Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)

[FiF]

roger.mellie said:

FiF said:

LoL

Leaked EU documents suggesting that they intend to ban or reduce the ability for EU citizens to view UK content on TV and limit streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, stuff apparently they really like watching such as Downton, Poldark, The Crown, Bridget Jones etc. Even though only 8% of streamed content was from UK.

Worries about cultural diversity apparently, and yet it's Brexiters who are constantly being told they are paranoid isolationists.

link

There isn't a violin small enough.

When did the telegraph decide to lose all integrity to get the nutters nodding?

EU targeting the content available on streaming platforms, if they really wanted to censor government disinformation they could just ban the telegraph.

Well it's covered by others including the Guardian and Independent, do those sources meet sir's approval or not?

It's funny, a joke.

[Mortarboard]

roger.mellie said:

My family have no taste, even the foreign ones who visit here love Doherty’s sausages. I find them far too salty.

Did you see this one https://www.derryjournal.com/business/colum-eastwo...

Followed up by apparently some couldn’t get the Derry accent and thought he was saying “dirty sausages”.

Gave me a chuckle.

Indeed.
Again, it must be nice to be a Unionist in NI. perhaps Poots really got the heave due to an unpaletable sausage stance?

M.

[Vasco]

FiF said:

LoL

Leaked EU documents suggesting that they intend to ban or reduce the ability for EU citizens to view UK content on TV and limit streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, stuff apparently they really like watching such as Downton, Poldark, The Crown, Bridget Jones etc. Even though only 8% of streamed content was from UK.

Worries about cultural diversity apparently, and yet it's Brexiters who are constantly being told they are paranoid isolationists.

link

There isn't a violin small enough.

Why does that really not surprise me!

[roger.mellie]

FiF said:

Well it's covered by others including the Guardian and Independent, do those sources meet sir's approval or not?

It's funny, a joke.

Don’t call me sir.

Tbh I found it so fanatic I didn’t bother checking but just did. The tele article is click bait and an overly sensationalist headline. But I’ll ignore my criticism of the paper’s decline and stay on topic.

I think the french media content rules are nuts and have done so for a long time. If they start to influence EU policy (a big if) I’ll be right beside you criticising them. But right now I see nothing more than some balloon floating a balloon that will likely get burst.

Like I said. I don’t believe this will happen for a second but the reason I’m replying is that if the reactionary response to any EU decision that favours themselves over the uk is a problem you’re in for a rough ride.

[FiF]

roger.mellie said:

FiF said:

Well it's covered by others including the Guardian and Independent, do those sources meet sir's approval or not?

It's funny, a joke.

Don’t call me sir.

Tbh I found it so fanatic I didn’t bother checking but just did. The tele article is click bait and an overly sensationalist headline. But I’ll ignore my criticism of the paper’s decline and stay on topic.

I think the french media content rules are nuts and have done so for a long time. If they start to influence EU policy (a big if) I’ll be right beside you criticising them. But right now I see nothing more than some balloon floating a balloon that will likely get burst.

Like I said. I don’t believe this will happen for a second but the reason I’m replying is that if the reactionary response to any EU decision that favours themselves over the uk is a problem you’re in for a rough ride.

Like I said right at the outset I think it's funny. No idea whether it's a serious suggestion, or more likely someone just flying a kite, or even more likely just a bit of stirring.

The French rules are indeed batty, but hey they can do what they like and if it favours France over UK and everybody else firstly that's what I'd expect them to do, and secondly no issue with it.

Equally anyone who has a reactionary response and has a problem with any decision UK makes favouring itself over EU, USA, Russia, China, whoever else then they're going to have a rough ride too. Clearly there are plenty who do have such issues with UK.

Finally, must point out, your initial response which amounted to nothing more than not discussing the topic, rubbishing the source without looking further and calling people nutters was frankly poor form. You're better than that.

[Murph7355]

roger.mellie said:

Mortarboard said:

Meh, i like a nice cumberland. Admittedly, almost every other "mainland" sausage is "lawn grade", barely fit for badgers
M.

My family have no taste, even the foreign ones who visit here love Doherty’s sausages. I find them far too salty.

Did you see this one https://www.derryjournal.com/business/colum-eastwo...

Followed up by apparently some couldn’t get the Derry accent and thought he was saying “dirty sausages”.

Gave me a chuckle.

You both need to try these:

https://www.porkywhites.co.uk/collections/new-pw-2...

I'd send you some...but, you know...

[roger.mellie]

FiF said:

Like I said right at the outset I think it's funny. No idea whether it's a serious suggestion, or more likely someone just flying a kite, or even more likely just a bit of stirring.

The French rules are indeed batty, but hey they can do what they like and if it favours France over UK and everybody else firstly that's what I'd expect them to do, and secondly no issue with it.

Equally anyone who has a reactionary response and has a problem with any decision UK makes favouring itself over EU, USA, Russia, China, whoever else then they're going to have a rough ride too. Clearly there are plenty who do have such issues with UK.

Finally, must point out, your initial response which amounted to nothing more than not discussing the topic, rubbishing the source without looking further and calling people nutters was frankly poor form. You're better than that.

Apologies if you think I was calling you a nutter, I wasn’t. I’ve already admitted my post was reactionary and not informed.

Fair comment on those who may or may not have issues with uk policy. But as a uk forum the big difference is we’ll question the rights, wrongs, and subtleties in ways that won’t be applied externally.

[Tuna]

roger.mellie said:

Tuna said:

That is a rather evidence free assertion. Three assertions.

Isn’t it just. Apart from, well, reality.

Even the government’s own mouthpiece agrees https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50088300

But feel free to tell me why I’m wrong rather than criticising my opinion.

You're wrong.

Here are your assertions:

roger said:

May's deal was much more scary for many of the EU nations than Boris' was. Many were delighted by Boris's willingness to accept a deal that May wouldn't as long as he could claim it was different..

1. May's deal was much more scary for the EU - not true. May's deal was pretty much accepted (*cough* dictated *cough*) by the EU from day one, whereas Boris' involved us throwing our toys out of the pram and other shenanigans before it was accepted by them.

2. Many were delighted by Boris' willingness to accept a deal that May wouldn't - not really a reflection of reality. They were 'delighted' that Boris was able to get a majority for his deal in parliament, but that's quite the reverse of what you're implying (see assertion 1). May was fully signed up to 'her' deal, but was unable to convince her own parliament to accept it.

3. ..as long as he could claim it was different. Well, it was different, wasn't it, in key substantial areas? May's deal 'solved' Ireland by putting the whole of the UK into regulatory alignment with the EU. Boris' deal involved a "one territory, two systems" arrangement for NI.

That BBC article provides no evidence for your assertions at all. Government mouthpiece though they may be, they were largely Remain biased, and treated any deal that involved not staying in the EU as 'the same' - Brexit is Brexit from their point of view. All that article essentially says is that under Boris, Brexit was still going to be "hard" in Remainer terms. That's like saying a holiday in Skegness is the same as a holiday in Bermuda, as both involve beaches.

[roger.mellie]

Tuna said:

roger.mellie said:

Tuna said:

That is a rather evidence free assertion. Three assertions.

Isn’t it just. Apart from, well, reality.

Even the government’s own mouthpiece agrees https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50088300

But feel free to tell me why I’m wrong rather than criticising my opinion.

You're wrong.

Here are your assertions:

roger said:

May's deal was much more scary for many of the EU nations than Boris' was. Many were delighted by Boris's willingness to accept a deal that May wouldn't as long as he could claim it was different..

1. May's deal was much more scary for the EU - not true. May's deal was pretty much accepted (*cough* dictated *cough*) by the EU from day one, whereas Boris' involved us throwing our toys out of the pram and other shenanigans before it was accepted by them.

2. Many were delighted by Boris' willingness to accept a deal that May wouldn't - not really a reflection of reality. They were 'delighted' that Boris was able to get a majority for his deal in parliament, but that's quite the reverse of what you're implying (see assertion 1). May was fully signed up to 'her' deal, but was unable to convince her own parliament to accept it.

3. ..as long as he could claim it was different. Well, it was different, wasn't it, in key substantial areas? May's deal 'solved' Ireland by putting the whole of the UK into regulatory alignment with the EU. Boris' deal involved a "one territory, two systems" arrangement for NI.

That BBC article provides no evidence for your assertions at all. Government mouthpiece though they may be, they were largely Remain biased, and treated any deal that involved not staying in the EU as 'the same' - Brexit is Brexit from their point of view. All that article essentially says is that under Boris, Brexit was still going to be "hard" in Remainer terms. That's like saying a holiday in Skegness is the same as a holiday in Bermuda, as both involve beaches.

thanks, I asked for that.

Do you really still believe that?

I'll agree to an extent with point 3 but the first two not as much. Boris basically dusted off an offer that May rejected. He did not drive a harder bargain, he had different priorities and negotiated within the EU's terms. Many EU countries were not comfortable with May's backstop deal and were extremely happy when Boris came along and ditched it. Note, I'm not criticising which deal was better, but to suggest he put them over a barrel as some do is wrong. You're dead right on the big difference being the parliamentary maths and the EU were not ignorant of that. Boris could own and stand over the decision in a way that May couldn't. Old history now, but as a negotiating tactic May's need to get a deal that got all parliament on side put her in a stronger negotiating position in some ways.

I don't really care what happened other than enjoying the discussion, but I don't support false narratives becoming accepted history. I know you're going to accuse me of false narrative too. Where this may or may not be important is the belief that Boris and Frost are formidable negotiators, when in reality they'll back down on issues as long as they can be sold as a win to their own electorate. The EU will help with the sale. Cynical, moi?

[Welshbeef]

roger.mellie said:

thanks, I asked for that.

Do you really still believe that?

I'll agree to an extent with point 3 but the first two not as much. Boris basically dusted off an offer that May rejected. He did not drive a harder bargain, he had different priorities and negotiated within the EU's terms. Many EU countries were not comfortable with May's backstop deal and were extremely happy when Boris came along and ditched it. Note, I'm not criticising which deal was better, but to suggest he put them over a barrel as some do is wrong. You're dead right on the big difference being the parliamentary maths and the EU were not ignorant of that. Boris could own and stand over the decision in a way that May couldn't. Old history now, but as a negotiating tactic May's need to get a deal that got all parliament on side put her in a stronger negotiating position in some ways.

I don't really care what happened other than enjoying the discussion, but I don't support false narratives becoming accepted history. I know you're going to accuse me of false narrative too. Where this may or may not be important is the belief that Boris and Frost are formidable negotiators, when in reality they'll back down on issues as long as they can be sold as a win to their own electorate. The EU will help with the sale. Cynical, moi?

You have to wonder if T May hadn’t called that snap election and lost the majority would we have been in with her deal or was that bound to fail?

Sadly our opposition party were woeful and offered nothing to build the right deal apart from pushing everything exactly the same or were not voting for it.

[Mrr T]

Tuna said:

1. May's deal was much more scary for the EU - not true. May's deal was pretty much accepted (*cough* dictated *cough*) by the EU from day one, whereas Boris' involved us throwing our toys out of the pram and other shenanigans before it was accepted by them.

It seems odd you suggest BJ's deal required the UK to throw some toys.

If you check the border in the sea was the original EU proposal. The EU published a draft WA with the bits agreed and not agreed marked. This makes it clear. May rejected the proposal saying no UK PM could agree to it. BJ as FS said the same.

When BJ accepted the border in the sea you can see pictures of EU figures high fivijg because they knew BJ had folded. The only addition to the EU proposal was the right for the people of NI to choose between a border in the sea they did not want or a border on the island which they really really did not want.

[Tuna]

roger.mellie said:

I know you're going to accuse me of false narrative too.

Well the evidence is on my side, I believe (of course I do) - May's deal appeared in double quick time after Davis' negotiations collapsed. We *still* have no written evidence of any negotiation or discussion between her and the EU prior to her deal appearing all of a sudden (and being immediately marked as 'acceptable' by the EU). I'm half joking that it was dictated to her by the EU, but the speed with which it appeared, the complete lack of any apparent negotiation and the acceptance by the EU all rather point to complete capitulation on her part.

roger.mellie said:

Where this may or may not be important is the belief that Boris and Frost are formidable negotiators, when in reality they'll back down on issues as long as they can be sold as a win to their own electorate. The EU will help with the sale. Cynical, moi?

Yes, you have your own, strongly held beliefs on Brexit and want the facts to support them.

Note that I'm not saying Boris and Frost are formidable negotiators - they did not force the EU to abandon or change any of it's principles and it would be wrong to suggest that they did. However I would say that they are smart negotiators. Unless you want to claim that the near full year that the EU refused to come to the table was theatre to make us believe in team UK, it was clear (and there is written evidence) that the EU did not even start considering Johnson's paperwork on key issues until mid way through the year. I say Boris and Frost are smart negotiators, because they certainly did force the EU to join and conclude negotiations in a year when we can see that the EU were extremely reluctant to do so and had some sticking points that we were told regularly were deal breakers for an agreement being signed.

Claiming that this is because it was some easy deal for the EU and we were just tagging along is simply not borne out by the evidence of the timetable, the various spats, the written evidence of both sides' documents (and the timing they came out) or the clear difference between May's proposal and Frost's.

I can understand you believing differently, because a lot of Remain commentators were utterly dismissive of Boris' ability to do a deal, and alternated between claiming he was doing nothing, and that the EU was running the show. There were a lot of opinion pieces putting spin on what people thought was going on behind closed doors - and they largely repeated the same narrative (Johnson incompetent, stealing someone else's homework, EU in charge blah blah blah). But the actual reality of events (when things happened and what in sequence) completely contradicts that narrative.

Again, that's not to say Boris and Frost were master negotiators, but they read the situation far better than the EU did, and as a consequence forced through a timetable and structure for the agreement that neither May nor the EU had planned for.

[roger.mellie]

Tuna said:

roger.mellie said:

I know you're going to accuse me of false narrative too.

Well the evidence is on my side, I believe (of course I do) - May's deal appeared in double quick time after Davis' negotiations collapsed. We *still* have no written evidence of any negotiation or discussion between her and the EU prior to her deal appearing all of a sudden (and being immediately marked as 'acceptable' by the EU). I'm half joking that it was dictated to her by the EU, but the speed with which it appeared, the complete lack of any apparent negotiation and the acceptance by the EU all rather point to complete capitulation on her part.

roger.mellie said:

Where this may or may not be important is the belief that Boris and Frost are formidable negotiators, when in reality they'll back down on issues as long as they can be sold as a win to their own electorate. The EU will help with the sale. Cynical, moi?

Yes, you have your own, strongly held beliefs on Brexit and want the facts to support them.

Note that I'm not saying Boris and Frost are formidable negotiators - they did not force the EU to abandon or change any of it's principles and it would be wrong to suggest that they did. However I would say that they are smart negotiators. Unless you want to claim that the near full year that the EU refused to come to the table was theatre to make us believe in team UK, it was clear (and there is written evidence) that the EU did not even start considering Johnson's paperwork on key issues until mid way through the year. I say Boris and Frost are smart negotiators, because they certainly did force the EU to join and conclude negotiations in a year when we can see that the EU were extremely reluctant to do so and had some sticking points that we were told regularly were deal breakers for an agreement being signed.

Claiming that this is because it was some easy deal for the EU and we were just tagging along is simply not borne out by the evidence of the timetable, the various spats, the written evidence of both sides' documents (and the timing they came out) or the clear difference between May's proposal and Frost's.

I can understand you believing differently, because a lot of Remain commentators were utterly dismissive of Boris' ability to do a deal, and alternated between claiming he was doing nothing, and that the EU was running the show. There were a lot of opinion pieces putting spin on what people thought was going on behind closed doors - and they largely repeated the same narrative (Johnson incompetent, stealing someone else's homework, EU in charge blah blah blah). But the actual reality of events (when things happened and what in sequence) completely contradicts that narrative.

Again, that's not to say Boris and Frost were master negotiators, but they read the situation far better than the EU did, and as a consequence forced through a timetable and structure for the agreement that neither May nor the EU had planned for.

Always interesting to see how we can look at the same event and have two totally different perspectives. Evidence is big words Tuna when you're offering conjecture. I deliberately didn't claim certainty.

There are some sources we can refer to, I haven't read Barnier's book yet but probably will. I've read many of the teasers. There's also Dom Cummings' revisionism on the go but reading between the lines (lies?) the UK certainly weren't playing 3d chess whilst everyone else was playing 2d.

You'll not convince me that setting out red lines before negotiating and setting a self imposed timetable put the UK in the charge. That was May's fault, not Boris', so being kind he had to deal from there, but to suggest he put manners on anything rather than just did the political maths and worked out what he'd get away with doesn't wash.

As far as today's news goes, I found this article interesting - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-575... but this bit in the middle

Mr Poots said "we haven't got detail" of the changes but was told they would be "very significant". He will quit as DUP leader within days.

almost made me spill my coffee.

Boris is extremely politically smart, in local vernacular here he's a "cute hoor", but bluff and bluster can't change facts. If unionists are still believing his promises we're in trouble.

[Tuna]

roger.mellie said:

You'll not convince me that setting out red lines before negotiating and setting a self imposed timetable put the UK in the charge. That was May's fault, not Boris', so being kind he had to deal from there, but to suggest he put manners on anything rather than just did the political maths and worked out what he'd get away with doesn't wash.

Bit of a strawman there - I've not mentioned the red lines,. They were a disastrous tactic for May to declare them and then almost immediately cross them.

The single smartest thing Frost did in the negotiations was to conduct the whole of the UK position in public when the EU tried to keep their side private. Frost got out position papers early and regularly, and laid out the UK's goals so that there was no ambiguity. Up to that point, May had followed the EU's lead in keeping things private (or in some cases, not even recorded) - which was a tactic that completely played into the EU's default position of "we can't accept your deal, try again". That only works if people can't see what they are rejecting, and follow the narrative that "if the EU is rejecting it, it must be at fault".

The scheduling part was important, in that Barnier's position of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" fell apart when it became clear that uncontroversial details (again, all laid out in public papers) were being completely ignored by the EU for no good reason. The UK gained a lot of moral high ground when it was revealed the EU had not even read some of the papers weeks, (and in some cases a couple of months if I recall correctly) after they had been published. But that's nothing to do with having a clever timetable so much as preventing the EU from manipulating the schedule. You have to remember that Ivan Rogers wrote some excellent analysis of how weak the UK's position was once we had lost control of sequencing under May.

[bitchstewie]

I did like Tom Tugendhat's question to Frost.

"Can you think of any other trade deal that negotiated away control of part of sovereign territory?"

Paraphrased from Twitter.

Those devilish biased MPs

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

I did like Tom Tugendhat's question to Frost.

"Can you think of any other trade deal that negotiated away control of part of sovereign territory?"

What was the reply?

[bitchstewie]

Paraphrasing from Twitter but "he does not accept that that is what it does".

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

Paraphrasing from Twitter but "he does not accept that that is what it does".

Also paraphrasing "..playing to the peanut gallery".

[Mortarboard]

IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)

Aside from that, speaking hypothetically - what could/should the UK have done differently? I know most would say "not triggered A50 until you know what you want/what you think you can get" - but with a 48-52 referendum result, politically would any party leader have delayed it, realistically?

Personally, I believe the UK left a lot of it's data-gathering extremely late. I was contacted by a Government minion regarding what chemicals we made, and what difficulties the chemical industry might face in the event of various brexit scenarios. However, that was june/july 2018 - far too late in the day, imho. If at all possible, I wouldn't have triggered A50 until the various implications were known.

M.

[Oilchange]

I'd have triggered it on the day the referendum results came in. Democracy at work.

Then I would have said whatever we negotiate will be the result after the 2 year period. Like it or lump it. Kinda puts pressure to not string it out, unlike what actually happened which was a shameful period in our history.