Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Arklight

I also find the hypocrisy of leavers screaming about supposed antisemitism in the Labour Party, but who are completely blind to racists in their own movement, which is supported by the BNP, Britain First, and the National Front (for gawd's sake) somewhat staggering.

Herzlos

StevieJ wrote: »

They had to be careful with that one as a fair few Brexit voters thought they were voting for stopping immigration from Asia.

The Leave campaign have done a brilliant job of telling completely different stories to different groups, I assume by saying pretty much everything whilst having no intention of honoring any of it. It'll all go spectacularly wrong once all of the contradicting groups realize that no-one is getting the Brexit they thought they were.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

I also find the hypocrisy of leavers screaming about supposed antisemitism in the Labour Party, but who are completely blind to racists in their own movement, which is supported by the BNP, Britain First, and the National Front (for gawd's sake) somewhat staggering.

'Supposed anti-semitism'? You mean the supposed anti-semitism that Jeremy Corbyn has just agreed to address in a letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council? In which he reasserts his determination to tackle the issue?

Nothing supposed about it in Corbyn's eyes. It's funny that you should cite the BNP, the NF and Britain First in support of your statement when their total membership nowadays is less than Accrington Stanley get for a home game. You've lost the plot completely.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

'Supposed anti-semitism'? You mean the supposed anti-semitism that Jeremy Corbyn has just agreed to address in a letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council? In which he reasserts his determination to tackle the issue?

Nothing supposed about it in Corbyn's eyes. It's funny that you should cite the BNP, the NF and Britain First in support of your statement when their total membership nowadays is less than Accrington Stanley get for a home game. You've lost the plot completely.

Not all Brexit voters are racists, but all racists are Brexit voters. You would do better if you dealt with that reality rather than jamming your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and pretending it somehow doesn't count because the will of the people.

Herzlos

Racists are also perfectly entitled to vote, though. It'd just be nice if they were honest about their intentions instead of trying to pretend they care about helping African farmers or whatever the current excuse is. I'd have no comeback to "I voted Brexit because I don't like foreign people".

mrginge

Arklight wrote: »

I also find the hypocrisy of leavers screaming about supposed antisemitism in the Labour Party, but who are completely blind to racists in their own movement, which is supported by the BNP, Britain First, and the National Front (for gawd's sake) somewhat staggering.

There’s no hypocrisy comrade.
We’re all consistent in hoping that this particularly nasty iteration of labour goes exactly the same way as those other ‘movements’.

As are most labour voters tbh.

Herzlos

Then where's all the screaming about the nastiness that's coming from other parties/groups?

One might be fooled for thinking the Labour smear campaign going on here is trying to bury bad Tory news (like Lying about the Russian poisoning incident, or caving into more EU demands) in the noise.

I'm also slightly amused that this is a "particularly nasty" iteration of the Labour party, when even the Tory members of the review concluded that Labour was less anti-semetic than the both general population and the Tory party. So if Labour are "particularly nasty", what does that make the Tories?

wunferall

Arklight wrote: »

Not all Brexit voters are racists, but all racists are Brexit voters. You would do better if you dealt with that reality rather than jamming your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and pretending it somehow doesn't count because the will of the people.

How nice it is to see that good, sensible debate is alive and well in this thread (not). Also of course it is good to see that some remainers continue to resort to the use of inflamatory, baiting posts when nobody "bites" at their persistent drivel.

melanzana wrote: »

No one is allowed to question Brexit anymore. There is only one message allowed. Remainers have been called some very awful things, but Brexiteers haven't as far as I can see.

Uh-huh. Just going to ignore examples like the one I link above then? It's very obvious just who is not allowed to question what - with the "what" being certain remainers.

Arklight

mrginge wrote: »

There!!!8217;s no hypocrisy comrade.
We!!!8217;re all consistent in hoping that this particularly nasty iteration of labour goes exactly the same way as those other !!!8216;movements!!!8217;.

As are most labour voters tbh.

Mm, yeah, not remotely true though is it.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Con Lab
18 Mar - 44 - 41
15 Mar - 42 - 40
15 Mar - 42 - 39
8 Mar - 38 - 45

Today!!!8217;s Times has some fresh polling of Labour party members. It was conducted between Tuesday and Thursday this week in the wake of the anti-Semitism row, though is also the first opportunity we!!!8217;ve seen since the general election to take the general political temperature among Labour party members.

On that second point, the first thing to notice is the major shift in the level of support Jeremy Corbyn has among Labour party members. Two years ago this was still a party divided on the leadership and unsure of his future. Now they are solidly behind him. 80% of Labour members think Corbyn is doing well as leader, just 19% badly. 74% of Labour members think that Jeremy Corbyn should lead the party into the next general, and 64% of members think it is likely that Jeremy Corbyn will become Prime Minister in the future.

This is a complete transformation of attitudes since 2016 !!!8211; back then, Labour members were split on Corbyn!!!8217;s performance, didn!!!8217;t think he could ever win, most didn!!!8217;t want him to fight the next election. Now, following Corbyn!!!8217;s victory against Owen Smith and the party!!!8217;s revivial at the election, Corbyn!!!8217;s support in the party looks absolutely solid.

Maybe if you'd like to move into the present you could share in what's going on, not what happened 40 years ago in your imagination. Although I appreciate that would put you at odds with most Brexiteers.

gfplux

The Times Brexit Breifing email has an interesting take on the super trade deals Liam Fox will be signing in record time.
Frankly it makes for depressing reading for both sides.

QUOTE
Shortly before his appointment as Brexit secretary in July 2016, David Davis set out his expectations for the coming months. "I would expect the new prime minister to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals," he wrote on the Conservative Home website. "I would expect the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months. So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU."

Since then Mr Davis and many of his colleagues have become slowly acquainted with the difficulty of striking quick and comprehensive trade deals. The EU made it immediately clear that the UK could not begin formal negotiations with other countries while it remained a member of the bloc. The idea of a rapid deal with the US is dependent on the whims of a capricious president.

But throughout, the government has held out hope of striking one early deal. Liam Fox has identified a deal with Australia as a likely early "win" and informal discussions have been taking place for 18 months.

As The Times revealed this week, these talks have hit a snag. Australia may be keen to do a trade deal with the UK but they want something out of it, and what they want is for Britain to scrap the EU ban on hormone-treated beef. The practice can increase the weight gain of cattle by more than 10 per cent a day, cutting the time it takes to fatten the animals for market.

The EU claims that at least one of the hormones used is carcinogenic and their use has been banned since 1981. The Australians have long disputed this scientific analysis. They see the ban as a form of protectionism to shelter European farmers from competition alongside tariffs of 12.8 per cent.

Mr Fox, the international trade secretary, is thought to be sympathetic to Australia's case. Although the government ruled out allowing the imports of chlorine-washed chicken as the price of a trade deal with the US, it has noticeably not ruled out allowing hormone-treated beef.

The problem is whether the public will wear it. The National Farmers' Union has warned that the UK would not "want our own farmers to be put at a competitive disadvantage by allowing the import of food produced to different standards and using methods which are not allowed in Britain". Friends of the Earth said that acceding to Australia's demands would be "a complete betrayal".

Whether it would spark mass protests or merely a small bout of concern, it is a reminder of a simple and important truth: trade deals require trade-offs, and some of those trade-offs are controversial. Arriving at Britain's swashbuckling free-trading future is not going to be straightforward.
The Australia example shows that trade deals are complex. They also take a lot of time. Analysis this week revealed that only four major trade deals have been struck in less time than Britain has to set up new post-Brexit agreements.

Free trade deals agreed by Australia, New Zealand, India, China and the US all took more than four years on average to reach. The only deals struck in less than 21 months (the length of the transition period) were New Zealand's with Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong, and Australia's with Singapore.

In Britain's case, the dash to strike deals will be complicated further by the fact that it also needs to use the transition period to try to replicate the 40 trade deals it currently enjoys via EU membership. Some countries, including South Korea, Canada, Israel and Chile, are thought to be using the period as an opportunity to demand a new deal with the UK rather than merely rolling over existing EU agreements.
END QUOTE