-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Its a big deal because it keeps us under EU rule until they permit us to leave.
We will fall into it, because we arent able to negotiate an enormous trade deal in record time.
Then. once we are in it, the EU have us by the balls and we'll be force to conceed everything they ask for or fear being trapped.
With all this backstop etc unless I am mistaken we can unilaterally go "no dea"l whenever we want - I cant see what anyone could do to stop us doing this. The indefinite backstop is only in regards to the trade deal that is organised in Mays Brexit deal, if we want that we need to live up to the terms.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Isn't there something about the withdrawal agreement having the status of an international treaty, so it's not something the UK government could unilaterally do?
Obviously GB could ditch it. Even without them needing the DUP in a future parliament, I don't think the Tories would ever do that to NI. But Corbyn as a strong supporter of the decolonisation of Ireland might see the opportunity. Which is one reason why the DUP won't budge at all now.
does that matter? The GFA was an international treaty and we were trying to impose boarders etc.
http://theconversation.com/how-international-law-could-scupper-a-tory-deal-with-the-dup-79583
The way I am reading this its only indefinite until terms are met and we go with Mays deal or another deal supersedes it - No deal is another deal that we can enact unilaterally.
It is almost as if May has contrived to get a deal so bad that everyone sh1ts all over it and says "well, we might as well stay in then." The only thing that stops me believing this 100% is that I'm not sure her or her cabinet have the wit to attempt such a thing.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Aside from the backstop issue, what are the major objections that make it so terrible? Genuine question. I stopped following the detail of all this some while back...! And from the brief bits I have picked up in recent days, I haven't heard too much of substance outside of the backstop.
This is quite a good explanation, imo (click link for the whole thing, I'll quote a snippet):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/france...sa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/#
Some time in the next few years, the backstop must end. Indeed, the EU is already trying to put a time limit on it. But the conundrum laid out in the Political Declaration is no more solvable than it ever was. The hard choice for Brexit remains the same. Either the U.K. gives up its goals of immigration restriction and independent trade policy for the sake of maintaining frictionless trade with the EU, or – since the Political Declaration rules out a permanent hard border between parts of the U.K. - there must eventually be a hard border on the island of Ireland.
By kicking the can across the Article 50 deadline of March 29th, 2019, the Withdrawal Agreement removes the U.K.’s third option, which is to change its mind about Brexit. Currently, if the deal fails to get through Parliament – which is looking extremely likely – the Government could call a second referendum with Remain as an option. But once the Article 50 deadline is past, the Withdrawal Agreement would lock the U.K. into “frozen Brexit,” with the EU holding the keys to the freezer. Eventually, the UK would have to choose between hard borders, including in Ireland, or becoming a permanent EU rule taker.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
It isn’t so terrible as a WTO exit. But it’s suboptimal to what we have now. Our trade with the EU would be affected, services couldn’t be exported as seamlessly (or at all) so we’d be a bit poorer. It would negatively affect our economy - forget the exact figures- but our treasury has something like 6k per person per year cost. Mays deal is clever in one way, it seeks to protect car manufacturers and financial services, while stopping freedom of movement.
The only thing it definitely does is stop freedom of movement, however the latest immigration figures show that FOM from the EU was 70k people. Less than Wembley’s capacity. While rest of the world immigration is 250,000 and we control all of that now while in the EU.
The deal divides the United Kingdom. Could lead to hostility in Ireland, and Scottish independence. The UK will be a rule taker and have little to no say in the trade terms that we will have to follow. We don’t know exactly what the economic impacts will be yet because we still need to agree a free trade agreement with the EU, but we can see the broad outline of what we’d get: less sovereignty, impaired trade, a divided Ireland, and control of 70,000 immigrants from the EU.
The realisation that Brexit offers the UK almost no value has to dawn on people. We lose quite a bit and get almost nothing in return.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Last edited:
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The thing I don't get is why some on the left are not only buying this 'frictionless trade is a good thing' thing, many are championing it almost more than the neo-libs themselves
Frictionless trade just means bigs guys tinkling on small guys. It means no protection for domestic businesses, minimal tax revenue for governments, and no fair trade with poor parts of the world. It's a very bad thing.
Frictionless trade just means bigs guys tinkling on small guys. It means no protection for domestic businesses, minimal tax revenue for governments, and no fair trade with poor parts of the world. It's a very bad thing.
Whilst I think you have a point, I don't think we can go from an economy built on frictionless trade with the EU, just in time delivery systems and all that stuff, to then a big series of delays, shortages or whatever else. We can turn the economy away from that if we want to but it would take a lot of planning and investment and that hasn't been done. That's why, I guess, no-deal is depicted as a cliff edge.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
That's what the implementation period should be for.
Thatcher would be laughing in her grave about how much this issue has been warped. The fact that we are afraid to/so disincentivised against investing in building our own infrastructure or up-skilling our own workers.
Thatcher would be laughing in her grave about how much this issue has been warped. The fact that we are afraid to/so disincentivised against investing in building our own infrastructure or up-skilling our own workers.
The politicians pushing no-deal, who are almost all on the right, have no interest in doing that. And it's their party in power right now, so there isn't going to be anything like that happening in an implementation period in the event of a no deal (is there even an implementation period in a no-deal Brexit?)
I think 'no-deal' is dead anyway, so this will all be moot.
I'm not seeing this story on the news. Seems like a big deal:
https://labour.org.uk/press/emily-t...orted-government-funded-attacks-labour-party/
Emily Thornberry MP, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary, responding to media reports that a government-funded Infowars operation has been engaged in political attacks against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, said:
“It is one of the cardinal rules of British public life that official resources should not be used for party political purposes. So, it is simply outrageous that the clearly mis-named ‘Integrity Initiative’ – funded by the Foreign Office to the tune of £2.25 million over the past two years – has routinely been using its Twitter feed to disseminate personal attacks and smears against the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour Party and Labour officials.
“And this cannot be dismissed as something outside the Government’s control, given the application for funding agreed by the Foreign Office last year stated explicitly that it would be used in part to expand “the impact of the Integrity Initiative website…and Twitter/social media accounts”. So the Government must now answer the following questions: why did the Foreign Office allow public money to be spent on attempting to discredit Her Majesty’s Opposition? Did they know this was happening? If not, why not? And if they did, how on earth can they justify it?”
https://labour.org.uk/press/emily-t...orted-government-funded-attacks-labour-party/
Emily Thornberry MP, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary, responding to media reports that a government-funded Infowars operation has been engaged in political attacks against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, said:
“It is one of the cardinal rules of British public life that official resources should not be used for party political purposes. So, it is simply outrageous that the clearly mis-named ‘Integrity Initiative’ – funded by the Foreign Office to the tune of £2.25 million over the past two years – has routinely been using its Twitter feed to disseminate personal attacks and smears against the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour Party and Labour officials.
“And this cannot be dismissed as something outside the Government’s control, given the application for funding agreed by the Foreign Office last year stated explicitly that it would be used in part to expand “the impact of the Integrity Initiative website…and Twitter/social media accounts”. So the Government must now answer the following questions: why did the Foreign Office allow public money to be spent on attempting to discredit Her Majesty’s Opposition? Did they know this was happening? If not, why not? And if they did, how on earth can they justify it?”
"Responded to media reports" yet neither links nor references said reports.
Sounds like they've been picked up from the Twitter feed of some Occupy nutjob.
Apparently not.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/foreign-office-funds-2m-infowars-13707574
Explosive leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal the organisation’s Integrity Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by military intelligence specialists.
_________________
This is potentially a big story. We surely can't have the government spending the country's money on attacking the official opposition? That is an affront to democracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ates-report-state-funded-body-targeted-corbyn
The Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan, has ordered an investigation into reports the government provided funding to a Scottish-based charity meant to counter online Russian propaganda, which also spread unfavourable views about Jeremy Corbyn.
The Institute for Statecraft, a small charity based in Fife, received hundreds of thousands of pounds in Foreign Office money.
According to the Sunday Mail, leaked documents show it tried to promote tweets calling the Labour leader a “useful idiot” who helped the Kremlin cause, and attacked members of his staff.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Duncan said he had learned about the allegations at the weekend and ordered an immediate investigation.
“I don’t know the facts but if there is any kind of organisation for which we are paying which is involved in domestic politics in that way, I would totally condemn it, and I have already over the weekend asked for a report to be on my desk by 10 o’clock this morning to say if there is any such activity,” he said.
Asked if this meant anti-Labour attacks by Statecraft must stop, Duncan said: “Not only must it stop, I want to know why on earth it happened in the first place.”
The Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan, has ordered an investigation into reports the government provided funding to a Scottish-based charity meant to counter online Russian propaganda, which also spread unfavourable views about Jeremy Corbyn.
The Institute for Statecraft, a small charity based in Fife, received hundreds of thousands of pounds in Foreign Office money.
According to the Sunday Mail, leaked documents show it tried to promote tweets calling the Labour leader a “useful idiot” who helped the Kremlin cause, and attacked members of his staff.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Duncan said he had learned about the allegations at the weekend and ordered an immediate investigation.
“I don’t know the facts but if there is any kind of organisation for which we are paying which is involved in domestic politics in that way, I would totally condemn it, and I have already over the weekend asked for a report to be on my desk by 10 o’clock this morning to say if there is any such activity,” he said.
Asked if this meant anti-Labour attacks by Statecraft must stop, Duncan said: “Not only must it stop, I want to know why on earth it happened in the first place.”