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

[colhint]

it's not just SAR its also Oceana, Issuu, Clientearth, the pew foundation and a many others. Now the EU has experts, but they are all paid for by one body. These other experts are paid for by a number of different bodies. So I suppose, who do you trust more. Group A who earn their living pay in different countries, for different organisations,around the world who all say pretty much the same thing, cut back your fishing. Or Group B , all paid  for by one organisation, who want  more quotas who say ,more quotas are fine.

[bickster]

8 hours ago, colhint said:

That's not a true picture though is it?

It absolutely is. The fact that Scotland changed policy, shows it is the responsibility of the nation states

Overfishing is an entirely different thing and something I have a little more sympathy with blaming the EU for BUT without the EU I have no doubts that overfishing would be worse!

[Awol]

We’ve been told for years that the whole plan was no-deal, so Tory hedge-fund mates/dark forces/Putin could make millions/billions shorting the economy/currency. 

Either Johnson has accidentally got a deal, or the above scenario was ludicrous, conspiratorial nonsense, pushed by an increasingly deranged and discredited media class. 

Weaving this trade deal into their narratives (utterly impossible to do in one year, we were told) will take some creative writing! 

 

[snowychap]

 

[chrisp65]

I will never truly know if people thinking this has been gamed and planned and some sort of success are lying to me or lying to themselves.

I suspect, in the case of most low and mid ranking tory MP’s and media apologists, it’s both.

 

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

lying to me or lying to themselves

Definitely both. There’s going to be a lot more of it too, as the details emerge. I mean already we know it’s so far from what we were promised, that those liars are going to have to do a whole lot more lying.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

We’ve been told for years that the whole plan was no-deal, so Tory hedge-fund mates/dark forces/Putin could make millions/billions shorting the economy/currency. 

Either Johnson has accidentally got a deal, or the above scenario was ludicrous, conspiratorial nonsense, pushed by an increasingly deranged and discredited media class. 

Weaving this trade deal into their narratives (utterly impossible to do in one year, we were told) will take some creative writing! 

 

Have we?

I don't recall many, if any, people saying that the PLAN was no deal. Just that no deal was a likely outcome because we wouldn't be able to strike a "good" deal.

And that last point is PROBABLY still true. Does anyone really think this is going to be a good deal?

[mjmooney]

Provided they have a get-out for the tax dodgers they won't care. 

[chrisp65]

Easiest deal in history. We hold all the cards.

 

 

[Davkaus]

I'm amused that anyone would be more concerned about how this has been handled by our deranged and discredited media class than how is been handled by our deranged and discredited political class.

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

don't recall many, if any, people saying that the PLAN was no deal

To be fair, there were plenty of people demanding “No Deal”. “Brexit means Brexit”.

And also to be fair, the government has spent an awful lot of time and even more money on “planning for a no deal Brexit”. Indeed the House of Commons library reports that

Quote

After Boris Johnson became Prime Minister in July 2019 the Government intensified planning for a no-deal Brexit and stressed its intention to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October with or without a deal. But the UK remained in the EU after 31 October after a further extension of the Article 50 period was agreed with the EU. A no-deal Brexit however remains the default outcome if an agreement is not ratified. This briefing paper provides an overview of Government and EU preparations for a no-deal Brexit, and of recent reports analysing the possible impact of this outcome

And it goes on to detail how the Benn act prevented Bunter from achieving a no deal Brexit in October last year, and adds that

Quote

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove drew attention to 750 pieces of Government guidance setting out the steps that businesses, traders and citizens should take in order to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, and 31 country guides covering EU and EFTA states setting out what UK nationals living there needed to do.

And Billions of pounds have been spent on it. Billions.

So you can see why one or two of the “media class” may have got a teensy impression of some Brexiters aiming for no deal Brexit.

[Stevo985]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

To be fair, there were plenty of people demanding “No Deal”. “Brexit means Brexit”.

 

Oh I agree with that. But I guessed the point Awol was making was that Remainers had claimed the people in charge had been planning for no deal and that us now getting a deal countered that point. But I'm not sure that's accurate.

For me the only question is will the UK follow through on it's threat (for want of a better word) to leave without a deal instead of getting a bad deal out of desperation?

Those are the two options for me. I don't think a good deal exists, especially at this late stage. I think the UK has always WANTED a deal because anyone with half a brain cell knows that's a more favourable option than no deal, whatever it looks like (within reason). What remainers have claimed is that we wouldn't be able to get that deal because it wasn't achievable. 

And I still think that's the case. I'd be very surprised if this deal is "good".

[StefanAVFC]

The people in charge didnt think that it should be no deal. They know it would be a disaster so they're doing everything to avoid it whilst simultaneously spinning to the public that it's a fantastic option (Australia deal)

It's quite obvious for me, and trying to spin it into a conspiracy is disingenuous at best. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

All that is happening here is that the Tories and their media outriders are trying to relive 2019. Then they had great success trumpeting the 'they said it couldn't be done!' line, leaving unsaid the disclaimer 'nobody said it couldn't be done if we completely abandoned one of our own self-imposed red lines'. Now they'd like to get some of that spirit of 2019 back again, so we're back to 'they said it couldn't be done!' again.

From a historical perspective, the interesting question is not 'how did we manage to come to a basic agreement with our largest trading partner', but 'how did it end up that the final agreement was so far from the interests of British capital'.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

From a historical perspective, the interesting question is not 'how did we manage to come to a basic agreement with our largest trading partner', but 'how did it end up that the final agreement was so far from the interests of British capital'.

From a future perspective, the interesting question is at what point in 2021 does the UK government try to disown the agreement (or important parts of it) that it seems to have made (assuming they do make it, sign it and so on)?

[markavfc40]

 

So today is the day we find out if those trumpeting Brexit all agree this is what they voted for.

I know the repercussions of securing a deal that will leave us far worse off than we are now are yet to come but I am relieved we won't have to spend anymore time listening to all this deal or no deal bollocks.

I will certainly be avoiding listening to Johnson and the rest of the lying bastards in the cabinet lauding what a fantastic deal he has secured. I think all the tripe we hear spewing from their mouths over the fantastic job they have done with covid is enough for anyone's ears.

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by markavfc40

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

So today is the day we find out if those trumpeting Brexit all agree this is what they voted for

Doubt it, most of them don't actually know what they voted for

[StefanAVFC]

I wouldn't say that people didn't know what they voted for per se, but more that there were many, many outcomes within the 52% that people wanted. There isn't a mandate for any particular Brexit in the details. If you were to break down the vote into the various on both sides, 'Soft Remain' would win comfortably.

[bannedfromHandV]

25 minutes ago, bickster said:

Doubt it, most of them don't actually know what they voted for

Well, surely the image of those thousands of lorries lined up on an airfield should give them some indication of what they’ve signed up for. 
 

I know the two things are not the same (the recent issue was virus related of course) but the image itself seems to be something we’re going to see more frequently in the post brexit uk 

[StefanAVFC]

Regardless of anything, the simple fact is, whatever deal we get, it won't be as good as what we had.