Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: Sucking up to the 'enemy'

979 replies

RedToothBrush · 17/10/2017 18:09

Phil Hammond called the EU the enemy. Then retracted it. A classic political move, to pitch to one group and then say you didn't mean it after all.

This is the UK's negotiation strategy. Because the negotiation isn't really with the EU. Its the ongoing debate over the what leaving the EU actually means since it wasn't officially defined prior to the referendum and has been left to politicians to say its one thing to persuade people to support them and then decided no that's not really what they meant after all.

The whole thing makes it impossible for the EU to respond to us, because we don't appear to know what we want.

The EU have been explicit in their position. So things they can not do because of the limitations of trade rules and EU law. Its possible work arounds could be possible for some things - but certainly not all which too many Brexiteers fail to acknowledge.

And then there is the a50 deadline which is like a snake coiled around May's neck slowly strangling her. A self imposed screwing of our negotiating position. One that kills off our Brexit options and ups the stakes into a brinkmanship battle - not with the EU but between the hardlines and the sane. Its not even about remaining, though that option might well end up being the only option left on the table through our own folly, rather than out of EU malice.

The longer we take to work out what we want the higher the stake become and the more we destroy the foundations of our economy in the meantime, even if we do stay in.

We have only just noticed that we've lost money worth 25% of our GDP and we have no net assets anymore, when in early 2016 we had significant assets. Project Fear they said was wrong. Well was it?

We are flat broke as a nation.

Then there is the Great Repel Bill. The Bill was supposed to be in the Commons this week. It was delayed a week due to the sheer number of amendments. There are nearly a dozen with enough Tory rebels to make them stick. Including one for parliament to have a meaningful vote on what option we take - including no deal. If parliament rejected this, we would be left in a situation where we sure as hell better hope a50 is reversible or we could end up unlawfully leave the EU by accident!

And the Lords could be fun for the Repel Bill. The Labour whip has vowed to examine every amendment properly even if the commons don't. And they are free and within their rights to do so.

Still May could exit stage left. Or left with egg all over her face as she has to suck up to the 'enemy' for being such a tool for the last 18months, because she hasn't made progress on the negotiations that really matter. The Tory party ones.

Whichever way you cut it, you can be sure on only one thing: it will go to the wire for both. And possibly beyond with an eleventh hour extension to prevent chaos.

There are hints that the public mood might be changing. Not fast enough. Yet. Interest rates? A break in the triple lock? Phil's budget sure will be interesting. Especially as Brexiteers want money to prepare and protect us from a no deal scenario which they also tell us will be just fine and won't be a problem. Bye Bye NHS, don't get flu this winter. As a note once infamously said: 'There's no many left'.

We are Greece. Only worse. And out of pressure and deadlines we alone created. We just haven't realised it. Yet.

And if this doesn't make you cringe and brace yourself in horror:

Danny Kemp‏ @dannyctkemp
May wants to take the floor at EU summit dinner on Thursday to explain Brexit policy to fellow leaders, senior official says

Just remember her party speech and think: What could possibly go wrong...

OP posts:
Thread gallery
55
DrivenToDespair · 23/10/2017 16:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Cailleach1 · 23/10/2017 16:11

What if you feel moved to speak write? Hadn't thought about propping up the title.

Cailleach1 · 23/10/2017 16:19

May talking in Westminster about an 'independent nuclear deterrent'. It is not independent as the UK don't have all the codes and have to get them off the US.

woman11017 · 23/10/2017 16:20

How can they facilitate the continuous spread of this falsehood without challenging it
Well, it seems to be catching. There's an article about 'traditional' fascism and overt lying, which I can't find, but it's part of the recipe, isn't it. Speaking of which.

Anyone noticed how 'firmly pro brexit' posters are also pro Catalonian independence posters?

Here's a thought on why. Grin

Posted on another thread, but interesting.
Co ordinated meeting of separatist groups in Russia, two years ago including Catalonia and excepting Scotland.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/global-separatist-groups-meet-up-in-moscow-but-no-one-criticises-russia-10510344.html
The strange Catalonian twitter traffic patterns leading to Assange.
www.byline.com/column/67/article/1903

DrivenToDespair · 23/10/2017 16:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lalalonglegs · 23/10/2017 17:22

It is part of a pattern, isn't it, woman? I was ashamed to find out that my region of Italy was having a referendum yesterday on whether it should have greater autonomy - as far as I can tell because it's one of the wealthiest parts of the country and resents sharing its revenue around. The referendum was unofficial but was overwhelmingly in favour of autonomy - because people opposed to the vote stayed away - so now actual out -and-proud fascists such as the Lega Nord have been given a boost Angry

LurkingHusband · 23/10/2017 18:35

Does anyone own (or have access to) a bus ?

Westminstenders: Sucking up to the 'enemy'
Melassa · 23/10/2017 19:03

My region too Lala. I'm guessing you're in the other one from me. I saw a lot of posts on FB exhorting people to stay away from voting as that way they wouldn't arrive at the quorum. I do have quite greeny/hippy/lefty friends though, so maybe on the Amici Della Lega page it was urging everyone to get out there.
What a huge waste of money, when they need money for schools etc. The amount spent in my region was something equivalent to the entire education budget for Lombardy.Angry

Melassa · 23/10/2017 19:07

Apparently Berlusconi is going to petition Brussels for EMA. That'll go down well Hmm

SwedishEdith · 23/10/2017 20:05

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/waxit-explainer-wa-liberals-to-debate-secession-motion/8858912

Western Australia regularly raises the issue of breaking away. It's not the wealthiest state but is rich in natural resources so lots of potential.

"The 2014/2015 GSP here was $276.312 billion, placing it in the top 4 strongest state economies. This is so large, that if Western Australia were an independent nation, it would be within the top 50 economies of the world. The per capita GSP here averages $98,012, the highest in the country."

Same pattern.

lalalonglegs · 23/10/2017 20:17

Jesus, they'll probably let it stay in London rather than have to deal with that clown.

My friends (but sadly not most of my family) are liberals and were opposed to the referendum - I think that they are a bit shocked by the turn-out Sad.

prettybird · 23/10/2017 20:31

Those that want independence can't win. They're either "too rich" (Catalonia and WA) or " supposedly too poor" (Scotland) Confused

For the record: I am anti-Brexit (you lot know that already Grin); support Scottish independence; think Spain should at least allow a vote in Catalonia (FWIW I think that the independence vote would have lost if it had been allowed officially to go ahead - but that Spain in its actions may have hardened Catalan support); and don't know enough about North Italy or WA to have an opinion.

And I'm not a bot Grin

SwedishEdith · 23/10/2017 20:42

"Whereas 69.1% of the Australian population was born in Australia this figure falls to 62.3% for Western Australia. As for Perth, 40.8% of the metropolitan population were born outside Australia."

On the basis that immigrants will have chosen to emigrate to Australia as opposed to Western Australia, I suspect they'd lose an independence vote - if vote was not infiltrated by malicious agents.

Melassa · 23/10/2017 20:50

Just for Lala

Although that was 5 days ago and we've heard nothing since, so maybe he was ignored by everyone and we're safe. Halloween Grin

lalalonglegs · 23/10/2017 21:06

I'm not sure why he thinks he has to persuade Merkel (Bonn is also bidding for the EMA) Confused but, if she does have the casting vote, Berlusconi may regret ...

pretty - I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons for a country/region wanting independence, I'm just not convinced that Lombardia/Veneto's motives are that pure Smile.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 21:08

Ciaran Jenkins‏*@C4Ciaran*

BREAK: Conservative Party has been ‘warned’ by Information Commissioner over its use of controversial election call centre..

iconewsblog.org.uk/2017/10/23/when-political-market-research-crosses-the-line/
When political market research crosses the line

The ICO has concluded its investigation into a Conservative Party telephone campaign carried out in the run up to the 2017 general election.

An undercover Channel 4 News investigation raised concerns about the campaign involving calls made by Blue Telecoms, a firm in Neath, South Wales, on behalf of the Conservative Party.

These concerns prompted an ICO investigation into the campaign’s compliance with data protection and electronic marketing law.

We’ve found that two small sections of the written scripts used by those making the calls crossed the line from legitimate market research to unlawful direct marketing. We’ve warned the Conservative Party to get it right next time.

Direct marketing v market research in politics
Market research helps political parties inform their views and formulate policies. Questions about voting intentions, finding out which Prime Minister someone might prefer or generally encouraging people to go out and vote are all legitimate market research.

However, if the questions are framed in a way to gain support – either now or at some point in the future – then that crosses the line into direct marketing. We mean things like promoting the aims and ideals of a particular party, appealing for funds, or encouraging people to vote for a particular party or candidate.

The law protects people from this kind of marketing because it can be intrusive.

Direct marketing – whether it’s through emails, texts or phone calls – is regulated by the ICO under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR).

What did the Conservative Party do wrong?
As part of our investigation, we studied scripts and call recordings and were satisfied that, in general, the questions reflected a valid market research campaign.

But we did have concerns about two sections which we believe fell outside the bounds of market research. These paragraphs referenced both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in relation to policy choices.

What happens now?
We’ve stopped short of formal regulatory action because the overall campaign was genuine market research. The two sections we had concerns about were not enough to trigger formal enforcement action when considered along with the campaign as a whole. In addition, the results of the survey were not saved against any individual so they could not be targeted for future marketing.

But we have been clear about what we expect in the future.

We’ve warned the party that its campaigns must be rigorously checked for questions that fall outside the bounds of market research.

And, while we did not resort to the full force of our regulatory powers in this case, we will continue to keep an eye on all political parties in the run up to future elections and repeat our advice to them that they must comply with data protection and privacy laws when campaigning.

There’s more advice about the difference between market research and direct marketing in our political campaigning guidance.

South Wales Police are conducting a separate investigation into the campaign.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 21:45

www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/peter-geoghegan-adam-ramsay/whos-paying-for-these-reports-on-bbc-brexit-coverage
Who's paying for these 'reports' on BBC Brexit coverage?

News-watch. As funded by Leavers.

OP posts:
prettybird · 23/10/2017 22:04

"May says she has a degree of confidence that trade talks can start in December" according to BBC News.

A degree of confidence Hmm Not that she IS confident Shock

Hmm
ElenaGreco123 · 23/10/2017 22:43

Has anyone else read the debate between Malcolm Tucker and Alan Partridge on Brexit in the Big Issue?
Tucker thinks Cameron's autobiography should bear the title "My Story: Shitting The Bed".

Cailleach1 · 23/10/2017 22:52

The bids for the EMA have already been submitted. They are available online.

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/relocation-uk-based-agencies/ema/

Some of them have no chance whatsoever. Maybe that is reflected in their abysmal application. Italy's proposition is Milan. There is already an EU Scientific Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra with Ca.850 people.

I don't know how Barcelona (Spain's bid) will fare now. It will be a political decision in the end. After the criteria have been met.

prettybird · 23/10/2017 23:05

Remember when in the months immediately following the Referendum there was a thread about "Actual impacts of the Referendum"? (can't remember its actual title)

Lots of people denying there would be any impact, and anyone pointing out anything to the contrary (research companies having to lay off staff, internships being withdrawn, banks making contingency plans to move abroad.....) were lying, making it up or (at best) exaggerating Hmm

mathanxiety · 24/10/2017 05:35

So Liam Fox is encountering a bit of resistance in the US to the idea of agricultural and industrial trade on UK terms, and hopes to focus instead on services. Good luck with that, as they say.

HesterThrale · 24/10/2017 05:59

Govt response to petition asking for them to release Brexit impact risk assessments:

'As Parliament agreed, we will not publish anything that would undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain...'

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200634

Apparently Parliament agreed that on 7 Dec 16. Convenient for them.

There is a Goodlaw Project court challenge coming up to force DExEU to release the studies. Fully crowdfunded. I wonder if it it'll have much success if the Govt can just trot out the line that Parliament agreed they won't release anything damaging. Covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it?

goodlawproject.org/brexit/secret-brexit-documents/

www.crowdjustice.com/case/secretbrexitstudies/

mathanxiety · 24/10/2017 06:36

www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/key-poll-which-boosted-leadsom-s-leadership-bid-funded-by-d

A key poll in the run up to last year’s Tory leadership election was funded by the same secretive group which funnelled a mystery £435,000 to the DUP’s Brexit campaign.

The funding of the carefully timed survey is one of only three known occasions that the mysterious Constitutional Research Council has been used to channel money into British politics – as well as the DUP donation, £6,500 was given to the MP and now Brexit minister Steve Baker, to pay for a meeting of the pro-Brexit MPs’ European Research Group, which he chaired. Baker was a key member of Andrea Leadsom’s campaign team, and sat on the board of directors of “Leadsom4Leader”...

...Andrea Leadsom was the favoured candidate for prime minister among a number of prominent Leave campaigners. Days before the poll was released, Leave.EU chair Arron Banks told the Daily Mail that:
'Andrea was the breakout star of the Leave campaign during the referendum: calm, assured and, in contrast to May and Gove, honest; putting the case for Brexit eloquently and passionately. Leave.EU will therefore be throwing its full weight behind Andrea.'

It is pretty clear that Leadsom does not have the brains to find her way out of a brown paper bag, and also, that she is the sort of individual likely to climb into a brown paper bag. She makes the ideal front for people who are a lot brighter than her.

Leadsom was hosted by the Koch Brothers at some right wing symposium in the US a couple of years ago iirc.

www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/new-brexit-minister-arms-industry-american-hard-right-and-e
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas...
Some of the known individuals and groups Steve Baker is indebted to:

Baker’s register of interests also shows that he has been funded by controversial right wing groups in the USA to attend a number of conferences around the world. In 2015, he went to a conference called “the Jackson Hole Summit on monetary policy and global finance”, organised by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. While the event itself included people with a range of views, and had speakers such as Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, Mr Baker’s ‘hotel and means’ at the event were paid for by the group “American Principles in Action”.

American Principles in Action is a radical right group in the USA who, support a return to the gold standard (an idea that Baker often discusses), but who are better known for their hard conservative viewpoints and rhetoric. This week, their executive director, Terry Schilling, asked: “will Christian schools, charities, businesses, and families be forced to acquiesce to the hyper-sexual LGBT agenda or face government persecution?”.

The year Baker received money from the organisation, they in turn were paid $250,000 by the American billionaire Robert Mercer, according to research by the website DeSmog. Mercer is at the centre of investigations by Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr into Brexit and the election of Donald Trump and, among other things, is the owner of the company Cambridge Analytica, which was at the heart of both campaigns.

In 2012 (twice), and 2016, Baker attended conferences with his costs paid for by the American Liberty Fund, a group described by former US Vice President Al Gore as “radical right wing”. Describing the conferences they organise for US judges, Gore wrote that those who attend: "are generally responsible for writing the most radical pro-corporate, anti-environmental, and activist decisions". The Liberty Fund has a history of close collaboration with the Charles Koch Institute, co-publishing pamphlets, organising ‘coloquia’ and hosting seminars together. Charles Koch, and his brother David are fossil fuel industry billionaires who spend a lot of their money fighting against action on climate change and healthcare in the USA

I include the following because of the undeveloped mention of Andrei Ilarionov that seems to imply that Ilarionov is still an economic advisor to Putin, and therefore Putin is the puppet master behind the Antigua event and/or the dark money flowing to the UK.

Andrei Illarionov left Russia in 2005 and is now a 'policy scholar' with the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, in Washington, DC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov
Illarionov is one of the 34 first signatories of the online anti-Putin manifesto "Putin must go", published on 10 March 2010.

As a well known opponent to Vladimir Putin and his policies, he criticized former Czech president Václav Klaus' view that the EU and the USA did more to escalate conflict in the Ukraine than did Vladimir Putin. Illarionov was able to end the cooperation between Klaus and the Cato Institute

What is the Cato Institute, you may ask...
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[6][7] Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence
Well, well, well.
Charles Koch, quelle surprise.

The following is lifted straight out of the Cato Institute Wiki entry:
Cato scholars have consistently called for the privatization of many government services and institutions, including NASA, Social Security, the United States Postal Service, the Transportation Security Administration, public schooling, public transportation systems, and public broadcasting.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] The institute opposes minimum wage laws, saying that they violate the freedom of contract and thus private property rights, and increase unemployment.[57][58] It is opposed to expanding overtime regulations, arguing that it will benefit some employees in the short term, while costing jobs or lowering wages of others, and have no meaningful long-term impact.[59][60] It opposes child labor prohibitions.[61][62][63] It opposes public sector unions and supports right-to-work laws.[64][65] It opposes universal health care, arguing that it is harmful to patients and an intrusion onto individual liberty.[66][67] It is against affirmative action.[68] It has also called for total abolition of the welfare state, and has argued that it should be replaced with reduced business regulations to create more jobs, and argues that private charities are fully capable of replacing it.[69][70] Cato has also opposed antitrust laws.[71][72]

Cato is an opponent of campaign finance reform, arguing that government is the ultimate form of potential corruption and that such laws undermine democracy by undermining competitive elections. Cato also supports the repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act.[73][74]

Cato has published strong criticisms of the 1998 settlement which many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[75] In 2004, Cato scholar Daniel Griswold wrote in support of President George W. Bush's failed proposal to grant temporary work visas to otherwise undocumented laborers which would have granted limited residency for the purpose of employment in the U.S.[76]

The Cato Institute published a study proposing a Balanced Budget Veto Amendment to the United States Constitution.[77]

In 2003, Cato filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the 14th Amendment, among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.[78]

In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the Federal Marriage Amendment as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic.[79] The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.

Cato scholars have been sharp critics of current U.S. drug policy and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.[80] Additionally, the Cato Institute opposes smoking bans[81] and mandatory use of safety belts.[82]

The list of Adjunct Scholars is interesting for the number of individuals who teach at George Mason University. This university is heavily represented in other links I have seen here or posted here on libertarianism/Brexit/Cobden Centre.

mathanxiety · 24/10/2017 06:37

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
Wiki entry, Cato Institute.