The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Google fu reveals MailOnline was the largest in the world in 2012 with 45 million unique visitors globally - personally had no idea it was so widely read. 

Regardless though, no one has shown any evidence of this alleged correlation between reading an online publication and becoming brainwashed into voting to leave the EU. 

Your Fu is balanced and used appropriately in this circumstance. I was trying to help with the readership and nothing else but I doubt a newspaper can make people vote one way or another IMO. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Amsterdam_Neil_D
Added 6D graphics super drive to post.Thrust @ Max.

[Chindie]

It's about narratives.

It isn't a 1-1 thing. And it isn't just the Heil. You have decades of the Heil and it's ilk (the Sun for people more open about their learing, the Express for those still shocked by the events of a morning in September in Paris 20 years ago, the Star for true idiots, etc) putting out half truths and full lies and breeding an atmosphere of antagonism against the EU relationship, and that starts to control the message and it's what people take away.

And because of that it permeates everything else, because it becomes news in itself, or it gets discussed elsewhere. More neutral sources report it, it's discussed on Question Time, it becomes part of the pub conversation and the chat online.

It's big part of the reason why you hear the same stories about the EU over and over.

The Heil didn't brainwash individual people to vote Leave. What it did was poison the message, along with other sources, over a very long time, until it didn't need brainwash people. The message was out there and nobody bothered to do the same against it. Hence why everyone seemed to spout the same old tired stories of the 'madness'of the EU, and next to none of them could do something as simple as describe it's structure.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Chindie

[villaglint]

38 minutes ago, Awol said:

It's easy to say it's obvious but where is the evidence? It's an assumption made from a particular political perspective, not a fact supported by data. 

I'm assuming there has been some miscommunication because I don't think I am saying anything controversial. There were a lot of different reasons that led to the result everyone had the own reasons for voting. Tha fact that certain newspapers have run a pretty consistent political campaign for 20 years was one factor. 

Of course we can disagree over its signifance, you cite low current readership figures but they have been much higher in the past. I think you also underestimate the role the media plays in setting narratives in wider society. For instance though I have never paid for a copy of the Mail I have daily conversations about its contents with other people. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by villaglint

[Enda]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

No you didn't imagine it, the word coming from Trump's team is that they are prioritizing an FTA with the UK once we leave. The US averages less than 18 months to organize an FTA so that should get signed shortly after our two year exit process is complete. 

Ah, one of my favourite bait and switches. "The average football transfer fee is £1m, therefore Sturridge's move to Chelsea should be relatively small."

TTIP took, what, 5 years? A US-UK FTA is not "average" ffs.

It's a pity the name "Dr Pangloss" is already taken by another user, Awol.

[LondonLax]

43 minutes ago, Awol said:

No, I'm not worried. 

Interesting, anyreason why? 

Trump seems like the kind of guy who would look to bend you guys over and take advantage when you're at your most vulnerable. 

[Enda]

12 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's about narratives.

...

It's big part of the reason why you hear the same stories about the EU over and over.

Bingo! Like our Welsh friend a few pages talking about butter mountains and wine lakes, despite the several reforms to the CAP since the 1990s that stopped paying farmers for over-production. Might as well be thinking Thatcher is still currently closing down the mines. It's a narrative that is not updated, well said.

[Awol]

12 minutes ago, Enda said:

Ah, one of my favourite bait and switches. "The average football transfer fee is £1m, therefore Sturridge's move to Chelsea should be relatively small."

TTIP took, what, 5 years? A US-UK FTA is not "average" ffs.

It's a pity the name "Dr Pangloss" is already taken by another user, Awol.

15 months US - Australia FTA

18 months US - Canada FTA

7 years EU - Canada CETA 

5 years EU - US TTIP

The EU is the 'difficult' negotiating partner because it's 28 countries with many protectionist agendas.

A US-UK FTA is far closer to the first two than the last two in terms of common law, language & culture. Nowt Panglossian about that. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

15 months US - Australia FTA

18 months US - Canada FTA

7 years EU - Canada CETA 

5 years EU - US TTIP

The EU is the 'difficult' negotiating partner because it's 28 countries with many protectionist agendas.

A US-UK FTA is far closer to the first two than the last two in terms of common law, language & culture. Nowt Panglossian about that. 

 

Some good points, but worth bearing in mind that the UK economy is more than twice the size of Australia's and significantly larger than Canada's, and will an FTA will be commensurately more complicated. 

[Awol]

59 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some good points, but worth bearing in mind that the UK economy is more than twice the size of Australia's and significantly larger than Canada's, and will an FTA will be commensurately more complicated. 

It'll be as complicated as the two sides choose to make it, I think.

To @LondonLax question of why: 

The Trump admin wants to do trade deals that are bilateral (bye bye TTIP, TTP) and don't provide the opportunity to outsource US manufacturing jobs into a low wage environment. For a whole host of reasons the UK is a good fit for a mutually beneficial arrangement.

They are also looking for quick wins and have decided the UK fits the bill. To be done quickly a US-UK FTA would have to be fair to both sides. London isn't going to sign up to an absolute rifting from Washington when we don't need to - I don't accept leaving the single market is such a catastrophe.

Finally there's the geo-political piece. Trump's team (and according to him, the man himself) are Anglophiles, they like us and they want to ensure a newly independent UK stays as close to them as possible politically, and is economically secure and stable enough to remain a net exporter of security in the European region. 

 

[Enda]

On 1/22/2017 at 07:19, Awol said:

15 months US - Australia FTA

18 months US - Canada FTA

7 years EU - Canada CETA 

5 years EU - US TTIP

The EU is the 'difficult' negotiating partner because it's 28 countries with many protectionist agendas.

A US-UK FTA is far closer to the first two than the last two in terms of common law, language & culture. Nowt Panglossian about that. 

Colm McCarthy nailed it in the Independent there yesterday:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C20AWnnWgAEFZwj.jpg

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, Enda said:

Colm McCarthy nailed it in the Independent there yesterday:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C20AWnnWgAEFZwj.jpg

Any chance you can post the story? The link goes to a single paragraph with no context.

[Jon]

Sovereignty of Parliament reaffirmed!

[dAVe80]

59 minutes ago, Jon said:

Sovereignty of Parliament reaffirmed!

If only there were some kind of European Court it could be taken to, so TM could get the decision over turned....

[Chindie]

The correct (and expected) result. The only issue it doesn't really change much. The hope is it means Parliament can put a leash on May and co, but she already somewhat nixed that by her forceful suggestion Parliament will be given Hobson's choice - the Deal or nothing.

But a constitutional victory has to be applauded and anything that irritates many Tories and particularly dumb Leavers is to be celebrated.

I look forward to/dread tomorrow's headlines.

[Awol]

Very important that regional assemblies don't have a veto, so on track for A50 before end of March - excellent! 

 

[Jon]

29 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The correct (and expected) result. The only issue it doesn't really change much. The hope is it means Parliament can put a leash on May and co, but she already somewhat nixed that by her forceful suggestion Parliament will be given Hobson's choice - the Deal or nothing.

But a constitutional victory has to be applauded and anything that irritates many Tories and particularly dumb Leavers is to be celebrated.

I look forward to/dread tomorrow's headlines.

All of the supreme Court judges on the front page as traitors from the heil would be my guess!

[blandy]

On 22/01/2017 at 13:29, Awol said:

London isn't going to sign up to an absolute rifting from Washington when we don't need to - I don't accept leaving the single market is such a catastrophe.

Finally there's the geo-political piece. Trump's team (and according to him, the man himself) are Anglophiles, they like us and they want to ensure a newly independent UK stays as close to them as possible politically,

I  agree with the view that the EU negotiating anything takes absolutely ages to get anywhere tangible, because of all the various national interests and so on. I think that's spot on AWOL.

How do you see that affecting the Article 50 negotiations?

On the Americans and a trade deal. I heard the Donald say bigly "America first" repeatedly. I think that means he wants to make sur that it's the US that benefits from deals. He just signed an order to pull them out of existing deals.

I suspect that  politically it will suit Trump and May do "do a deal" in short order. I also suspect that there are two posible ways it could go - a deal of little actual substance, but which symolically helps both, or a deal that rodgers the UK, because May, Fox et all are going to be so desperate for anything in a few months.

What we won't see is a deal with the US which is significantly beneficial to the UK and our exports.

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

I also suspect that there are two posible ways it could go - a deal of little actual substance, but which symolically helps both, or a deal that rodgers the UK, because May, Fox et all are going to be so desperate for anything in a few months.

So what you're saying is:

 

[Enda]

15 hours ago, Awol said:

Any chance you can post the story? The link goes to a single paragraph with no context.

Certainly. It's behind a paywall though - http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/iron-lady-mark-ii-canonisation-of-theresa-may-is-off-the-mark-35387641.html - so the quote I posted was the money shot.

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

gif too big to embed but thought it was amusing

Edited January 24, 2017 by limpid
fixed embed