lose its unity if everyone takes out of the community only what suits them or is of use. Johnson's Brexit must not become the keyword for Le Pen, Kaczyński or Orbán. There are many forces on the continent who only want an open market, but reject a political Union, fundamental values and the European Court guarding it. If Brexit feels like a success, it is the beginning of the end of the EU."

Interesting to note he calls it "Johnson's Brexit" when it is in fact the UK's Brexit. Boris isn't some authoritarian dictator - he's the leader of the UK Government.

An alternative German political view was offered by Jens Spahn who said: „Ich habe mir den Brexit nicht gewünscht, aber es ist gut, dass es jetzt eine Entscheidung gibt. Ich wünsche unseren britischen Freunden nur das Beste. Wenn wir die richtigen Schlüsse ziehen, gehen wir gestärkt aus diesem Prozess hervor“. Or in Google-translated English: "I didn't want Brexit, but it's good that there is a decision now. I wish our British friends the best. If we draw the right conclusions, we will emerge stronger from this process".

He also said that Brexit is „ein Eimer kaltes Wasser ins europäische Gesicht. Die Zeit der Tagträumerei ist vorbei. Die Idee der Vereinigten Staaten von Europa ist auf absehbare Zeit erledigt, ob einem das gefällt oder nicht. Für die Nationalstaaten als Rahmen der liberalen Demokratie gibt es keinen Ersatz“. In Google-translated English: Brexit is "a bucket of cold water in the European face. The time for daydreaming is over. The idea of the United States of Europe is settled for the foreseeable future, whether you like it or not. There is no substitute for the nation states as a framework for liberal democracy".

He said the majority of Europeans want to keep their national identities, and that expanding the EU out of ideology was irresponsible.

We also have news that EU officials will refuse a Canada-style deal, even though that's what Michel Barnier proposed was acceptable back in 2017:



Many are worried that the UK will be a competitor (eg Angela Merkel). Yes they really are that out of touch with reality. One of the other claims made (particularly by Germany and France) is that UK is too geographically close to the EU for a Canada-style deal - Canada is further away, and doesn't do very much trade with the EU.

This sounds to me like the mad ramblings of delusion.

Gisela Stuart: “When the in-out referendum was announced, I asked myself what it would take for me to vote remain. If the EU had acknowledged that the institutional architecture should have changed to accommodate euro countries, which required deeper political integration, and non-euro countries, which needed a looser framework, I would have said: 'OK, let’s give it a try.' Not a case of British opt-outs, but an EU that recognises two kinds of membership: a core and a periphery.

“Britain originally joined a political project for economic reasons, and the remain campaign made the case for continued membership on economic grounds. But for once, it wasn’t the economy, stupid. People voted to leave for reasons of community, identity and belonging. Our organic constitution has at its roots the principle that we vote for individuals who represent particular policies, and they operate within a set of rules that can be changed by the people via elections. These deep emotions are more powerful than money. It is wrong to ignore them, and even worse to sneer and belittle them.”

The UK have faced up to the hard truth: a Canada-style deal will mean trade friction. The EU have meanwhile plotted a trade negotiation course to nowhere, out of the fear that a successful Brexit will break apart the EU. They haven't come to terms with the fact that the UK voted to leave the political union established under the Maastricht treaty.  As pointed out in that link, the UK Government is not asking for much. May's Chequers deal envisioned negotiating a new arrangement in the transition period with the EU that met all her "red lines" including simultaneously frictionless trade AND being outside of the EU single market. That was wholly unrealistic. Johnson's government just wants a free trade agreement - as ambitious as possible, but whatever can be negotiated and implemented by the end of the year are the limitations they're happy to work with.

[OakTree500]

It's still Europe-first immigration, and that's the problem.

But that is the point of the EU - that we're all on level playing fields, and that we ALL can move from one country to another. While I agree that people leaving for other member states is now beneficial to those home member states themselves, one could argue that maybe there is an underlying issue with that country for masses upon masses of people to be leaving?

Even then, immigration to the UK itself is mostly wide open. Those from outside the EU are easily coming here as well, with very little regard to anything else [such as jobs etc]. Again, that's the UK not the EU on external immigration AND it's the UK not enforcing EU suggestion on those from the EU that came come over as well. It's free movement, but I can't just rock up in Germany and claim benefits, I have to be a German citizen to do that [which takes years of living there]......yet they are still part of the EU. So there is a level of control there (Have the jobs already in place, money to live there in case that falls over, and THEN become a citizen as well) in certain countries; the ones that don't have that are to blame for the constant droves of people just turning up without any plan/whatever else. Again, that's on us not the EU.

You're stretching the imagination thin to claim all "lifestyles" (cultures?) are intricately compatible with Western values. ISIL took up arms to fight for the right to have a caliphate. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, ruled by a monarchy with religious police.

Have I though? ISIL are terrorists [We have white ones of those as well, from all western countries] which don't represent everybody from those regions and again the area's themselves, like Saudi, don't define the entire people that live there. Many of those people who move to another country want what we have: Freedom. THAT is the point. 

Freedom means you are FREE to do what you want/believe what you want/dress how you like/love whoever you want - [again, within confines of the law]. To say that people from other countries shouldn't be allowed to live/work in your own country because they "don't do freedom correctly" is BONKERS. 

Little story of my own: I've worked many jobs over the years, currently in IT but started out in manual labor some 15+ years ago. As such I met, and worked with, a lot of people from Eastern Europe. One of those people worked with me on a job taking down a warehouse. Like literally taking everything down on the inside, then the floor panels, roof panels. Everything. He was LAZY as fuck. One day, he just let go of a giant metal beam and it stabbed into the top half of my finger. I nearly lost that part of my finger as well. I cursed him until the cows came home, and rightly so. [Side note: luckily for me, the cut was razor thin and is on the nail line, so you can barely see it now].

Anyways, he got fired and we got someone new in. That 1 time aside every single person I have EVER worked with from another country has been THE most hard working, amazing people I have ever met. They have only ever been "off" with the English, because the English have given them a hard time. One chap was my superior in a factory job I later got; he was getting married to his girlfriend, and had purchased a piece of gold then milled the ring himself in our workshop, because it was cheaper that buying a "proper" ring. That to me is amazing. He didn't have all the money, but was making enough to support him and his [now] wife, and he delighted in telling me about his old home in Poland and how hard it was to get a job/how corrupt certain people were and how coming here has been a total night/day life style change, even though he knew he earned almost fuck all [in UK terms] it was still way more than he got back home. I even became really good friends with the Poles in the factory, as I was the only English guy willing to speak to them - I got to experience new things/traditions/food etc, and it was awesome. Yes the spoke Polish to each other, but it didn't make me feel bad or uneasy, because why would it? 

And that is the whole point, don't let one person or small group of people give you this notion of what a NATION of other people are like. You pointed out how some Greek was beating his wife, as some sort of indicator of what the Greeks as a whole are like, which is nuts. I once saw a white English man, physically throw his [seemingly] 5 year old child into a car seat, like physically pick him up and slam the shit out of him into the seat, because he was angry as fuck - does that mean all English White Males are child abusers? NO, of course not. And again, THAT's the point.

That thing that gets me the most is this whole freedom thing. It works ALL ways, not just "be a white dude and speak perfect English, and watch football". You, and I, as are many of us, are FREE to do what we like. This extends to those coming to our countries and enjoying this freedom - nobody is taking it away from anybody, and other cultures/people DO exist. Somebody talking Greek or being Muslim or gay or whatever else, has NO effect on my personal life what so ever. Many of my neighbors are of the Muslim faith, and to see their sons/daughters get married is an amazing occasion on the street. Some don't like it because "those bloody foreigners" or whatever, but they are free to do that, as we are free to do whatever, including being supposedly angry at them.

For me it borders on the mentality of Flat Earthers with the whole "the government is trying to control X,Y,Z" when they are, and always have been, free to outright claim the earth is flat. In this case, Freedom is FREE and all those who enjoy it are allowed to do so - to say "Bloody foreigners coming here, taking our jobs, this isn't freedom! They need to CONFORM to what I say is correct" is just bonkers.

[OakTree500]

EU president tells Boris Johnson his latest Brexit plan is just no-deal: 'We are fine with that' . Prime minister had claimed 'Australia-style' Brexit could be an option

[Aractus]

Typical EU strongarming, the won't even start negotiating properly until the end of the year. They let the Remoaners redefine leaving on WTO terms (which is not what they're doing anyway as they have the WA) as leaving with "no deal". Then they redefined it again as meaning to leave the transition period "without a FTA".

The fearmongering surrounding WTO trade is ridiculous. Most of the temporary tariffs are not high - on average 2.8% for manufactured goods as set out last year. The EU is also not allowed to unfairly discriminate against the UK under WTO rules. What this means is since there's existing regulatory alignment, they can't impose things like arbitrary health and safety checks on UK imports to the EU, at least not until the UK's regulations diverge significantly. Plus there's a huge number of FTAs ready to go. The UK is ready to roll-over trade deals covering 49 out of the ~70 countries that the EU has FTAs with.

Here's an interview with David Lidington:



At ~9:50 in they talk about what I mentioned a couple of posts earlier, that the May administration were not facing up to reality: they wanted frictionless access to the single market, and to leave the EU customs union. He also mentions there that there was a reluctance to face-up to the public and start explaining the difficult realities arising from the choices they had to make. He also says when they entered into cross-party talks, Corbyn sent Keir Starmer in with two minders, they got close to getting cross-party support for May 2.0 and the Corbynites were the ones most in favour of backing it. He was asked if he was PM which of Labour's candidates would he fear most, and without hesitation he said: Lisa Nandy. Which backs up what I previously said as well - that Nandy would be the best leader by far out of the four running.

He also predicts what I think we'll see at the end of the year - a UK-EU Free Trade Deal that will set out their future ambitions for closer trade to be built upon the already agreed deal.

[Aractus]

So the EU has at long last confirmed the UK will get a unique bespoke trade deal with the EU covering ALL goods to be at zero tariffs.

Despite all the nay-saying that has been going on. You can witness here for yourself:



EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: "We ambition a zeron tariffs, and a zero quota trade relation for all goods. Something we have never, ever, before offered to anybody else. A new model of trade. A unique ambition in terms of access to the single market. But of course this would require corresponding guarantees on fair competition, and the protection of social, environmental, and consumer standards. In short this is plain and simply this 'level playing field'. We are ready to discuss on all different models of trade agreement."

There's some analysis here. In short though, the EU are now offering what Vote Leave/Eurosceptics/Brexiteers wanted all along - a comprehensive free trade deal not based on regulatory alignment. This is the "Canada plus" model that they dreamed of.

This should come as a huge relief to everyone in UK who was worried about large scale border/customs checks. It's now very clear that both sides have the ambition and good will to strike a comprehensive "super Canada plus" deal, something that the Remainers/Remoaners were claiming couldn't be done. I did say all along that both sides are bound by the political declaration that both sides had to negotiate in good faith to conclude a trade deal this year ready to be enacted from Jan 1 2021.

[Mathilda]

Trump official admits US is prioritising EU over UK for trade deal

Despite promises that the UK would be next in line for trade talks, Trump officials could end up entering fresh talks with the EU instead.

I wonder why ... Oh.

Recent reports suggested that Boris Johnson's decision over Huawei and their involvement in the 5G infrastructure in the UK is likely to have caused a setback with post-Brexit talks.

The Financial Times reports that Trump vented "apoplectic" fury at Boris Johnson in a tense phone call following the decision.

[Aractus]

The article by Farage(/mirror) is much more authoritative regarding the US reaction to the UK including Huawei in their 5G network.

[Deesse23]

[OakTree500]

Typical EU strongarming, the won't even start negotiating properly until the end of the year. They let the Remoaners redefine leaving on WTO terms (which is not what they're doing anyway as they have the WA) as leaving with "no deal". Then they redefined it again as meaning to leave the transition period "without a FTA".

It's not "strong-arming" when we keep threatening them to leave, and they say "ok then". The UK government are acting like children as this point.

Also, using words like "remoaners" are one of the many reasons people here are starting to think you're just trolling. The fact is, leaving on WTO terms means we don't have a deal with the EU.......which would be "no deal". If there is a deal in place with the EU, we won't be on WTO terms....so you know, things. The latter is because, right now, we are in the transition period, where we are operating on EU rules until a deal can be made [or not]. So that also would be the same thing....leaving this transition period without a free-trade-agreement or a deal of any kind. When the gov keep saying "Australia deal" it means the same thing as well.


The problem is, nobody is saying it'll be the end of the world, it's just going to cause friction on our own part by moving from trading at like 0% vs the various tariffs via the WTO. It won't bankrupt the economy but for example if we're trading with country X, and they can get the same thing on a 0% tarriff vs whatever they'd have to pay via WTO [Vehicle trade would be at 10% according to some reports], then they would [logically] go for the free option, to save money. That's not discrimination, it's just logic.

IF we can get a similar deal with the EU, that would be great, but then the logic of "what was the point in leaving" takes effect. We'd still have to apply most EU rules/regulations to goods so we'd be compatible with their trading system, and yet would have no actual influence on those rules not being an EU member state - as we'd have no MEPS and have now lost our Veto power as well.

IF we can't get a deal done, WTO will work, it'll just be a fairly different change on our own part which will cost us money. From what I have seen, we can lower our own tarrifs, but then that applies to ALL trade partners [in the WTO] and it wouldn't just apply to the EU, which then I imagine would cost us money also.

Again, I'm not an expert, but a lot of this boils down to "what is the point" when you start looking at what a deal vs no deal situation looks like.

[Mathilda]

We're not remoaners any more because we're no longer remainers since we have left. We're rejoiners.

I am sure this has been posted before, but it's worthwhile remembering what trading on WTO actually means:

[Mathilda]

The article by Farage(/mirror) is much more authoritative regarding the US reaction to the UK including Huawei in their 5G network.

Why the fuck would I want to read anything written by Farage?

[Aractus]

Also, using words like "remoaners" are one of the many reasons people here are starting to think you're just trolling.

Well I thought it less derogatory than europhile. If you'd rather I use europhile by all means I'll use that.

The problem is, nobody is saying it'll be the end of the world, it's just going to cause friction on our own part by moving from trading at like 0% vs the various tariffs via the WTO. It won't bankrupt the economy but for example if we're trading with country X, and they can get the same thing on a 0% tarriff vs whatever they'd have to pay via WTO [Vehicle trade would be at 10% according to some reports], then they would [logically] go for the free option, to save money. That's not discrimination, it's just logic.

Okay so I can see you don't understand WTO trade, and I don't blame you for that. The UK hasn't been in charge of its own trading policies since 1973.

You now set your own import tariffs to whatever you want, and they have to apply equally and indiscriminately to all nations that you don't have a free trade agreement with. That's what happens already, except that the EU has been in charge of import tariffs and they have many unfair ones, and that's primarily because the EU is extremely protectionist and not globalist/open-trade. The EU expanded from a trading block to a political and economic alignment bloc, but even if you just think about it as a trading bloc the elephant in the room is that it's nigh on impossible to get 27 nations to agree on what they want in terms of trade... this is what has led to the protectionism. Everyone in the bloc has some industry they want to protect from outside competition.

In any case as I showed above, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has now said the EU's position in negotiations is to offer the UK a bespoke FTA covering all physical goods, with zero quotas and zero tariffs, "super Canada plus" as it was previously called way back in 2017 or 2018, the kind of deal they have never offered to a non-EU country. So it looks to me like you're going to get a fucking great deal at the end of the year. There's a major reason for this: Denmark, Netherlands, and Germany. Denmark joined the EC in 1973 primarily because of UK trade. Letting the UK "crash out" would quite likely lead to both Denmark and Netherlands leaving as well - or at the very least holding referendums to do so. In fact Nexit is an important threat in my opinion totally regardless of Brexit. The UK is one of the top trading partners for all three nations. Ireland of course it doesn't matter as they've already sorted out the border with the withdrawal agreement, and even if they hadn't both sides are bound by the terms of the GFA. France, well France is a beneficiary whatever happens due to being the major endpoint of the EU to UK trading route.

IF we can get a similar deal with the EU, that would be great, but then the logic of "what was the point in leaving" takes effect. We'd still have to apply most EU rules/regulations to goods so we'd be compatible with their trading system, and yet would have no actual influence on those rules not being an EU member state - as we'd have no MEPS and have now lost our Veto power as well.

Nope, you won't have to have regulatory alignment. There could be some very limited regulatory alignment, such as electrical standards, but both sides have now made it clear they are going to pursue a super Canada plus trade deal.

Again, I'm not an expert, but a lot of this boils down to "what is the point" when you start looking at what a deal vs no deal situation looks like.

Well one thing you can do through WTO is bring down the cost of whatever you want to import from countries you don't yet have a free trade agreement with. I highlighted that before, the EU's completely unfair tariffs on steel products for example.

Why the fuck would I want to read anything written by Farage?

Okay then. Read rumourville instead.

[Deesse23]

"what was the point in leaving"

Having your cake and eat it, imho.

[Aractus]

LOL typical German view, and you didn't even help with the translations!

[OakTree500]

LOL typical German view, and you didn't even help with the translations!

We still making generalizations based upon nationality then? Lovely stuff. 

[Deesse23]

LOL typical German view, and you didn't even help with the translations!

We still making generalizations based upon nationality then? Lovely stuff. 

Fyi:

The translation was ok-ish, but still had some flaws.

Weber is member of the CSU, a party that is irrelevant outside of Bavaria and the farthest thing to the right hand side, just short of the neo-fascist Afd. I would hardly call his opinion representative of what most germans or german politicians think, but of course....it fits your narrative about EU and Germany, doesnt it?

Spahn is an MP of the CDU, its right wing actually, thus politically in the same corner Weber is (and thus similarly [non]representative): If you are more conservative, you gotta be an AfD neo-fascist. He is currently contending for title of "crown prince" since AKK stepped back, but in 2018 he lost big time when AKK became Princess of Wales. Trump would call him a "loser". Some people call him a "provocateur" or populist. He currently is minister of health. I leave it to you to judge how that qualifies him for making statements about the EU and its economy.

I see Aractus still sticking to his agenda.

[Aractus]

I'm not "sticking to an agenda".

It is the typical German view that they shouldn't let the UK "have their cake and eat it too". I've had that sentiment communicated to me in private elsewhere.

The translation was ok-ish, but still had some flaws.

Well this is why I quoted the German, see? So you and any others who can read German don't have to put up with auto-translate flaws.

However thanks for providing more information about those people I quoted.

We still making generalizations based upon nationality then? Lovely stuff.  

I'm not being snarky that's the typical view from Germany as I see it. They don't want to let UK have their cake and eat it too. There is a fundamental flaw in that logic though, and it is that Netherlands, Denmark, France, Germany itself, and to a lesser extend other EU nations all have some need to be fulfilled from UK. So UK could just as well turn to them and say "you can't have your cake and eat it too".

I was very dismayed to see that Boris is ready to sell-out the UK's fishing waters. Common fishing is a disaster - look at the Mediterranean and the South China Sea. Oh and look at Europe and their appalling record on over-fishing and allowing ecologically destructive fishing practises. So I'll withhold judgement for now until we see what he agrees with the EU, but the UK absolutely must have sovereignty over their waters - set the law and make all foreign fishing vessels obey the law.

[Aractus]

I've been pointing out for a while that I expect Keir Starmer's run for leadership to fail. He's getting attacked from both sides - the moderates, and the Corbynites are turning on him as well.

The shadow chancellor John McDonnell has now turned on Starmer as well. Now to be clear, McDonnell is a bright red socialist and quite obviously a Corbynite. His job was to bring Corbyn's socialist vision to life. Less than a year ago, it was the Corbynites in the party that were most in favour of backing Theresa May's deal. At the end of the day they controlled the process and set the agenda, not Starmer. This is why Starmer is in an indefensible position: he didn't resign as shadow Brexit secretary, indeed his fingerprints are all over Labour's flip-flop and indecisive Brexit policy. The only thing he's been able to say since is that he thought it was a mistake for Corbyn to say they'd remain neutral in a second referendum. But the difficulty for Starmer is that he argued in the party room that Labour should formally back remain during the election. Cobyn's Brexit policy was this: renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, put that to a referendum against remain and be neutral on it. Starmer wanted this: renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, put that to a referendum and campaign for remain.

In my opinion it was a critical mistake for Labour to put a remainer in the role of shadow Brexit secretary. Had they put in a leave supporter they probably would have come to some kind of cross-party policy. And I say that even though I think Johnson has put the UK into a much better position than any that would have come out of such an arrangement.

McDonnell had a key role in shaping Labour's Brexit policy for last year's general election and in particular in getting the party to back a second referendum. I've always said that policy was a huge mistake - they spent two or three years explicitly opposing a second referendum, they had the opportunity and the numbers in Parliament to do it, but they opposed it and then suddenly changed their policy when the 2019 election was called. That's not the only reason why it was a bad policy - most of the UK public didn't want a second referendum, the highest support for one was at something like 30-40% and it was only a smaller proportion of those that felt passionately about it. About half that wanted a second referendum wanted to vote Leave. It was a fucking stupid policy, you'd have to have rocks in your head to come up with it. You really needed public support in opinion polling for such a policy at about 70% to deem it as a safe policy to take to the election - 40%?! And those are online polls that are likely to over-represent the support which in the October polls came out at 41, 43, and 47 percent support - my rule and what any politically savvy campaign director would do is to take off 10 percentage points to arrive at the likely amount of public support i.e. 31-37%. One reason you have to do that is that the pollsters are asking about a different type of referendum to the one you're proposing anyway: 40-45% of respondents are saying they want a referendum on May's deal or on Johnson's deal, not on Labour's future negotiated deal. Support for a referendum was so low that the policy should have ended with that analysis. IF it looked more promising than that - IF - then what you do is commission an internal poll of Labour voters. And IF, IF it looked promising you needed to be a lot clearer about it - you had to pick one policy: either Labour re-negotiating OR putting one of the existing deals (May 2.0 or Johnson) to a referendum.

McDonnell has a lot of explaining to do doesn't he? This isn't complicated at all, it's very simple and easy to see why this policy was a clunker. Nevertheless his criticisms over Starmer will hurt Starmer's campaign and drive his supporters into the arms of RLB and Nandy.

McDonnell: “The reality now is Brexit is going to happen. It’s can we get a Brexit that at least protects jobs and the economy. And can we establish a new relationship with Europe.”

That's exactly right, and shows how vulnerable to attack Starmer is. He kept the party policy in a remainer/remoaner/europhile (whatever you want to call it) position. That's not "getting on with it". One reason Labour lost a lot of support was the perception that they were trying to block Brexit: and yet after December 12 they continued trying to block it! Their policy, as I pointed out, on day one (i.e. December 12) which should have been worked out in advance, should have been "we're going to accept that Brexit is happening, and we're going to give our members a free vote on whether they want to support the WA or not" and then instruct MPs to abstain rather than vote against it. But Starmer's position instead was to continue opposition to it. The very same policy that helped them lose the election.

McDonnell: “We were caught in a vice. And the vice was between do we go for a full remain and lose more leave seats, or do we go for full leave and lose remain seats?”

Labour members do believe this narrative and it will hurt Starmer's campaign. Of course it's bullshit - McDonnell doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. Under that theory the Conservatives should have lost a bucket-load of remain seats: well yes they lost 8 remain seats (plus two leave sets), but they gained 46 remain seats (and 12 leave seats)! So 4 in 5 seats that they gained were remain voting seats. This illustrates how Labour's narrative is all wrong.

Lisa Nandy by the way is already proposing that a future Labour government seek close political and economic alignment with the EU. That's very much remainer/rejoiner rhetoric and that policy is a real clunker. It's backward looking "we want to take the UK back to 2005" - it's advocating for the past. Campaigning for the past doesn't work.

The elephant in the room is that Labour is still claiming that "there was no easy unifying way to address Brexit". If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you. Politicians complaining that policy formation is hard?! The real problem was that 70-80% of Labour MPs were committed to getting Brexit cancelled. They were devoted to plotting a path to revoking Article 50. That's an internal party problem, not a problem with the political reality that they had to deliver Brexit and have a believable way to do so if they wanted to win. Did they work out what the public wanted, indeed what their own voters wanted? No their strategy was "just to angrily repeat the same mantra over and over again and, when that doesn’t work, angrily repeat it even louder." In other words, they put no effort whatsoever into forming a sensible policy. They haven't even started now! It's laughable. Starmer thinks he had the right Brexit policy. Really? Is he that deluded - he doesn't even take his own advice "I wish the result had gone the other way. I campaigned passionately for that. But as democrats our party has to accept that result ..."!! So in 2017, according to Starmer, the right policy was to accept Brexit and get on with it. In 2020 the right policy was an unpopular 2nd referendum with the agenda to cancel Brexit?

This one issue is going to haunt the Labour party for a generation if they don't get their fucking heads out of their asses and start forming a more sensible policy. Brexit has delivered a blank slate for you to make whatever you want: the Tories are making a one-nation Global Britain. Labour, right now, under all three leadership contenders envision a return to before 2016 under some kind of rejoining. Whether that's rejoining the customs union, or the EU's freedom of movement, or the European Court of Justice, etc. They're singing the tune of the remainer/remoaner/rejoiner/europhiles - but you know what let's not even use those labels let's just call it for what it is: they're complainers. Brexit complainers, and chronic ones at that. They want all the great stuff that the EU gives them - but they don't want to immigrate to the EU to get it, they complain that they should have it right where they live in the UK. If the UK-US trade deal isn't ready for 2021 they'll complain - you just wait and see!

[Phaedrus]

[Aractus]

Well as you know I have a healthy respect for Cummings, he did win Brexit after all. That said he's not a highly educated man, and from all accounts isn't that pleasant to deal with either. Neither of those things though mean he's bad at his job.

However, neither Cummings nor Sabisky have any power in Number 10. The only man with power in that building is the prime minister himself Boris Johnson. And Johnson serves at the pleasure of the Tory parliamentary party - if he's a lame duck or if he upsets too many of his colleagues they can force a leadership spill and pick a new leader. Andrew Sabisky is just an aide and has no power, and I'm not sure his odd beliefs make him unfit for his job (surely you're not suggesting that everyone must pledge alliance with some universal societal creed to have a job?) Cummings is a strategist and an advisor. If he pisses off too many people in the cabinet it'll be him out not them. Boris will have no hesitation firing him if he finds him to be divisive: you've seen that Johnson is very pragmatic and wants to deliver positive unifying messages, not divisive ones.

[Mathilda]

However, neither Cummings nor Sabisky have any power in Number 10. The only man with power in that building is the prime minister himself Boris Johnson.

Read the 48 Laws of Power.

Cummings is the power behind the throne.

[Aractus]

He's an unelected official in Number 10, he literally has no power.

The claim that he fired Javid is false - Johnson fired him. Cummings and Johnson are quite alike, although Johnson is personable and popular, and much more intelligent than Cummings. Johnson and Cummings had a clear plan right from the start in July last year how to deliver Brexit, and that's what they set about doing.

At the end of the day, Cummings is expendable - this will be even more the case after Jan 1. He's nothing more than a glorified unelected fixer, although elected fixers are also oddballs as you can see here:





Now that Johnson has a thumping 80-seat majority, he no longer needs a fixer.