The Road to Brexit

[L.A.T.1961]

16 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

And I am disappointed with you LAT, you at least have some sense and knowledge, is this Dunning-Kruger or cognitive dissonance?

It is years of observation and common sense  if you continue to think Brussels is the federation in a Startrek universe you are living in a fantasy. 

The idea that the EU is always right, and anybody else who disagrees with their actions is wrong is not a plausible argument.

The EU is full of rule bending or rule breaking and with no accountability.

I do not see why I should pay extra for this poor service when I have local politicians who I can vote for and kick out if required.

Edited September 11, 2021 by L.A.T.1961

[L.A.T.1961]

Some worms are turning - 

The former Brexit negotiator sparked uproar last night after calling on his country to regain its legal "sovereignty”. He unveiled a strategy for a referendum on halting all non-EU immigration for five years if he wins next year’s presidential election.

Mr Barnier also bemoaned the German dominance of the bloc and said France should not be bound by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on immigration issues.

Mr Barnier has been heavily criticised for his eurosceptic approach to next April’s French presidential election.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1489317/EU-news-Michel-Barnier-EU-Commission-ECJ-ECHR-Frexit-France-election-update

[L.A.T.1961]

 

[Duke Wellington]

Come on France, declare your independence, you can come join CANZUK.

Canadians are half French too, and you have been a loyal ally for a long time (albeit one that surrenders a little bit too fast), so come join.

Lets go 0% EU immigration and cap non-EU migrants at 30k per year. The ones getting in should all be a brain drain without exception, or ex-KGB types.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Cookie Monster

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Quote

Tories get more airtime than Labour

One of the most striking findings was the dominance of party political sources. In coverage of immigration, the EU and religion, these accounted for 49.4% of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8% in 2012. In reporting of the EU the dominance was even more pronounced with party political sources accounting for 65% of source appearances in 2007 and 79.2% in 2012.

Political sources were also much more likely than other sources to be featured in the opening sections of news reports which had the consequence of reports being framed from party political perspectives which other sources then had to respond to.

Among political sources, Labour and Conservatives dominate coverage accounting for 86% of source appearances in 2007 and 79.7% in 2012. Our data also show that Conservatives get more airtime than Labour. Bearing in mind that incumbents always receive more coverage than opposition politicians, the ratio was much more pronounced when the Conservatives were in power in 2012.

It helps to be PM to get on the beeb, particularly if you’re a Tory. Jeff Overs/BBC/PA

In strand one (reporting of immigration, the EU and religion), Gordon Brown outnumbered David Cameron in appearances by a ratio of less than two to one (47 vs 26) in 2007. In 2012 David Cameron outnumbered Ed Milliband by a factor of nearly four to one (53 vs 15). Labour cabinet members and ministers outnumbered Conservative shadow cabinet and ministers by approximately two to one (90 vs 46) in 2007; in 2012, Conservative cabinet members and ministers outnumbered their Labour counterparts by more than four to one (67 to 15).

In strand two (reporting of all topics) Conservative politicians were featured more than 50% more often than Labour ones (24 vs 15) across the two time periods on the BBC News at Six. So the evidence is clear that BBC does not lean to the left it actually provides more space for Conservative voices.

 

 

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

 

 

Claims here that the BBC has a left wing bias are simply not supported by the evidence, and the bias has become considerably more right wing since this study was conducted and the article was written. Remember, we are talking about News and Current affairs coverage - not entertainment.

 

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It is years of observation and common sense  if you continue to think Brussels is the federation in a Startrek universe you are living in a fantasy. 

The idea that the EU is always right, and anybody else who disagrees with their actions is wrong is not a plausible argument.

The EU is full of rule bending or rule breaking and with no accountability.

I do not see why I should pay extra for this poor service when I have local politicians who I can vote for and kick out if required.

I don't think that was the claim been made, the claim been made is that it was against the UK's self interest to leave the Union which has been evidentially true.
The EU is imperfect, but it offered so many advantages to the UK as a member that the alternative had to be significantly better - which it is proving not to be.

 

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I have to ask if WTO is so bad why are there so many members and why is it even still in existence.

Here is a list of the 164 members and a map showing where they are. 

Maybe you should drop them a line, tell them they are all daft and know nothing about trade. 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

People start from WTO rules and negotiate better trade deals later. If they cannot do so they stay on WTO rules, its the bottom tier of trade deals not the gold standard. Without it most of these countries wouldn't be trading outside of their boarders at all. Hardly a great club to belong to and even by its own assessment a poor set of compromises which barely holds together from year to year, maybe you missed that they have been negotiating the latest round for over a decade with no significant progress - failure by anyones standards.

Br Cornelius

[L.A.T.1961]

3 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

I don't think that was the claim been made, the claim been made is that it was against the UK's self interest to leave the Union which has been evidentially true.
The EU is imperfect, but it offered so many advantages to the UK as a member that the alternative had to be significantly better - which it is proving not to be.

 

Br Cornelius

It is evidently true except for economic growth, low unemployment numbers, still large numbers of people desperate for UK citizenship, inward investment and all in the middle of a pandemic.   

The EU did not offer much, that we did not pay for, but said it would make life difficult if we left. 

There is a difference. 

[Guest Br Cornelius]

5 hours ago, LV-426 said:

!

As pointed out previously, your supposed growth in UK fortunes is relatively very stunted compared to what is been achieved by comparable EU members. Britain is suffering under the Tory Brexit dream

By bexiters standards it will be at least a generation who suffer before any imagined benefits acrue. That a lot of suffering.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2021 by Br Cornelius

[L.A.T.1961]

13 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

 maybe you missed that they have been negotiating the latest round for over a decade with no significant progress - failure by anyones standards.

Br Cornelius

A bit like the EU then - 

EU and India set to revive talks on trade deal

Negotiations that stalled in 2013 now seen as vital to respond to China’s rise. Previous attempts by the EU and India to reach a pact foundered despite intensive work between 2007 and 2013.

Assuming the commission does not encounter any last-minute hitches with New Delhi or resistance from EU member states, the restart of talks will be announced at the end of an EU-India virtual summit in Porto on Saturday. “There is optimism, but it is not a done deal,” said an Indian government official. 

https://www.ft.com/content/3339f3a1-69e8-4c46-bd33-c777a4c5c922

24 yrs and counting. 

 

[Guest Br Cornelius]

2 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

A bit like the EU then - 

EU and India set to revive talks on trade deal

Negotiations that stalled in 2013 now seen as vital to respond to China’s rise. Previous attempts by the EU and India to reach a pact foundered despite intensive work between 2007 and 2013.

Assuming the commission does not encounter any last-minute hitches with New Delhi or resistance from EU member states, the restart of talks will be announced at the end of an EU-India virtual summit in Porto on Saturday. “There is optimism, but it is not a done deal,” said an Indian government official. 

https://www.ft.com/content/3339f3a1-69e8-4c46-bd33-c777a4c5c922

24 yrs and counting. 

 

So negotiations are hard, who would have guessed. All the more reason to consider it a mistake to p*** away 70 good ones on a promise.

 

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The Guardian Newspaper, supposed bastion of Left Wing politics has actually be infiltrated and subverted by MI5 agents - with such efforts been significantly ramped up after the Snowden revelations
 

Quote

A new editor

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger withstood intense pressure not to publish some of the Snowden revelations but agreed to Johnson taking a seat on the D-Notice Committee as a tactical sop to the security services. Throughout his tenure, The Guardian continued to publish some stories critical of the security services.

But in March 2015, the situation changed when the Guardian appointed a new editor, Katharine Viner, who had less experience than Rusbridger of dealing with the security services. Viner had started out on fashion and entertainment magazine Cosmopolitan and had no history in national security reporting. According to insiders, she showed much less leadership during the Snowden affair than Janine Gibson in the US (Gibson was another candidate to be Rusbridger’s successor).

Viner was then editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia, which was launched just two weeks before the first Snowden revelations were published. Australia and New Zealand comprise two-fifths of the so-called “Five Eyes” surveillance alliance exposed by Snowden.

This was an opportunity for the security services. It appears that their seduction began the following year.

In November 2016, The Guardian published an unprecedented “exclusive” with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain’s domestic security service. The article noted that this was the “first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service’s 107-year history”. It was co-written by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice Committee. This was not mentioned in the article.

The MI5 chief was given copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an “increasingly aggressive” Russia. Johnson and his co-author noted, “Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the Snowden files.”

Parker told the two reporters, “We recognise that in a changing world we have to change too. We have a responsibility to talk about our work and explain it.”

Four months after the MI5 interview, in March 2017, the Guardian published another unprecedented “exclusive”, this time with Alex Younger, the sitting chief of MI6, Britain’s external intelligence agency. This exclusive was awarded by the Secret Intelligence Service to The Guardian’s investigations editor, Nick Hopkins, who had been appointed 14 months previously.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-uk-security-services-neutralised-the-countrys-leading-liberal-newspaper/

 

This is just one example of what the establishment does to ensure the official narrative is maintained, but undoubtedly the connections go much deeper and longer than this little incident. The Guardian, almost the only left leaning newspapers is and always has been an establishment stooge. The proof of he pudding is in the fact that they whole heartedly subscribed to the character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn on the run up to the last election.

Br Cornelius

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, Br Cornelius said:

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

 

 

Claims here that the BBC has a left wing bias are simply not supported by the evidence, and the bias has become considerably more right wing since this study was conducted and the article was written. Remember, we are talking about News and Current affairs coverage - not entertainment.

 

Br Cornelius

 

I gave you the academic paper you requested, from a Cambridge gradute with a PhD in Economics.

You replied... oh, hang on... you didn't reply.

 

You then supply a link to an article with no author referenced as far as I can discern.

 

Do you consider this academic rigour?

 

"There are two points to be made about this coverage. First, it saw Europe almost exclusively through the prism of political infighting between Labour and the Conservatives so a rounded debate about the multiplicity of ways the relationship between the EU and UK affects Britain was almost completely absent. Second, although UKIP received very little airtime, Euroscepticism was very well represented through Conservative politicians.

Voices arguing for the benefits of EU membership were very sparse. This was a consequence of Labour politicians being unwilling to make the positive case for Europe because of its perceived unpopularity amongst voters. This meant that business lobbyists provided much of what little pro-EU opinion was available."

 

Right... we hardly ever heard a peep from David Caemron peddling Brexit doom and gloom did we?

His voice was so suppressed as Prime Minister that he had to blow £9.3 million of taxpayers' cash on a propaganda pamphlet

 

Also interesting is the source of this article:

The Conversation (website)

They claim academic rigor - I can't speak for their reputation in that regard - but it's interesting to note...

"In April 2018, it appointed former BBC and AP executive Chris Waiting as its new CEO."

No bias on an article regarding BBC bias there then I guess...

[Guest Br Cornelius]

1 minute ago, LV-426 said:

 

I gave you the academic paper you requested, from a Cambridge gradute with a PhD in Economics.

You replied... oh, hang on... you didn't reply.

 

You then supply a link to an article with no author referenced as far as I can discern.

 

Do you consider this academic rigour?

 

"There are two points to be made about this coverage. First, it saw Europe almost exclusively through the prism of political infighting between Labour and the Conservatives so a rounded debate about the multiplicity of ways the relationship between the EU and UK affects Britain was almost completely absent. Second, although UKIP received very little airtime, Euroscepticism was very well represented through Conservative politicians.

Voices arguing for the benefits of EU membership were very sparse. This was a consequence of Labour politicians being unwilling to make the positive case for Europe because of its perceived unpopularity amongst voters. This meant that business lobbyists provided much of what little pro-EU opinion was available."

 

Right... we hardly ever heard a peep from David Caemron peddling Brexit doom and gloom did we?

His voice was so suppressed as Prime Minister that he had to blow £9.3 million of taxpayers' cash on a propaganda pamphlet

 

Also interesting is the source of this article:

The Conversation (website)

They claim academic rigor - I can't speak for their reputation in that regard - but it's interesting to note...

"In April 2018, it appointed former BBC and AP executive Chris Waiting as its new CEO."

No bias on an article regarding BBC bias there then I guess...

I offered you a condensation of the conclusions of a 122 page paper from Cardiff media professor. I suggest you try reading the article.
But hey if you think your Economics Phd student trumps a professors paper then so be it.

 

Br Cornelius

[LV-426]

16 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

The proof of he pudding is in the fact that they whole heartedly subscribed to the character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn on the run up to the last election.

Br Cornelius

 

The history of Guardian Corbyn articles can be found here for anyone that wants to determine the veracity of this for themselves:

Jeremy Corbyn

 

As far as I'm concerned, if there is any bias against him - which seems almost exclusively related to antisemitism - it's nothing to do with promoting the "government narrative."

It's more likely as they knew he could never take Labour into power with his radical ideals, and they were pushing for a leadership change.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

17 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

The history of Guardian Corbyn articles can be found here for anyone that wants to determine the veracity of this for themselves:

Jeremy Corbyn

 

As far as I'm concerned, if there is any bias against him - which seems almost exclusively related to antisemitism - it's nothing to do with promoting the "government narrative."

It's more likely as they knew he could never take Labour into power with his radical ideals, and they were pushing for a leadership change.

The antisemitism claims were entirely fabricated by the pro-Israeli lobby in the Labour party and their friends from New Labour. The internal review of the Labour party has never been released because it shows this to be so, but what it did show was that the right of the party sabotaged the internal processes for dealing with antisemitism to give fuel to their character assassination of Corbyn. There is documented evidence of collaboration between the Israeli Embassy and the Labour friends of Israel to bring Corbyn down. Again objective analysis shows he is not and never was antisemitic. It was an effective alliance of interested parties backed by just about every media outlet bar the Independent and the Mirror.  Meanwhile real antisemites across the political spectrum got an entirely free pass. There has never been British Prime Minister who is not also a Zionist since before the foundation of Israel. Since the change of leadership Jewish members of the Labour party have been disproportionately sanctioned for their views, making the new Labour party to be actively antisemitic by objective standards.

It cannot really be said that he would not have taken them to power giving the massive media bias against him personally throughout his tenure and especially in the run up to the election. There was no impartial media coverage.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2021 by Br Cornelius

[LV-426]

21 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

I offered you a condensation of the conclusions of a 122 page paper from Cardiff media professor. I suggest you try reading the article.
But hey if you think your Economics Phd student trumps a professors paper then so be it.

 

Br Cornelius

 

Actually, yes, apologies there. I missed the link buried in the text.

I haven't got time for the 122 pages right now, but I'll take a look when I get time.

[LV-426]

33 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

The antisemitism claims were entirely fabricated by the pro-Israeli lobby in the Labour party and their friends from New Labour. The internal review of the Labour party has never been released because it shows this to be so. Again objective analysis shows he is not and never was antisemitic. It was an effective alliance of interested parties backed by just about every media outlet bar the Independent and the Mirror.  Meanwhile real antisemites across the political spectrum got an entirely free pass. There has never been British Prime Minister who is not also a Zionist since before the foundation of Israel.

Br Cornelius

 

Regardless of whether the allegations had any merit, the point still stands that Corbyn could never have won an election for Labour, and the Guardian likely recognized this.

He did more damage to the Labour party than the Tories ever could have. Labour's flip-flopping on Brexit was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

You have to bear in mind when I say this, that my background is as a Labour supporter up until recent years.

Corbyn took a party that needed a bit of revitalization work and turned it into a party that will likely be unelectable for years to come.

The reason Johnson can weather as many storms as he does is squarely on the shoulders of Corbyn, along with the likes of Dianne Abbot and Emily Thornberry, who will never appeal to red wall voters.

 

Edit: I have to ask by the way... if The Guardian isn't left-wing enough for you, outside of The Communist Manifesto, where do you find reading material?

Edited September 11, 2021 by LV-426

[Guest Br Cornelius]

16 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

Regardless of whether the allegations had any merit, the point still stands that Corbyn could never have won an election for Labour, and the Guardian likely recognized this.

He did more damage to the Labour party than the Tories ever could have. Labour's flip-flopping on Brexit was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

You have to bear in mind when I say this, that my background is as a Labour supporter up until recent years.

Corbyn took a party that needed a bit of revitalization work and turned it into a party that will likely be unelectable for years to come.

The reason Johnson can weather as many storms as he does is squarely on the shoulders of Corbyn, along with the likes of Dianne Abbot and Emily Thornberry, who will never appeal to red wall voters.

Its impossible to make this statement when you consider that the British public was not presented with Labours policies (which were almost universally supported by the public) but where presented with a wall of negative reporting of Corbyn personally. Coupled to a party machine which did everything in its power to undermine Corbyn's leadership. Its simple not possible to say what the British public would have done if the whole of the British establishment were not against a Corbyn led country. And this is the whole position I have made regarding the BBC also falling in behind this establishment campaign.

But in the context of this thread Corbyn had a sensible policy towards Brexit (he was for it but wanted to maintain the trading zone to preserve prosperity) but this was portrayed in the media as been confused and contradictory and was never clearly conveyed to the public.

 Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2021 by Br Cornelius

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

I haven't got time for the 122 pages right now, but I'll take a look when I get time.

 

Actually, I'll have to revise that, and I can't edit the post.

 

Who am I trying to kid?

There's as much chance that I'm going to read a 122 page paper claiming that the BBC is right-wing biased, as there is that Br is going to read a 16 page paper claiming that the BBC is left-wing biased.

I read the BBC website and watch the news channel every day to one degree or another. I KNOW where the bias lies

[L.A.T.1961]

5 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

So negotiations are hard, who would have guessed. All the more reason to consider it a mistake to p*** away 70 good ones on a promise.

 

Br Cornelius

You need to make your mind up as to whether the inability to negotiate a trade deal is because they are "hard" or "a failure by anyones standards."

Switching answers depending on who is negotiating is not a good look. 

[Duke Wellington]

23 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

You need to make your mind up as to whether the inability to negotiate a trade deal is because they are "hard" or "a failure by anyones standards."

Switching answers depending on who is negotiating is not a good look. 

When someone wants to shoot down an independent Britain in everyway possible, then there are underlying issues going on which we cannot see.

How can someone be so offended by our freedom? It doesnt add up, its bizarre.

[Silver]

Estonia is another country benefiting from the "Brexit Bonus":

Brexit has led to around 4,000 UK companies setting up shop in the EU-member state of Estonia, mostly by registering for the country’s much-talked about e-residency scheme.

Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s prime minister since January 2021, told City A.M. this morning that her country is benefitting hugely from Britain’s departure from the European Union.

“When the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union, many British friends took up our e-residency services,” she said.

We are benefitting hugely from Brexit, says Estonia's prime minister (msn.com)

Edited September 12, 2021 by The Silver Shroud

[Silver]

"Car-crash Brexit" leads to food waste, shortages and price rises. Well done, Brexiters:

NFU Horticulture and Potatoes Board chairwoman Ali Capper said the previous high had been 22% and was recorded in the autumn months when the need for temporary labour declines.

Capper added she had been told shortages of permanent staff, who tend to work in packing and processing roles, stood between 20% to 35%, which had forced some businesses to close their doors for parts of the week. She claimed the government had thus far not responded to this evidence. How can the UK be more self-sufficient in food?

“It feels like such a car crash at the moment,” she said. “Everybody’s so short of staff and wages are inflating like mad. I’m hearing of wage inflation of anywhere between 15% to 30% year on year. That’s on top of the 34% we’ve had in the last five years.

Capper also said the situation had led to “inexcusable” levels of food waste.

Food waste spurred by labour shortages has also been seen in the berry sector.

‘Higher than ever’ crop losses expected as fruit & veg labour crisis hits record levels | News | The Grocer

Edited September 12, 2021 by The Silver Shroud

[Guest Br Cornelius]

7 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

You need to make your mind up as to whether the inability to negotiate a trade deal is because they are "hard" or "a failure by anyones standards."

Switching answers depending on who is negotiating is not a good look. 

It can be both, a hard thing achieved by a competent body is a success. However somethings are simply not possible to achieve and its fair to acknowledge that. Its entirely legitimate to say that some trade deals are not possible. I am quite willing to acknowledge that a trade agreement between the EU and India maybe an impossibility.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2018/10/30/whats-wrong-with-the-world-trade-organization/?sh=f9607ef3a495

However the WTO is a failure by its own standards and this is widely acknowledged to be true. Maybe it has set itself an impossible task.

 

Br Cornelius