Westminstenders: Long live liberalism

[RedToothBrush]

Talk of its demise are premature.

(Sorry up to eyeballs this weekend)

Best anthem ever.

I made a complaint to the BBC about the number of times Farage had been on Question Time.

The first reply I received was:

Nigel Farage has appeared on Question Time twice since the EU referendum in 2016. Before his appearance last week, He was last on the programme in March 2018 and not at all in 2017. Nigel Farage is the co-founder and leader of the Brexit Party and is an appropriate panellist to represent the party on the programme.

I was dissatisfied and wrote again:
Your reply is disingenous. In all Farage has been on Question Time 33 times, despite failing to be elected to Westminster on 7 occasions.

Today I finally got an answer to my reply:
Thanks for getting back in touch with us.

We're sorry you were unhappy with our initial response, but would assert that we have nothing further to add to it.

If you are still dissatisfied, you can contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. Details of the BBC complaints process are available at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework.

If you wish to contact the ECU please write to it directly within 20 working days of receiving this reply. Please explain to it why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue for it to investigate. You can email [email protected], or write to: Executive Complaints Unit, BBC, Broadcast Centre, London W12 7TQ.

I am now kicking myself that I didn't ask the question 'How many party Leaders have been on Question Times the same number of times as Farage? I think the answer is None. Note that it took a whole month to give me such a rubbish reply.

@prettybird do you mean this Christine Lagarde? I didn’t know a criminal record was one of the requirements for the job[ hmm]www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html

{I'm confused re. The backstop.
What's the issue with putting a hard border in?}

If you need to ask the question, you won't understand the answer.

difficult for the EU to ignore the liability that the UK often is

Another reminder to E27 heads of govt who are wavering over whether to grant another extension, if requested

Whih is exactly what Farrage and co are trying to do. The EU will be well aware that by deciding they are a pain and they will not support the UK anymore, they would be playing into their hands.

The solution is a very balancing act for them too. (And the reason why i do not want the UK to have a vote in the EP until it has decided VERY CLEARLY it wants to stay and build a future for and with the EU)

Crunchiecheesecake
Which paragons of virtue are the UK proposing to have as PM?

@1tisleclerc deflection is a good tactic. I may use that one myself. So I’ll ask again. Does Christine Lagarde having a criminal record make her a good candidate for the job?

The real reply from the BBC is "Nigel Farage has been on Question Time 33 times is because he is good fucking copy".

Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn

Treasury Questions beginning now

A fairly good bet that this is the last time Philip Hammond will stand at the Despatch Box.

Crunchiecheesecake
If you are a 'leaver' who cares what you think?

@1tisleclerc, mummy mummy he called me a leaver. Don’t worry said mummy he’s just a bold nasty man who likes to deflect a lot.

The IMF stood by her ever since that 2016 verdict, because it was a very harsh verdict

The US or the UK or 160+ other countries could have moved to sack her, if they thought it made her unfit to head the IMF
So a conviction is no obstacle to heading the IMF

We'll have to wait for the ECB

• she has only been nominated, so that verdict may yet stop her

As tha article said:
Even the trial’s chief prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said the accusation was “very weak” and warned of confusion between “criminal negligence” and a “bad political decision”.

She made a bad decision because she trusted her political advisers and didn't read 15 years of documents herself
Then some other politicians got in power and started investigating their predecessors
She was collateral damage

@whiskey2014, all I did was ask a question. Usually 1tis likes answering questions. I’m disappointed all he could come up with as an answer was to call me a ‘leaver’.

Noone will care what the UK thinks, that's for sure

but that will be true of many decisions inside and outside the EU, after Brexit

The UK soft power around the world has already sunk and will go over the cliff edge with the economy after No Deal

After that, I don't think you'll care who heads the ECB - but you'll care who heads the IMF, when they have to rescue the UK

Whisky2014
I'm confused re. The backstop.
What's the issue with putting a hard border in?

www.vox.com/world/2019/2/18/18204269/brexit-irish-border-backstop-explained

In a pretty long nutshell.

Been working flat out for several days & have missed hundreds of posts - so this might have been discussed - but if you haven't seen it already it's well worth half an hour of your time.

Rory Stewart C4 interview.

I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I think that of more politicians did politics like RS does we'd be in a much better place.

Also, members of the US Congress have warned that a hard border will cause them to block any UK-US trade deal

and the EU would refuse to even start post-Brexit talks on a new trade deal.

Many countries around the world - especially those with a large Irish dispora - would also likely condemn the UK
More loss of soft power

Canada is probably going to say no to rolling over CETA too. If they can get goods in with zero rate tariffsunder MFN rules then why would they sign a FTA?

Rory Stewart seems to be the only politician/media commentator currently to refer to Derry/Londonderry. Just an observation.

WTO restrictions on subsidies to farmers & fishing

Maybe Leavers will demand we leave WTO next

Dmitry Grozoubinski@DmitryOpines

2/ So right off the bat.

There are some types of agricultural subsidy that are WTO legal in any amount.

There are some types of agricultural subsidy that are WTO legal in limited amounts.

There are a few types of agricultural subsidy that are WTO illegal.

3/ The most obvious way to use government subsidies to support farmers locked out of the EU market by No-Deal
would be to give them to farmers exporting to the EU, to help them offset the new tariffs by lowering prices.

This is an EXPORT SUBSIDY and is definitely illegal

4/ The second most obvious way would be to use government subsidies to support farmers who previously exported to the EU, based on how much they did so.

This is still (lawyers jump in here) an EXPORT SUBSIDY and illegal.

5/ That doesn't mean Mr Hunt can't spend billions of pounds to help farmers.
It just means that when he's spending that money, he can't use past or present export performance as a test for who gets it.

So to support lamb exporters, he'd have to support all lamb producers.

6/ Fisheries is a slightly different story, because it's covered under a different WTO Agreement (Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures or "SCM").

This agreement is a bit tighter with subsidies than the Agreement on Agriculture.

7/ Under the SCM, not only are export subsidies illegal
but if you provide sector or industry specific subsidies and another market feels those subsidies are impacting their market,
they can conduct an investigation and impose a "Counterveiling Measure."

What's that?

8/ It's a targeted tariff.
They are allowed to raise their tariffs on that product from you (just you) even beyond the maximum tariffs laid out in their WTO Goods Schedule.

So they are basically allowed to use tariffs to 'cancel out' your subsidy.

9/ None of this means there is no way for Mr Hunt to support farmers and fishermen and women impacted by No-Deal Brexit.

For the record, I think there's almost a moral imperative to do so,
both for the farmers and fishermen and women themselves and for their communities.
....
10/ What it does mean is that the UK has obligations not to provide such support in some of the most obvious and cost effective ways,

and that one can't simply use subsidies to "brute force" industry's way through EU's tariffs.

/end

@Ellie56 , I just showed that link to my dh (half Irish like me). "Unbefuckinglievable"

Of course, subsidies to farmers & fishermen would be nothing compared to the huge sums required to compensate the manufacturing and services sectors after No Deal

Are Hunt & BJ promising compensation only to farmers & fishermen because the Treasury couldn't afford to compensate everyone else ?

I agreed with what Rory said in the last debate - thinking longterm rather than shortterm bribes to the better off:

“I’m going to be straight with people.

I don’t think this is the time to be cutting taxes.

I’m not thinking about the next 15 days, I’m thinking about the next 15 years.”

I agreed with what Rory said in the last debate

I didn't see the debate (can't legally watch BBC and in any case I boycott all BBC news outlets on principle). But he also talked about longer term thinking in the C4 interview.

He said some interesting things about austerity too. Much of it I didn't agree with. But he did say some thought provoking things about whether any party has serious policies to help the bottom 10%. These people don't vote - they include prisoners, care leavers who are functionally illiterate, people with serious mental health problems, etc. There's no real incentive to make policy for them. (I think this was also a tacit acknowledgement that austerity policies he had voted for had hurt these people).