Brexit

Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

Rocsteady wrote:I remember many of us laughing off the concerns of immigrants coming over but if Blair,.Brown or Cameron had made it substantially harder for immigrants to come we wouldn't have collapsed our economy and be facing down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps a lesson that we need to learn is to listen more to the general public and give some concessions to opinion when appropriate. Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Rocsteady wrote:People on low incomes see their relative income falling and people from poorer countries all around them doing the same job for less and it's hardly a radical idea for them to conclude that increased immigration = lower standard of living for them and their families.

Now, we've seen studies that contradict that on a national level but we already have a progressive mindset which leads us to look up such studies. If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

Rocsteady wrote:

Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

That's a very glib way of putting it.

People on low incomes see their relative income falling and people from poorer countries all around them doing the same job for less and it's hardly a radical idea for them to conclude that increased immigration = lower standard of living for them and their families.

Now, we've seen studies that contradict that on a national level but we already have a progressive mindset which leads us to look up such studies. If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

We live in a democracy and even if you think everyone's strawberry floating retarded we still have to bear public opinion in mind. Not having done so has quite clearly led to worse outcomes.

Meep wrote:I would hate to be any of the Brexiteers who helped persuade the public to vote for this mess. Negotiations are going far worse than I though they would and I was pessimistic to begin with. Anyone who lied to the public about how easy and wonderful this would be better be careful about where they go and how late they stay out in future, otherwise they could be found floating in the nearest canal. There is going to be millions of dangerously pissed off leave voters if the economic impact of leaving with no deal hits them hard enough. The vote was mainly swayed by frustration at the current status quo so imagine how folks will feel when it blows up in their faces.

Rocsteady wrote:The more i think about it i think part of the blame also lies with people like us on here.

I remember many of us laughing off the concerns of immigrants coming over but if Blair,.Brown or Cameron had made it substantially harder for immigrants to come we wouldn't have collapsed our economy and be facing down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps a lesson that we need to learn is to listen more to the general public and give some concessions to opinion when appropriate. Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Rocsteady wrote:

Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

That's a very glib way of putting it.

Rocsteady wrote:Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Rocsteady wrote:If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades.

BBC News wrote:Brexit: EU 'to prepare' for future trade talks with UK

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document seen by the BBC
suggests the 27 European Union countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.

It comes as the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said there was "deadlock" over the UK's Brexit bill.

As the fifth round of talks ended in Brussels on Thursday, Mr Barnier said there had not been enough progress to move to the next stage of post-Brexit trade talks, but added that he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

The draft paper submitted to the 27 EU states by European Council president Donald Tusk, suggests free trade talks could open in December - should Prime Minister Theresa May improve her offer on what the UK pays when it leaves.

The BBC's Europe correspondent Adam Fleming said the paper has been described as an "opening to the UK" to encourage the government to reach a deal with the EU.

The document calls for talks - about a transition period and the future relationship - to move to the next phase "as soon as possible".

The draft conclusions - to be put to EU leaders next Friday - also call for more concessions from the UK on its financial obligations and the rights of
European nationals who wish to stay after Brexit.

The paper confirms Mr Barnier's assessment, that there has not been "sufficient progress" on three key elements of a withdrawal treaty for leaders to agree to open the trade talks now.

But it says the leaders would welcome developments on these key issues: the rights of three million EU citizens in the UK, protecting peace in Northern Ireland from the effect of a new border and Britain's outstanding "financial obligations".

The council would then pledge to "reassess the state of progress" at their December summit.

Bernd Kolmel, chairman of Germany's Eurosceptic Liberal Conservative Reformers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there appeared to have been little progress between the first and fifth round of talks - something he described as a "disaster".

He called on the EU to expand the talks to include its future relationships and trade with the UK.

Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."

The document states that in order "to be fully ready", EU leaders would ask Mr Barnier and his officials to start preparing now for a transition - albeit without actually starting to talk to the UK about it.

"The European Council invites the Council (Article 50) together with the Union negotiator to start internal preparatory discussions," the draft reads.

Our correspondent said that would go some way to meet the request made by Brexit Secretary David Davis at the end of this week's talks, when he called on EU leaders to acknowledge the new momentum injected into the process by the prime minister's speech in Florence last month.

Brexit talks doomed? Not so fast...

By Laura Kuenssberg

"Deadlock!". "L'impasse". "Quelle Horreur". You can hear the cries from across the Channel, and the cages of the City rattling in fear, as Michel Barnier's language took a dramatic turn at this morning's press conference, painting the Brexit talks as at a brick wall.

True, not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.

But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.

At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.

It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.

Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on.

Forgive what comes next as nerdy detail, but it hopefully helps make this clear.

For example, the UK side is unwilling to move on to talking in more detail about the money, until the EU side is willing to talk about transition (the idea is, until we know what we might get in future, whether access to certain agencies, or EU programmes, how can we assess what we might be prepared to pay).

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

It would not be as big a step as moving on to phase 2, but it is the next political decision that could ease the deadlock in this area. And there was a clue from Mr Barnier in his remarks this morning that this is what he will continue to pursue.

And third, if you had been writing the script of these negotiations before they even began, there's no question that at some point in the plot, there would have been a declaration of digging in, a cry that it's all impossible, it is almost the end of the road, all is lost!

Then, at the last moment in a late night summit, emerges the one side of A4 in the clammy hand of an official. On it, not many details, but a few lines that sketch out agreement, show some progress.

Finally, the heroic politicians have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! (Leaving officials in a quiet way to work out the boring details for the next ten years)

That is not to say for a second that all is well or indeed to minimise the real and possibly very serious consequences of the talks genuinely breaking down.

And whether it is all pantomime or real politics, the remarks will of course stir the pot in Westminster too, likely adding to the drum beat among some
Brexiteers that a swifter exit with no deal is better than this drawn out agony - and Remainers' deep anxiety and uncertainty for business about whether a deal can really be done.

But both on the UK side and the EU side, to translate this morning's remarks into certain Armageddon for the deal would be to misunderstand.

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades.

I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

KK wrote:A tad more optimism this morning...

BBC News wrote:Brexit: EU 'to prepare' for future trade talks with UK

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document seen by the BBC
suggests the 27 European Union countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.

It comes as the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said there was "deadlock" over the UK's Brexit bill.

As the fifth round of talks ended in Brussels on Thursday, Mr Barnier said there had not been enough progress to move to the next stage of post-Brexit trade talks, but added that he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

The draft paper submitted to the 27 EU states by European Council president Donald Tusk, suggests free trade talks could open in December - should Prime Minister Theresa May improve her offer on what the UK pays when it leaves.

The BBC's Europe correspondent Adam Fleming said the paper has been described as an "opening to the UK" to encourage the government to reach a deal with the EU.

The document calls for talks - about a transition period and the future relationship - to move to the next phase "as soon as possible".

The draft conclusions - to be put to EU leaders next Friday - also call for more concessions from the UK on its financial obligations and the rights of
European nationals who wish to stay after Brexit.

The paper confirms Mr Barnier's assessment, that there has not been "sufficient progress" on three key elements of a withdrawal treaty for leaders to agree to open the trade talks now.

But it says the leaders would welcome developments on these key issues: the rights of three million EU citizens in the UK, protecting peace in Northern Ireland from the effect of a new border and Britain's outstanding "financial obligations".

The council would then pledge to "reassess the state of progress" at their December summit.

Bernd Kolmel, chairman of Germany's Eurosceptic Liberal Conservative Reformers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there appeared to have been little progress between the first and fifth round of talks - something he described as a "disaster".

He called on the EU to expand the talks to include its future relationships and trade with the UK.

Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."

The document states that in order "to be fully ready", EU leaders would ask Mr Barnier and his officials to start preparing now for a transition - albeit without actually starting to talk to the UK about it.

"The European Council invites the Council (Article 50) together with the Union negotiator to start internal preparatory discussions," the draft reads.

Our correspondent said that would go some way to meet the request made by Brexit Secretary David Davis at the end of this week's talks, when he called on EU leaders to acknowledge the new momentum injected into the process by the prime minister's speech in Florence last month.

Brexit talks doomed? Not so fast...

By Laura Kuenssberg

"Deadlock!". "L'impasse". "Quelle Horreur". You can hear the cries from across the Channel, and the cages of the City rattling in fear, as Michel Barnier's language took a dramatic turn at this morning's press conference, painting the Brexit talks as at a brick wall.

True, not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.

But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.

At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.

It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.

Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on.

Forgive what comes next as nerdy detail, but it hopefully helps make this clear.

For example, the UK side is unwilling to move on to talking in more detail about the money, until the EU side is willing to talk about transition (the idea is, until we know what we might get in future, whether access to certain agencies, or EU programmes, how can we assess what we might be prepared to pay).

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

It would not be as big a step as moving on to phase 2, but it is the next political decision that could ease the deadlock in this area. And there was a clue from Mr Barnier in his remarks this morning that this is what he will continue to pursue.

And third, if you had been writing the script of these negotiations before they even began, there's no question that at some point in the plot, there would have been a declaration of digging in, a cry that it's all impossible, it is almost the end of the road, all is lost!

Then, at the last moment in a late night summit, emerges the one side of A4 in the clammy hand of an official. On it, not many details, but a few lines that sketch out agreement, show some progress.

Finally, the heroic politicians have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! (Leaving officials in a quiet way to work out the boring details for the next ten years)

That is not to say for a second that all is well or indeed to minimise the real and possibly very serious consequences of the talks genuinely breaking down.

And whether it is all pantomime or real politics, the remarks will of course stir the pot in Westminster too, likely adding to the drum beat among some
Brexiteers that a swifter exit with no deal is better than this drawn out agony - and Remainers' deep anxiety and uncertainty for business about whether a deal can really be done.

But both on the UK side and the EU side, to translate this morning's remarks into certain Armageddon for the deal would be to misunderstand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41598453

Cuttooth wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades.

I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

Hey look now, he's said he would absolutely, no doubt about it vote Remain in a second referendum!

See May, that's the kind of (probably) untrue answer you're supposed to give your party base.

Hyperion wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades.

I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

Hey look now, he's said he would absolutely, no doubt about it vote Remain in a second referendum!

See May, that's the kind of (probably) untrue answer you're supposed to give your party base.

She went hiding in the referendum so you wouldn't know what she wanted in the first place

twitter.com/AfterTheNewsITV/status/918600328567775233

Hexx wrote:

twitter.com/AfterTheNewsITV/status/918600328567775233

The shitshower that's going to spray from prominent Leavers as the firestorm hits is going to be epic.

And strawberry floating depressing because it'll work on the vast majority of their moronic dittoheads.

Hexx wrote:The shitshower that's going to spray from prominent Leavers as the firestorm hits is going to be epic.

And strawberry floating depressing because it'll work on the vast majority of their moronic dittoheads.

Knoyleo wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:I remember many of us laughing off the concerns of immigrants coming over but if Blair,.Brown or Cameron had made it substantially harder for immigrants to come we wouldn't have collapsed our economy and be facing down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps a lesson that we need to learn is to listen more to the general public and give some concessions to opinion when appropriate. Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Eh?

Rocsteady wrote:People on low incomes see their relative income falling and people from poorer countries all around them doing the same job for less and it's hardly a radical idea for them to conclude that increased immigration = lower standard of living for them and their families.

Now, we've seen studies that contradict that on a national level but we already have a progressive mindset which leads us to look up such studies. If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

So are you saying immigration tanked our economy, or that there is a popular misconception that this is the case? Because only one of those is a good argument for tougher immigration controls, while the other is an issue to do with better informing the electorate.

Cuttooth wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

That's a very glib way of putting it.

People on low incomes see their relative income falling and people from poorer countries all around them doing the same job for less and it's hardly a radical idea for them to conclude that increased immigration = lower standard of living for them and their families.

Now, we've seen studies that contradict that on a national level but we already have a progressive mindset which leads us to look up such studies. If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

We live in a democracy and even if you think everyone's strawberry floating retarded we still have to bear public opinion in mind. Not having done so has quite clearly led to worse outcomes.

I'm not responsible for the right wing press printing numerous lies and skewed stories about immigration and the EU, or for people taking that information at face value. There's no way everyone who reads The Sun believes everything The Sun prints, they have to choose whether or not to do so. I can't do anything to stop someone immediately agreeing with xenophobic or racist arguments because it supports their own xenophobic or racist views.

I'm also not responsible for successive governments failing to educate people on the economic and social importance of immigration and the EU, only really putting out macro level figures that might not convince those on the lowest wages impacted the most negatively. They didn't want to have to deal with their failures in developing British people from all walks of life because it wasn't directly impacting their election chances. They should have done more to improve political engagement but didn't because the minimum effort was getting them by.

While the Remain argument wasn't very positive at all, the information was laid out all the same. Nobody can say the negative aspects of a Leave vote weren't made, nobody should be allowed to say "well you didn't convince me enough". It was their choice to believe the lies.

You're right that we live in a democracy, but it's one where supposedly only adults are allowed to vote. Those adults need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions on the outcome of their votes.