Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

However, if Brexit is not a dynamic success, I believe we will attempt to rejoin the EU in the next 10-15 years.

In the unlikely event of that scenario happening, I doubt the EU would forgive and forget, and let us waltz back in as though we had never left.

They would lay down the law to us: no rebate, no opt outs, and the Euro would replace Sterling...

That's a very hard sell to the British public...

A lot of Remain supporters would probably baulk at that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 notprop wrote:

2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.

Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.

The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UK MP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.

The man was a leading figure of the Leave campaign. Come on. I should have been writing in past tense since Farage has stepped back since the vote, but when you're one of the leading figures for something the size of the Brexit vote you're pretty blatantly serious and important.

 notprop wrote:
So not leading or directly involved the campaign then.

A demagogue the remain campaign focused on to try and paint Leavers and influence Undecideds with.

Then as now a convincing argument would have been better.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So not leading or directly involved the campaign then.

A demagogue the remain campaign focused on to try and paint Leavers and influence Undecideds with.

Then as now a convincing argument would have been better.

That's incorrect because there were two Leave campaigns. Vote Leave was supported by the nutcase Tory and Labour MPs that thought damaging the UK economy for some wishful thinking was a good idea. They didn't want to be associated with the Farage. Likely politically more than anything because people like Boris/Gove etc knew they would be overshadowed. Their campaign was based on outright lies and trying to denigrate 'experts'.

The other 'official' campaign was Leave.EU bankrolled by people like Aaron Banks but had a Farage as the figure head. Their approach was much more sinister including facsist style imagery (e.g. Breaking Point). There's no doubt immigration did play it's part in the decision (there was a substantial swing to Leave when immigration figures were released a week before the vote for example). That would indicate the sickening message that Leave.EU presented did sway some (and Vote Leave were quite happy to benefit from it).

Neither were official campaigns as the only government supported one was the Remain campaign.

I still postulate that Wrexit is the death throws of a dying beast and it is lashing out whilst bleeding out.

 notprop wrote:
No, you said he wasn’t a fringe looney.

Being outside the campaign put him on the fringe

He is a looney.

Ergo...

The point being your painting of a sizable chunk of the U.K. population as Xenophobic because you mistakenly see him as relevant is both false and insulting to them and their countrymen.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS

 notprop wrote:


How apt that even now opinion is cast as fact.

The Electorial Commission nominated one campaign on each side. Farage was in neither.

Come on feller you can try harder than that.

A higher spending limit of £7 million
One free distribution of information to voters
The use of certain public rooms
Referendum campaign broadcasts
A grant of up to £600,000 to be used for certain spending including the administration costs associated with setting up and running a referendum campaign and the costs associated with the TV broadcasts and free mailing to voters that they are entitled to as lead campaigners
In addition to these statutory benefits, lead campaign groups can have:
A dedicated page in the Commission’s public information booklet which will be distributed to all households in the UK (in both English language and bilingual English/Welsh language versions)
The inclusion in the booklet of a link to a page on the campaigner’s website, which should include their opinion on what will happen in the event of either referendum result

 notprop wrote:
Supply Chain Managers... enough said.

They’re always the first to go!

 notprop wrote:
Supply Chain Managers... enough said.

They’re always the first to go!

 notprop wrote:
Supply Chain Managers... enough said.

They’re always the first to go!

 Steve steveson wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Supply Chain Managers... enough said.

They’re always the first to go!

What's wrong with supply chain managers?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Something something woefully informed something something insult to all supply chain managers.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Something something woefully informed something something insult to all supply chain managers.

You may have also noticed the retail sector is slowly collapsing, too.

By the end, hardly anyone in the Soviet ruling class believed in communism. People mouthed slogans like “dictatorship of the proletariat” knowing it was all nonsense. These days, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has its own two-faced ruling class, writes Peter Pomerantsev in his 2014 book Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible. Television producers pump out propaganda, then switch on opposition radio after work. “ ‘Orthodox’ oligarchs sing hymns to Russian religious conservatism — and keep their money and families in London.” These people have a public self, and a private one. Pomerantsev finally fled the falsehoods for London, “where you don’t have to split yourself up into little bits. Where words mean things.”

He may now regret moving. Brexit has created a two-faced ruling class in London too. Very few British politicians, civil servants, business leaders or even many Brexit-cheerleading journalists believe the official state ideology of Brexit. They just mouth the slogans. The populist policy of Brexit has made the populist claim come true: Britain’s elite lies. And this will worsen after Brexit.

It wasn’t so bad at first. After Brits voted for Brexit in 2016, many establishment Remainers thought: “Well, it’s what the people want and maybe they’re right. I’ll try to make it work.” The elite at that point had lost confidence in its own instincts. Why not pursue global trade deals, cut immigration and fund the NHS instead of Brussels? People like Theresa May did their best to love Big Brother.

But after 21 months of attempting Brexit, they have given up. May never says she would vote for Brexit now. Asked recently if Brexit was worth it, she waffled. Singling her out is unfair. Most senior Conservative and Labour politicians are biting their tongues. To make things worse, most also can’t admit they oppose their own party leaders. Only a few powerless rebels such as Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna are free to live in truth.

Even many Brexiters believe their own ideology in theory but not in detail. Brexit hasn’t unfolded as they expected. When Daniel Hannan said during the referendum campaign that obviously Brexit Britain would stay in the single market, and Michael Gove that it would “hold all the cards” in negotiations, they probably believed it. Now they are stuck. These people aren’t naive. They are the educated elite, merely masquerading as anti-expert populists. I suspect they quietly believe the Treasury’s assessment that global trade won’t replace lost European trade.

Caught between fantasy and reality, Brexiters become tempted to deceive. In December, Brexit minister David Davis suggested a freshly agreed divorce deal with the EU wasn’t “legally enforceable”. That reduced European trust, already strained daily by Boris Johnson. The old saying “An Englishman’s word is his bond” is becoming hilarious.

Meanwhile, I’ve yet to meet a civil servant who admits to believing in the biggest project of their careers. One diplomat told me years ago that the one thing that could ever get him to resign from public service was Brexit. Today he is helping drive it. It used to be said British diplomats were sent to lie abroad for their country. Now they lie for Conservative party unity.

Many business leaders fear that a hard Brexit will damage their companies but keep quiet to avoid upsetting ministers or consumers. Paul Drechsler, president of the Confederation of British Industry, recently implored them: “Tell your story. The real risk is to say nothing — and reap the blame later for our silence now.”

In the media, the BBC curtails the instincts of its mostly Remainer journalists. A colleague at one big Brexit-supporting newspaper told me “95 per cent” of its journalists oppose Brexit. Another friend puts the figure at his pro-Brexit paper at “80 to 90 per cent”. He tries to switch his mind off Brexit. At least Remoaners like me believe the stuff we write, pointless as it is.

If Brexit ever happens, and British officials start chasing trade deals, the dissembling will get worse. We’ll then mostly be courting autocrats: Gulf states, China, Russia. Trade isn’t their priority, but they like other British assets: the “light-touch regulation” City of London (meaning a laundry for dirty money); the British-gentleman fantasy (starting with a place at boarding school); Britain’s ruling party (the wife of one of Putin’s former ministers paid the Tories £160,000 to play a tennis match with Johnson and David Cameron); elections (as well as Cambridge Analytica, many foreign outfits want to meddle); and media (the UK’s loud global voice is worth buying).

For universities losing European research grants, autocrat donors stand ready. Oxford already has the Blavatnik School of Government, funded by the Ukraine-born tycoon who is Britain’s richest man (and a Trump donor). Gulf money finances Islamic studies at several universities. Foreigners have learnt the UK is for sale.

Britain’s ruling class hasn’t prepared the population for pain from Brexit, notes Alan Finlayson of the University of East Anglia. Any hardship will further dent trust in government. The backlash could be either extreme nationalist or extreme left, while the ruling class whines: “But we never believed the silly idea to start with!”

European media follow the Brexit debate closely, but appear unconcerned about the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

A study of media coverage over the past six months reveals those living outside the UK do not believe Brexit will drive the EU apart. It also found European Brexit reporting was predominantly fact-based. Most (78%) analysed news items took no position in relation to Brexit. Only 22% conveyed a clear opinion.

These are preliminary findings of a comparative content analysis of media coverage in eight European countries.

Findings:

1. Media outlets in most countries have adopted a neutral position when reporting Brexit negotiations. Only one in ten reports, on average, covered the issue from a perspective of national self-interest. However there was a notable variation between countries. French media reported Brexit as more of a challenge for the United Kingdom rather than for the French or the EU; interest in the future of the EU was highest in Sweden and Greece. Spanish and Irish media in particular expressed a strong view against Brexit, while Italian and French media were slightly closer to presenting a mixture of arguments.

2. Coverage in Ireland indicated the country’s close involvement in the Brexit process: reporting in Irish media appeared divided equally between the Irish and the British perspectives.

3. The study’s findings reveal a general lack of anxiety about the future of the EU and the impact of Brexit on Europe, or on individual EU countries - with the exception of Ireland. If Irish coverage is excluded, most (68%) of the European news items reflected on the British situation, while slightly less than one in five articles (19%) discussed implications for the EU.

4. Freedom of movement and the rights of EU citizens living in the UK occupied little space in the coverage (7% of news items). This figure decreased to 4% when news articles about the impact of Brexit on Ireland were left out.

5. Excluding any generic references to Brexit, nearly half (42%) of reporting across all studied countries covered progress and setbacks in the Brexit negotiations.

6. The remaining coverage (58%) focused on more specific issues. Of these, half concerned the economy, business and trade.

7. Coverage of EU bureaucracy, standards and regulations played a role in only a small proportion (3%) of content studied.

Which Politicians Drive the Agenda?

Politicians from other EU countries were rarely quoted on Brexit issues. This contrasts with the impression sometimes given in British media coverage that European politicians ‘meddle’ in British affairs. Instead it fits the image of a ‘united front’ promoted by the EU during in the negotiations.

When protagonists were quoted, the tone of the debate was set mainly by UK Conservatives (12.4%) and EU institutions (10.4%). UK Labour politicians played a negligible role: they were quoted in only 3% of news items, while vocal Leave campaigners, such as Nigel Farage and UKIP, were even less present (combined share of 0.3%).
French, German or other EU national politicians were barely quoted (in fewer than 1% of reports). The most quoted person of all protagonists was British Prime Minister, Theresa May, with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier following some way behind.

The Irish Media and Brexit

A disproportionately large number of articles and news pieces in the sample stemmed from Irish outlets (1290 items - or 37% of the total). This finding can be explained by the particularly complicated relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland following the Brexit Referendum.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland share a land border and a common travel area between the UK, and the Republic allows for the free movement of goods and people. Both sides hope to avoid a return to a “hard border” although how this could be achieved is still being debated. For this reason the topic has featured prominently in Brexit negotiations and has strongly influenced the Irish news coverage.

Fact-based reporting
Contrary to popular assumptions that news media are biased and opinionated, the study found that European Brexit coverage was predominantly fact-based. Most (78%) analysed news items took no position in relation to Brexit. Only 22% conveyed a clear opinion. Of these, nearly three quarters (74%) argued against Brexit.

Spoiler:

Overall:

80% think Corbyn is doing "well" as leader of the Labour party (up from 50% a year ago) and 19% badly (down from 49%) - what a difference a general election makes

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Something something woefully informed something something insult to all supply chain managers.

You may have also noticed the retail sector is slowly collapsing, too.

Because the retail sector is the only sector which needs supply chains?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Corbyn’s ratings are doing well despite being assailed daily by this anti-semitism stuff which is being stoked up by the right wing media who are enabled by the way Corbyn’s opponents within the party are using it to undermine him. Now the press can report that people in his own party are on their side, which means they can hide their own partisan reporting of this matter. Further it suits the right wing media and government to fill the papers with this because it’s a distraction from the gak show that is brexit and the way they are mismanaging this country.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Corbyn’s ratings are doing well despite being assailed daily by this anti-semitism stuff which is being stoked up by the right wing media who are enabled by the way Corbyn’s opponents within the party are using it to undermine him. Now the press can report that people in his own party are on their side, which means they can hide their own partisan reporting of this matter. Further it suits the right wing media and government to fill the papers with this because it’s a distraction from the gak show that is brexit and the way they are mismanaging this country.

You're not denying the labour party has an anti-semitic element though right? Because there's a lot of evidence that it has.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another Brexy Bonus!