Westministenders: Brexit Britain = Gridlock Britain ?

[BigChocFrenzy]

We keep getting told the Uk can get a deal like Canada, Turkey or other non-EU countries have, without FOM.
Those deals do not provide the same privileges as EU members:
They have quotas, restrictions and must obey EU regulations

e.g. After CETA, Ron Davidson, head of international trade for the Canadian Meat Council stated:
"We do not have what we would call commercially viable access to the European market".

The deal with Turkey abolished tariffs, but did not give free acess. This is what that means:

www.ft.com/content/b4458652-f42d-11e6-8758-6876151821a6

"On a recent Saturday at the Kapikule border crossing, about 30 minutes drive from the Turkish city of Edirne, a line of trucks 4km long stretched along the highway, inching along glacially towards the Bulgarian checkpoints.
"Today is a good day", said Ibrahim Kurtukcu, a 42-year trucker who had been waiting 14 hours.
"Last week the line was 7km long".
The record is 17km. It can take up to 30 hours to get through to the other side."

Of course, UK ports (and French ports) do not have the capacity, facilities, storage space or trained staff to handle customs processing of the vast amount of British exports & imports.

Building this additional capacity - where ? - would take several years and there are no signs that even the planning stage has started.

jonworth.eu/crashing-eu-without-deal-actually-becomes-uks-plan/

Semi If you argue that that avowed misogynist twatface Milo should be allowed to speak would you also disagree with UCL and other universities not allowing Muslim and Christian groups funding and platforms on campus that seek separate male and female areas in their meetings and to not allow female speakers.

He [Milo] should be allowed to speak/stand for election if proposed etc.
However, that does not then mean that he must be agreed with/go unchallenged.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Funding is different to a platform, so I won't conflate the two.

Seeking separate areas/not allowing female speakers etc is discriminatory and against equality & diversity laws so no problem with not allowing that.

However, if there was no discrimination as above, then I would be fine with the people having a 'platform' to speak - for all to attend - but then I would again not expect whatever they say to go unchallenged (quite the opposite in fact).

U.K.’s Brexit Walkout Threat Leaves EU Unmoved
For those who were blocked by the WSJ paywall, the same article is also here:
https://fbkfinanzwirtschaft.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/u-k-s-brexit-walkout-threat-leaves-eu-unmoved/

"There is frustration at what some in Berlin see as “deliberate misconceptions” being promoted by the U.K. government, including playing down the complexity of the divorce negotiations."
< many Tory Party Brexiters are genuinely that ignorant, espcially those who inherited a fortune and have never deigned to earn their living from trade >

"Berlin fears the U.K. has unrealistic expectations of what trade relationship is possible too"
< total ignorance about how modern trade works will cause those >

"More broadly, there is concern in Germany—echoed elsewhere in the EU—that much of the U.K. debate on trade is simplistic. Until recently,

many Brexiters’ views on free trade appeared stuck in the 19th century, in which the only barriers that mattered were tariffs."
< yes, many are still banging on that the UK car industry will be fine because the lower pound offets any tarfiifs. Total, gnorance about supply chains and just-in-time for production lines >

"These days, pro-Brexit Britons do acknowledge the importance of non-tariff barriers but insist that because the U.K. and the EU have the same regulatory standards, there is no need for new barriers.

But in the modern economy, standards constantly evolve: two regulatory systems may be equivalent on Day One, but will rapidly diverge thereafter"
< we must keep stating the bloody obvious >

"Without a mechanism to ensure the U.K.’s continued compliance with new rules emerging from the European Commission and European Court of Justice, barriers are inevitable.

Political logic cannot override sensible regulatory behavior, says a German official."
< well, party politics may cause the UK govt to make stupidly damaging decisions for the country >

Should PIE (iirc, since renamed as "man-boy love") be allowed to promote their idea of relationships if nominated for election ?

Or a white supremacist be allowed to advicate expelling all the "mud people" or "explaining" why Afrcians have inherently lower IQs - in an institute of learning which all races attend

Milo was the handsome face for the Breitbart white supremacists
As well as repeatedly claiming how inferior women are

Semi Milo has already been banned from platforms for hate speech including twitter, even Breitbart have now taken away his platform because some of what he had said was too offensive even for them. The reason that those Muslim and Christian societies are denied a platform in most London universities (note not all) is not because of diversity laws. I think it is a mute point whether what they were doing is illegal given that the women concerned were in favour of curtained off women only areas and would regard themselves as being favoured not discriminated against. It was because it went against the values that those Student's Unions had adopted in terms of equality. Every community has to decide their values and norms and where it draws the line on offensive behaviour, and what it can condone in terms of respecting people's beliefs, which is why some universities, like SOAS, a university at the forefront of Islamic Study, and challenging Conservative and misogynistic Islam, does actually tolerate such a platform.

The same would most certainly apply to somebody who virulently attacks women, describes trans people as mentally ill and has even spoken in favour of man / boy love, moreover someone who does so not out of a belief system or culture, but because he goes all out to be offensive to get attention.

*Should PIE (iirc, since renamed as "man-boy love") be allowed to promote their idea of relationships if nominated for election ?

Or a white supremacist be allowed to advicate expelling all the "mud people" or "explaining" why Afrcians have inherently lower IQs - in an institute of learning which all races attend*

Yes.

Because then they can be exposed to the sort of reaction and retribution that their views rightly deserve.

If people such as that get to voice their abhorrent views to the wider public they open themselves up to being very publicly taken down and those views dismantled.

What better place for these people to speak than in a place where their audience are not the usual sycophants, but clever & articulate and still have the rawness of youth whereby they are not afraid to speak out against things?

V interesting links today, thanks.

Quick basic economics question - in very rough terms -

how much is a fall of 0.3% growth per year in £

Freedom of speech is always a delicate balancing act between the rights of people to express differing points of view, and the rights of other people not to be threatened or abused.

No one has a right never to be offended; it's up to societies and communities to decide where to draw the line between "offensive" and "abusive". There is no simple line in the sand; holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Germany but not in the UK, for fairly obvious cultural and historical reasons.

OTOH freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to give the speaker a platform; it's up to institutions, companies, media etc to decide where they wish to draw the line. Public institutions should probably do this according to an agreed set of guidelines laid down in their organisational statutes, but privately run or funded organisations are under no such obligation.

FWIW I think universities should require speakers to have some objective academic credentials. Inviting shock-jocks - who may be extremely good debaters (it's a lot easier to craft a strong message if you don't have to bother with messy real-world facts) - does nothing to further academic discourse; in fact it damages academic discourse by turning it into a war of words and personalities.

how much is a fall of 0.3% growth per year in £

Over what period, and in nominal or real terms?

Remember that changes in growth rates are cumulative: a one-off hit of 0.3% does not only affect the year in which it occurs, but all subsequent years, because growth comes off a lower base.

Well this is the thing, the 0.3% figure was a sample projected loss of growth per year between now and 2030 as a result of Brexit. So 0.3% less annually than it would have been if we had stayed in the EU.

I was reading something trying to put £ figures to that and it all seemed quite dodgy.

It's a complete unknown

I don't agree Semi
I think that ansystem where some ideas are a,lowed to be aired and given a lot of importance then become the norm and acceptable.
That's what propaganda does and leaving people airing that sort of ideas wo restrictions would lead to that.

Letting that sort of people airing their ideas and getting the flack implies that the population has very strong ethics and is strong enough not to be manipulated.
In our day an age, I think this would be a very naive position.

I see that one of May's best friends has been shit-stirring again - Erdogan has accused the Dutch government of being 'Nazi remnants' while also saying 'they don't understand diplomacy'.

Freedom of speech is always a delicate balancing act between the rights of people to express differing points of view, and the rights of other people not to be threatened or abused.

YY.
Threats &/or abuse are not free speech, they're just people being bullying twats.

Wrt Milo, I'm sure there's plenty of students or otherwise in Glasgow who are more than capable of pulling him off his perch.
He's v used to the sycophant fan-boys/girls and people who try to counter him with decency - a bit of his own brand of robust debate back would do him the world of good.

Banning him just perpetuates the image he's constructed for himself.

Sorry I don't think my last post says anything clear at all...

I mean that, if you don't restrict the freedom of speech at all, you take the risk of those extremist ideas to become the Norm and acceptable.
That's how propaganda works. When youve heard an idea often enough, it is becoming a truth if some sort and one that is acceptable.

I don't think that people have enough ethics or strength to actually reject a continuous feeding of xx is ok because...

It's the issue that there has been with some iman here who were defending the idea of the jihad etc in central London. For a long time, they were left alone because of the free speech. Until someone realised that they were also able to convince some people that there was some truth in what they were saying.

For a long time, they were left alone because of the free speech

And that is part of where we go wrong - free speech is wonderful, but that does not mean that other people must listen.

Using your right to free speech = understanding that other people may disagree

If you exercise that right, you are accepting that there will be a response - and not necessarily a response that agrees with you, or will not offend you in return.

But that's not how it works does it?
People listen and don't always use their critical thinking. See Brexit for example
People talk but do not want to accept other people pov. See talks with transactivists.

If as a whole, we, the human specie, were a bit more mature, I would agree with you.
I just don't believe that we are mature enough to create that balance on our own.

I just don't believe that we are mature enough to create that balance on our own.

This incredibly patronising idea, that the common folk just aren't mature enough to be allowed free speech by their betters, has caused a lot of the anger and resentment that's now erupting worldwide into Trumpism, Brexit, populism, and so on. It's like trying to put a lid on a volcano, and has the same results.

Like her politics or not, Nicola Sturgeon has a great sense of humour:

@iamryanmcmanus BREAKING: @NicolaSturgeon seeks #ENGVSCO rematch as the result isn't to her liking. Thinking about an autumn 2018 decider. #RBS6Nations

@NicolaSturgeon Who leaked this?

It is a lovely idea that if someone is allowed a platform, then their lies will be exposed.
It's like the idea that this a just world in which people who do evil will suffer karma.
Doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often enough then enough people will believe it.
He was a master at the propoganda of distortion and hate against the innocent

The alt right are dangerous because they have been backed for decades by oligarchs who have been able to finance sophisticated research into how to manipulate people and how to push plausible fake news.
Backers like Robert Mercer, who so infamously brought in Cambridge Analytica to help Trump and Farage's campaigns.

In the case of the paedophile apologist / apadvocate at my Uni, he was charming, a skilled debater - and like Milo very handsome - unfortunately that does help convincing the young, particularly, that crtain ideas are cool & sophisticated.
The opposing speaker, the mother of a molested child, was totalled outclassed in the cool stakes and lost the vote by a large margin.

That debate heavily influenced my views on paedophiles and pornography, for years, because I was at an age when I could be most influenced by someone cool and edgy, while my ability to evaluate & balance different viewpoints had not fully developed.
After I had matured a few years more, I gave my head a wobble, researched and thought for myself on the subject.

Banning him just perpetuates the image he's constructed for himself.

OTOH universities are supposed to be seats of learning where academic rigour is applied. People like Milo bring no learning, no academic rigour. Why on earth a university would host him is beyond me.

It's a bit like the Trump manipulation. There will be many Americans who genuinely believe that the Bowling Green massacre was covered up and that it's only because of #fakenews that the world doesn't recognise that the crowds at Trump's inauguration weren't massively larger than at any other inauguration ever

People can be manipulated

OTOH universities are supposed to be seats of learning where academic rigour is applied. People like Milo bring no learning, no academic rigour. Why on earth a university would host him is beyond me.

Well, there is that.

Tbh, I think that's probably the type of argument that would deflate him the most.

"You're irrelevant here, Milo".

BigChoc, I do see your point (and others) I'm not being deliberately obtuse, honestly.