UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

So, in news that I imagine will surprise absolutely no-one here, those assessments on the economic impact of Brexit? Yeah, they don't exist. Never did. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854

David Davis giggling like a schoolboy as he said it was...weird.

I have no idea WTF these people think they are doing. I can only conclude that they know that Brexit is a problem with no good outcome and they know there's nothing they can do to stop it being a shitstorm and are now just trolling the British public. What is wrong with these idiots?

[williamjm]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

So, in news that I imagine will surprise absolutely no-one here, those assessments on the economic impact of Brexit? Yeah, they don't exist. Never did. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854

Personally, I had been assuming that they were burying the assessments because they predicted lots of bad things happening after Brexit, but I guess not doing the assessments in the first place avoids any danger of embarrassing leaks.

In equally unsurprising news, Philip Hammond admitted that there hasn't been any cabinet discussion about what sort of Brexit they actually want at the end of the day, which I suppose avoids the awkwardness of not being able to come to an agreement. 

[mormont]

So essentially, 18 months after the referendum, we have no idea what outcome we're aiming for, no idea what the impact will be, and we've made next to no progress on negotiations.

This Brexit thing is going well, isn't it?

[Notone]

Well, it's entertaining. Maybe slightly over budget. But for a Monty Python Brexit Movie, you can't attach a price tag on genius, Iguess.

At this point I just assume this is what's going on, I mean no goverment can be that unfit.

[Which Tyler]

We're just standing firm with our allies across the pond.

If they want a government that is risibly incompetent, then we will do our best to provide one.

[Notone]

Well, that would basically my theory form the conspiracy theory thread - well, not exactly but close enough.

[Werthead]

David Davis has actually said that 50-60 analysis had already been done. So at the moment it is looking like David Davis lied to the Houses of Parliament. This is a resigning issue, without question.

Interesting to see that the media has not so far gone down that road.

[Spockydog]

32 minutes ago, Werthead said:

David Davis has actually said that 50-60 analysis had already been done. So at the moment it is looking like David Davis lied to the Houses of Parliament. This is a resigning issue, without question.

Interesting to see that the media has not so far gone down that road.

Twenty years ago, Davis would already be toast. But today, politicians can say whatever the hell they like and truth be damned. Just watched the News at Ten, and the BBC are completely ignoring the fact that Davis has definitely lied to Parliament, either today or when he gave his statement in June. It's fucking outrageous.

[Pebble]

23 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Twenty years ago, Davis would already be toast. But today, politicians can say whatever the hell they like and truth be damned. Just watched the News at Ten, and the BBC are completely ignoring the fact that Davis has definitely lied to Parliament, either today or when he gave his statement in June. It's fucking outrageous.

At least he could of made an effort and say that the impact statements had been done, but the Palmerston ate them.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Hanmond decides to insult disabled workers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42265268

[Eggegg]

16 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Hanmond decides to insult disabled workers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42265268

I'm really trying to understand what he was trying to say here, I can't believe hes stupid enough to be saying that disabled people reduce the countries productivity! Maybe I can believe that actually.

His full comment was:

Quote

“It is almost certainly the case that by increasing participation in the workforce, including far higher levels of participation by marginal groups and very high levels of engagement in the workforce, for example of disabled people - something we should be extremely proud of - may have had an impact on overall productivity measurements.”

I'm trying to work out if he meant that more participation in the work force in general has had an impact on productivity measures (not sure how that works) and clumsily included what he thought was a positive element ie more disabled workers, or hes genuinely saying there are too many disabled people in the workforce.

[Which Tyler]

How long ago was it that he told us all about those non-existent cabinet meetings on Brexit?

Is he..

Is he...

Is he TRYING to lose his job? Is this his play to move next door?

Edited December 7, 2017 by Which Tyler

[Eggegg]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/08/sufficient-progress-in-brexit-talks-announced-after-mays-dash-to-brussels

FINALLY we might be able to move onto trade talks. And no hard border in Ireland.

[Which Tyler]

Yay for citizens' rights. Should have been finished on day 1 though.

A pay-off within 10% of most predictions. Could easily have been finished in week 1 though.

A bar of fudge instead of an Irish border. Erm... What?

 

On that fudge, am I to understand that there will be a soft border between NI and I, and no border between NI and RoUk.

Sothose dastardly Polish people just need to fly into Dublin, and take a bus Northwards before disseminating themselves throughout the UK. Chlorinated chicken on the other hand, flies into Belfast before being driven Southwards and distributed to KFCs Europe-wide.

 

I'm so glad we have such a strong and stable leadership to negotiate this genius plan for us.

[mormont]

The big change on the border issue appears to be the bit about 'if there's no trade deal'. That's the concession by the EU and Eire, allowing the UK government to kick the can a bit further down the road as they wanted to do.

The question then, of course, is: what if there is a trade deal? Presumably, it must at least match the 'no-deal' position, which is that there can be no divergence between the UK and EU on any area covered by the Good Friday agreement. That includes agriculture. So presumably, the UK can't allow the import of that chlorine-washed chicken from the US. Not because we're in the customs union, but because it would be a deadly threat to peace in Ireland. 

[SeanF]

It makes me think that the breakdown on Monday was just an elaborate diplomatic dance.

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It makes me think that the breakdown on Monday was just an elaborate diplomatic dance.

Honestly its impossible to know what is truth and reality at the moment, almost everything that is said and done by anyone involved could potentially be part of some attempt to destabilise the other side or game playing. I've give up being outraged or annoyed any more, I don't think anyone really knows what's going on.

[Notone]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

The question then, of course, is: what if there is a trade deal? Presumably, it must at least match the 'no-deal' position, which is that there can be no divergence between the UK and EU on any area covered by the Good Friday agreement. That includes agriculture. So presumably, the UK can't allow the import of that chlorine-washed chicken from the US. Not because we're in the customs union, but because it would be a deadly threat to peace in Ireland. 

I am not sure, but that wording somehow sounds like an indirect veto for both sides when it comes to changes to EU (which are also UK standards atm). What I mean is, if the EU wanted to raise their enviromental standards, that would obviously include ROI, which is part of the area covered by the Good Friday agreement. And vice versa the EU could veto any trade deal, that the UK hopes to strike with regards to chlorine-washed chickens, as that would undermine the EU food standards, and thus create a divergence between NI (UK chlorine-washed chickens) and the Republic (EU). So the UK can't defacto touch all that red tape, and the UK retains a veto. That can't be it, I must be missing something.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

I am not sure, but that wording somehow sounds like an indirect veto for both sides when it comes to changes to EU (which are also UK standards atm). What I mean is, if the EU wanted to raise their enviromental standards, that would obviously include ROI, which is part of the area covered by the Good Friday agreement. And vice versa the EU could veto any trade deal, that the UK hopes to strike with regards to chlorine-washed chickens, as that would undermine the EU food standards, and thus create a divergence between NI (UK chlorine-washed chickens) and the Republic (EU). So the UK can't defacto touch all that red tape, and the UK retains a veto. That can't be it, I must be missing something.

I really hope you are missing something here as its a complete cockup if true.

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I'm so glad we have such a strong and stable leadership to negotiate this genius plan for us.

They've been so hapless that I'm slightly impressed that they've actually managed to get a seemingly reasonable agreement when it looked they were completely paralysed. Of course, now the tricky bit of actually working out the details begins, so it could all fall apart.

It does beg the question about why we're leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market if we've now committed to staying in alignment with them.

2 hours ago, Notone said:

I am not sure, but that wording somehow sounds like an indirect veto for both sides when it comes to changes to EU (which are also UK standards atm). What I mean is, if the EU wanted to raise their enviromental standards, that would obviously include ROI, which is part of the area covered by the Good Friday agreement. And vice versa the EU could veto any trade deal, that the UK hopes to strike with regards to chlorine-washed chickens, as that would undermine the EU food standards, and thus create a divergence between NI (UK chlorine-washed chickens) and the Republic (EU). So the UK can't defacto touch all that red tape, and the UK retains a veto. That can't be it, I must be missing something.

I can't believe the EU would be willing to accept the UK being able to veto things after leaving the EU. The UK probably doesn't want the veto to work the other way either, but may not have much choice in the matter, which was always one of the arguments against Brexit that EU rules would still have an impact on the UK but the UK wouldn't be able to influence them.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

It makes me think that the breakdown on Monday was just an elaborate diplomatic dance.

It does feel as if the DUP may have been publically asserting their influence, the Tories did seem a bit confused about why the DUP suddenly objected to the original deal.