Topic: Brexit. the Con continues

[Zeb]

One of the ideas which has been punted around is that the government (ie Cummings) want to throw money at tech industries post-Brexit to try and make up for the damage done. Supposedly based on the idea that we've fallen behind in tech and we're going to be dominated by US and China if we don't catch up with our own independent home grown sector etc etc etc.

edit: Know some will raise eyebrows at the idea of Cummings setting government policy but the Tories problem is that they've never actually thought through what a post-Brexit Britain would look like. What's the long term plan? They haven't got one so have reached out to the weird fringes for a ready made 'vision' (tm).

[So… Howard Philips]

One of the ideas which has been punted around is that the government (ie Cummings) want to throw money at tech industries post-Brexit to try and make up for the damage done. Supposedly based on the idea that we've fallen behind in tech and we're going to be dominated by US and China if we don't catch up with our own independent home grown sector etc etc etc.

edit: Know some will raise eyebrows at the idea of Cummings setting government policy but the Tories problem is that they've never actually thought through what a post-Brexit Britain would look like. What's the long term plan? They haven't got one so have reached out to the weird fringes for a ready made 'vision' (tm).

Sounds similar to the post invasion 'plan' in Iraq.

[Jiminy Cricket]

One of the ideas which has been punted around is that the government (ie Cummings) want to throw money at tech industries post-Brexit to try and make up for the damage done. Supposedly based on the idea that we've fallen behind in tech and we're going to be dominated by US and China if we don't catch up with our own independent home grown sector etc etc etc.

Seems to be about 20 years too late. And if enacted now, how long will it take to pay dividends? And, history - including recent history - rather suggests that the UK is fucking useless at such things. Track and trace, anyone?

Besides, who is Cummings anyway? Why do many Tories (and people more broadly) believe that he has any idea of what he is doing?

[So… Howard Philips]

Seems to be about 20 years too late. And if enacted now, how long will it take to pay dividends? And, history - including recent history - rather suggests that the UK is fucking useless at such things. Track and trace, anyone?

Besides, who is Cummings anyway? Why do many Tories (and people more broadly) believe that he has any idea of what he is doing?

Well Alan Turing did some brilliant things 60 years ago.

But the litany of British technological failures is as long as Jacob Marley's chains or the one used to drag up the dragon from the lake in GoT.

TSR2, Blue Streak, Marconi Stingray torpedo and through to Crossrail. And I'm sure Gulleysucker would have his own lengthy list.

[Zeb]

Sounds similar to the post invasion 'plan' in Iraq.

Yeah, does now you mention it. Comparison I was pointed to was how the government was handling coronavirus (on a much faster timeline of course) as pointing to the weaknesses already present. There's also a lot of Thatcher's 'This is what we believe now' monetarism to it, even with the odd cameo role the same.

---

@jiminy - for sure on criticism, and you could point out that it's just not true too. And, as said in edit, Brexit wasn't meant to happen so the Tories haven't thought this out at all. They're busking it and the only people who have thought it through are the Brexiters who were saying up front that they were eg. going to torch the car industry.

[12C]

I try and ignore most of the pro brexit rhetoric on twitter as most of them are probably bots, but theres no indication that the vast majority are still pro brexit. Lots of things have happened since the last referendum and it wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority want to remain.

The election, whilst it was the Tory mantra, i feel, wasn't an endorsement of Brexit, but more around the antipathy for a Corbyn led Government.

Brexit will be a clusterfuck for all and we will invariably be left with a Brexit that no one wants (even unicorned ardent Brexiteers)

I think a large factor was sheer Brexit weariness. The number of people who said to me they just wanted it done and over with was crazy. Sensible people who voted remain telling me that Labour and the Dems were just “dragging it out now” and let’s get on with it.
Johnson tapped into the sheer frustration of it all with a simplistic slogan, get it done. As though leaving would be the end of it. All the Brexit noise about project fear drowned out the sheer incompetence of the preparations from blockheads like Grayling and Raab.
People just wanted to open a paper or turn on the news and not hear Brexit. A similar thing is happening with the Covidiots. “Let’s Get on with our lives” “project Covid fear”

[12C]

Well Alan Turing did some brilliant things 60 years ago.

But the litany of British technological failures is as long as Jacob Marley's chains or the one used to drag up the dragon from the lake in GoT.

TSR2, Blue Streak, Marconi Stingray torpedo and through to Crossrail. And I'm sure Gulleysucker would have his own lengthy list.

Marconi torpedoes.
Went past the Marconi Torpedo works on the Chester road a couple of weeks ago. Now a Logistics distribution centre.
I remember my tutor at uni saying when it was proposed it was a white elephant, and if they were serious they would have made use of the then disused Floats in Birkenhead docks, instead of a government backed job creation scheme factory in greenbelt land.

[oldfordie]

Yeah, does now you mention it. Comparison I was pointed to was how the government was handling coronavirus (on a much faster timeline of course) as pointing to the weaknesses already present. There's also a lot of Thatcher's 'This is what we believe now' monetarism to it, even with the odd cameo role the same.

---

@jiminy - for sure on criticism, and you could point out that it's just not true too. And, as said in edit, Brexit wasn't meant to happen so the Tories haven't thought this out at all. They're busking it and the only people who have thought it through are the Brexiters who were saying up front that they were eg. going to torch the car industry.

I suppose it depends on what the individual believes.
I remember being shocked watching a video of Tony Benn arguing to leave the EU. it was really not much different to what we were hearing from some Tory politicians leading up to the Referendum and the following debates.
"The EU will give us a great trade deal and I will tell you why, the Germans sell us 100.000s of cars every year, car manufacturers will put pressure on the German Government to give us a great deal and the rest of the EU will follow.
Many believed this bull, there's a video of Digby Jones arguing the toss, arrogantly telling us the Germans are the Key here, they will give us a deal as they sell us hundreds of thousands of cars and the rest of the EU will follow, I agree no plan was worked out in the event of a leave vote but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought everything will just fall into place when we get a fantastic cake and eat it Brexit which wouldn't bring problems.
They argued this rubbish for decades, they should have asked the German Car industry how they felt about it.
 
German car makers say that protecting the single market is more important than sales in the UK
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-germany-business-warns-theresa-may-protect-single-market-trade-deal-uk-a7831401.html

[So… Howard Philips]

Marconi torpedoes.
Went past the Marconi Torpedo works on the Chester road a couple of weeks ago. Now a Logistics distribution centre.
I remember my tutor at uni saying when it was proposed it was a white elephant, and if they were serious they would have made use of the then disused Floats in Birkenhead docks, instead of a government backed job creation scheme factory in greenbelt land.

They could have used the Dock to attempt to work out why the torpedo went in circles and headed back to its firing point.

[Alan_X]

Maybe, just maybe, there are now (or will be) enough Loyalists (seems old-fashioned to use that term now) who understand that the better path for them might be a united Ireland...

Sadly I don’t think there’s much chance of that.

[Zeb]

I suppose it depends on what the individual believes.
I remember being shocked watching a video of Tony Benn arguing to leave the EU. it was really not much different to what we were hearing from some Tory politicians leading up to the Referendum and the following debates.
"The EU will give us a great trade deal and I will tell you why, the Germans sell us 100.000s of cars every year, car manufacturers will put pressure on the German Government to give us a great deal and the rest of the EU will follow.
Many believed this bull, there's a video of Digby Jones arguing the toss, arrogantly telling us the Germans are the Key here, they will give us a deal as we sell them hundreds of thousands of cars and the rest of the EU will follow, I agree no plan was worked out in the event of a leave vote but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought everything will just fall into place when we get a fantastic cake and eat it Brexit which wouldn't bring problems.
They argued this rubbish for decades, they should have asked the German Car industry how they felt about it.
 
German car makers say that protecting the single market is more important than sales in the UK
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-germany-business-warns-theresa-may-protect-single-market-trade-deal-uk-a7831401.html

Oh absolutely there's the Brexit of the shills and the hucksters and to there being a cacophony of differing views under the same banner - many impossible to reconcile in reality. But do you remember people like Minford being questioned about it by select committees? The people who had actually thought through the 'and what next'? Minford was there, all factually, "Oh and of course the car industry will be destroyed. But that's just a side effect." Same guy as watched the fuckery in Liverpool with 'deindustrialisation', and all around the city, and said the same. That's the post-Brexit view the politics of it drives Johnson and the Brexiters towards because of an absence of anything else. There's a parochialism on the right which reads from all too similar a script as the parochialism of Benn's 'socialism in one country'.

edit: Heh. Pesto's been briefed. Just up on the Spectator. (Link, as ever for that shiteheap, for sourcing not clicking.)

Spoiler

You may wonder why on earth a Tory government led by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, the heirs to Thatcher for goodness sake, are sacrificing the prospect of a trade deal with the EU because they want the right to subsidise British industry. If the Tories and Thatcher stood for anything, it was rolling back the role of the state in the private sector. Well, all that is stuff for the GCSE history syllabus, and turns out to be irrelevant to today's politics. Because if the government of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has an ideology, it is that of Dominic Cummings and his Vote Leave crew. And Cummings's passionate conviction is that Johnson's government MUST have the discretion to invest without fetter in hi-tech, digital, artificial intelligence and the full gamut of the so-called fourth industrial revolution. How so? Well here is the Cummings/Vote Leave fundamental article of faith for this era:

'Countries that were late to industrialisation were owned/coerced by those early (to it). The same will happen to countries without trillion dollar tech companies over the next 20 years.'

The whole point of being in government for Cummings – and he would say for his Vote Leave team who work with him in Downing Street – is 'to try to change what happens on these questions', I am told. This is a remarkable and important statement.

It won't escape you, if you did an O level or GCSE in history, that the UK was one of those few nations early to the first industrial revolution, which then did indeed own and coerce those that were late. But more importantly, it says that Cummings – and we have to assume his boss Johnson too – are obsessed about not being bossed around by the TWO superpowers that already have trillion dollar tech companies, namely the US and China (and James Forsyth in the Times elaborated on all this in his column on Friday).

To be honest, it is moot whether there is any chance for the UK to catch up in this latest industrial revolution with China and America, even if every penny of taxpayers' money was devoted to backing tech innovation. But it certainly matters that this government feels it is an imperative not to be fatalistic and to have a go. All of which is the preamble to explaining why Johnson and his EU negotiator Lord Frost, are happy to blow up talks on a free trade deal with the EU, on the altar of rejecting the EU's insistence that any trade deal must be accompanied by the UK adopting the EU's rules and constraints on subsidising industry, by the UK adopting the EU's state aid regime – or in a worst case following rules that are similar to theirs.

Now to be clear, for all Johnson's rhetoric about how the UK could make a tremendous success of trading with the EU without any preferential terms or access, the PM would rather have a deal. And if Johnson stands for anything, it is for opportunistic pragmatism.

So maybe he will find a fudge to reassure the EU that his insistence that the UK must have discretion over state aid is not driving a coach and horses through the EU's article of faith that any trade deal must include provisions – such as those on state aid – to prevent unfair competition. Maybe there is a bill he can construct which – in the words of one former EU negotiator – would represent a 'serious, reputable, legislated, transparent state aid regime with predictable arms-length governance, where competitor firms can challenge decisions in the way they can challenge EU Commission one'.

Is there such legislation in planning in sight? Provocatively, almost the opposite is coming down the track. The legislation due to be published by the government in the middle of this week, the Internal Market Bill, is designed to enhance the UK's state aid autonomy rather than constrain it. The background is that Downing Street officials are convinced the EU Withdrawal Agreement, the divorce terms between the UK and EU, contains ambiguous provisions that in and of themselves would shackle Cummings and Johnson and their ambitions to use the resources of the state to invest in the private sector.

So the Internal Market Bill has been drafted to clear up those ambiguities in British law, in a unilateral way. But here is why this is so inflammatory: the act of contemplating such unilateral action to amend an international treaty, the EU Withdrawal Agreement, is seen in Brussels and EU capitals as disrespectful, illegal and a wilful attempt to sabotage the free trade negotiations. None of which is to say that there will definitely be no free trade deal, though no deal looks likely.

And one final point is very important. To be clear, there would be costs to an economy weakened by Covid-19 of the UK going from its seamless, frictionless trading relationship with the EU's single market to a relationship in January without any kind of mitigating free-trade deal and involving all manner of tax and regulatory friction. That's the view, for example, of the Bank of England, though its senior people have resisted making any public statements to that politically charged effect. There would be a blow to our prosperity. The view of Cummings and Johnson is that such a reduction in the actual and underlying growth of national income represents an investment in a more prosperous future, if that is they acquire what they see as the precious freedom to direct state resources to the sectors and businesses on which our future success will hinge. Who knew that the logic of Brexit would not only be a Thatcherite economic nationalism but a kind of state activism that used to be thought of as socialism?

[close]

Which all reads like a lot of bollocks to me and an excuse for state funded crony capitalism rather than 'socialism'. But does match the reasons mentioned.

[rafathegaffa83]

According to Peter Foster from the FT on twitter, further developments on our move to the hardest of Brexits.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1302701541674160134

As with Trump's America, who will trust a country that cannot abide by the agreements it has signed up for?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Sadly I don’t think there’s much chance of that.

It does seem improbable.

[oldfordie]

Oh absolutely there's the Brexit of the shills and the hucksters and to there being a cacophony of differing views under the same banner - many impossible to reconcile in reality. But do you remember people like Minford being questioned about it by select committees? The people who had actually thought through the 'and what next'? Minford was there, all factually, "Oh and of course the car industry will be destroyed. But that's just a side effect." Same guy as watched the fuckery in Liverpool with 'deindustrialisation', and all around the city, and said the same. That's the post-Brexit view the politics of it drives Johnson and the Brexiters towards because of an absence of anything else. There's a parochialism on the right which reads from all too similar a script as the parochialism of Benn's 'socialism in one country'.

edit: Heh. Pesto's been briefed. Just up on the Spectator. (Link, as ever for that shiteheap, for sourcing not clicking.)

Spoiler

[close]

Which all reads like a lot of bollocks to me and an excuse for state funded crony capitalism rather than 'socialism'. But does match the reasons mentioned.

Forgot about Minford till you reminded me, this is what I will never understand about working class Labour leave supporters. I can understand the Tory voters who have listened to these charlatans all their lives but many Labour voters in the big cities have despised these Tory politicians for good reason, they think like Minford, they only look at it from one angle and the public's interests don't concern them, your rights costs money, they cost big buisness money, time to get those shackles off and get those fta, they will bring job losses and pay cuts but who cares.
Why people who have never trusted the Tories suddenly started to listen to the most hard right nasty Tory MPs and believe they are acting in their best interests is beyond me. loosing the car industry is a price they are willing to pay and that logic applies to any other industry that fails, except they won't be the ones paying the price.

[12C]

Oh absolutely there's the Brexit of the shills and the hucksters and to there being a cacophony of differing views under the same banner - many impossible to reconcile in reality. But do you remember people like Minford being questioned about it by select committees? The people who had actually thought through the 'and what next'? Minford was there, all factually, "Oh and of course the car industry will be destroyed. But that's just a side effect." Same guy as watched the fuckery in Liverpool with 'deindustrialisation', and all around the city, and said the same. That's the post-Brexit view the politics of it drives Johnson and the Brexiters towards because of an absence of anything else. There's a parochialism on the right which reads from all too similar a script as the parochialism of Benn's 'socialism in one country'.

edit: Heh. Pesto's been briefed. Just up on the Spectator. (Link, as ever for that shiteheap, for sourcing not clicking.)

Spoiler

[close]

Which all reads like a lot of bollocks to me and an excuse for state funded crony capitalism rather than 'socialism'. But does match the reasons mentioned.

Minford is a proper dickhead academic who believes his own legend.

[oldfordie]

Fordie, I attended a small symposium at Uni back in the mid 80s where Minford was putting forward his ideas around halving wages would double the numbers of people in work. (As you know Unemployment was over 3m)
We were allowed to ask questions. I made a comment about how a friend of the family owned a bakery shop and asked how his plan of halving the wages of the staff would work out. I pointed out that he would not employ two assistant to sell the same number of pies and cakes and he would not open a second shop either. He looked really pissed off when I said that the chances were he would put the money saved by halving the wages, into his arse pocket and take him and his wife on a nice holiday to Spain.

The question of YTS arose. Again he was full of theory about how it was creating jobs.
I pointed out that when WEP became WOP and then YOP it was supposed to be additional staffing to give “work experience” to school leavers. It then became YTS
I had experience of it in the company I had worked for as a manager, prior to going off to get my degree. It had 2500 retail outlets across the U.K.
As soon as YTS kicked in we were told by our HR Dept that every branch could take on a kid full time for 6 months. As soon as we did our staffing structure was adjusted down by 40 hrs.  This was achieved by releasing a full time member of staff or reducing the hrs of part time staff. In effect the equivalent 2500 real jobs were lost overnight. The scheme was extended to allow kids to stay past the 6 months and then we were told that a second YTS could be taken on at the same time. Again our staffing structure was adjusted down by 40 hrs.
So this Job creation scheme was used to by the company to reduce their employment by the equivalent of 5000 people and replace them with kids working for their £17.50 a week dole money. That was just one UK company.
When I asked him how that was creating jobs he had no answer and the chair jumped in and moved us on.
He came across as a real emperor in new clothes.
He didn’t like me and the feeling was mutual.

What a horrible man, wouldn't be out of place as a Charles Dickens character.
I remember the same thing happening in Supermarkets, kids brought in to stock the shelves etc. they took advantage of all these schemes.

[redbyrdz]

One of the ideas which has been punted around is that the government (ie Cummings) want to throw money at tech industries post-Brexit to try and make up for the damage done. Supposedly based on the idea that we've fallen behind in tech and we're going to be dominated by US and China if we don't catch up with our own independent home grown sector etc etc etc.

They will have to, because currently a lot of them are funded by EU money.

[Zeb]

They will have to, because currently a lot of them are funded by EU money.

Wouldn't that be possible anyway, without needing to make a fuss about it, as it's replacing EU funding?

[Riquende]

Why people who have never trusted the Tories suddenly started to listen to the most hard right nasty Tory MPs and believe they are acting in their best interests is beyond me. .

Because the right successfully recontextualised politics in terms of cultural identity being more important than economic identity and subsequently destroyed the broad left coalition by driving a cultural wedge between the 'average hard worker in the red wall' and the 'lazy Islington Remoaners'. Being a leftist and a liberal progressive was once taken as a given, when in actual fact many of the old socialists turned out to be culturally conservative.

[redbyrdz]

Wouldn't that be possible anyway, without needing to make a fuss about it, as it's replacing EU funding?

Without needing to make a fuss about it? But then how could they show the are Making Britain Great Again?

[Sangria]

Because the right successfully recontextualised politics in terms of cultural identity being more important than economic identity and subsequently destroyed the broad left coalition by driving a cultural wedge between the 'average hard worker in the red wall' and the 'lazy Islington Remoaners'. Being a leftist and a liberal progressive was once taken as a given, when in actual fact many of the old socialists turned out to be culturally conservative.

Add the lazy lefty mantra that there is no difference between New Labour and the Tories, and that all recognition of the good that the Labour government of 1997-2010 did must be ignored or denigrated to make the radical left seem the good option.

[oldfordie]

Because the right successfully recontextualised politics in terms of cultural identity being more important than economic identity and subsequently destroyed the broad left coalition by driving a cultural wedge between the 'average hard worker in the red wall' and the 'lazy Islington Remoaners'. Being a leftist and a liberal progressive was once taken as a given, when in actual fact many of the old socialists turned out to be culturally conservative.

Yeah I can agree, leaving the EU was always a matter of principle to many left wing socialists as well but I think the average life long Labour voters who believed the Tory hard right MPs fell for simple arguments, I did research but I know I still would have voted remain if I hadn't as I never trust a word these hard right Tory MPs say and that's my point really, how could anyone on a council estate or someone living week to week on low wages even believe these people were acting in their best interests.
 JRM belongs in the 1700s but they still listened to him when he shouted "Will of the People" every 5 min, maybe they should have listened to other things he has said, JRM "he sees no reason why the British worker can't work under the same conditions as workers in India after Brexit."

[rafathegaffa83]

Guy Verhofstadt@guyverhofstadt
Brexit is damaging enough. Any move by Mr Johnson to undermine the Withdrawal Agreement would have painful implications for the UK's global reputation & do great damage to EU & UK citizens alike. I hope he will recommit to the obligations he has made under international law

[So… Howard Philips]

Guy Verhofstadt@guyverhofstadt
Brexit is damaging enough. Any move by Mr Johnson to undermine the Withdrawal Agreement would have painful implications for the UK's global reputation & do great damage to EU & UK citizens alike. I hope he will recommit to the obligations he has made under international law

He's only following Trump's example, not realising we're pretty much a busted flush who America will screw over, irrespective of who's in the White House.

[Zeb]

Without needing to make a fuss about it? But then how could they show the are Making Britain Great Again?

I did laugh. But crikey, yeah, point taken.

[rafathegaffa83]

He's only following Trump's example, not realising we're pretty much a busted flush who America will screw over, irrespective of who's in the White House.

Yep. Reneging on international agreements is a particularly stupid approach when Britain will soon be seeking new international trade agreements during a global pandemic. If they can't adhere to this agreement, why should any party believe they would adhere to future ones. I think the Brexit crowd are in for a rude awakening to see how the U.S. and Commonwealth countries (i.e Canada) will treat them in the future, let alone the EU

[Alan_X]

One of the ideas which has been punted around is that the government (ie Cummings) want to throw money at tech industries post-Brexit to try and make up for the damage done. Supposedly based on the idea that we've fallen behind in tech and we're going to be dominated by US and China if we don't catch up with our own independent home grown sector etc etc etc.

edit: Know some will raise eyebrows at the idea of Cummings setting government policy but the Tories problem is that they've never actually thought through what a post-Brexit Britain would look like. What's the long term plan? They haven't got one so have reached out to the weird fringes for a ready made 'vision' (tm).

How many mates of Cummings and Gove will be fed enormous chunks of taxpayers money to create 'new tech' or 'big-data' or 'AI' companies that are as successful as the amazing NHS track and trace app?

Cummings thinks he's a 'disrupter' in the mould of people like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk when in fact he just smashes things up with no real clue about how to fix them.

[Circa1892]

Cummings is thick, arrogant fuck - who’s in his position because he’s slightly less thick than the man he’s advising.

On a seperate point, weird how one of the biggest mistakes made by the shocker that was the 2017-19 parliament was in voting down Mays deal.

[Zeb]

On a seperate point, weird how one of the biggest mistakes made by the shocker that was the 2017-19 parliament was in voting down Mays deal.

In the immediate term, yeah, ultimately the choice was to force a modification of what May was offering or take the election. But I would question what would follow that with the 'It's the wrong Brexit' crowd and how stable that compromise would have been when torn between people who hated it for very different reasons.

[Alan_X]

Cummings is thick, arrogant fuck - who’s in his position because he’s slightly less thick than the man he’s advising.

On a seperate point, weird how one of the biggest mistakes made by the shocker that was the 2017-19 parliament was in voting down Mays deal.

The biggest shocker was Labour agreeing to the general election.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/29/downing-street-signals-compromise-on-potential-general-election-date

[Circa1892]

The biggest shocker was Labour agreeing to the general election.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/29/downing-street-signals-compromise-on-potential-general-election-date

Well yeah, although - as much as I think history will put Corbyns uselessness at every stage as a key factor, I do think Swinsons arrogance and Sturgeons opportunism boxed Labour in a little. Although my memory might be tricking me there.

[Circa1892]

That article also makes me laugh how much this government takes people’s ignorance for granted. Talking about the administrative difficulties of including EU nationals in the vote - they literally have to be crossed off the register for General Elections, it’s the opposite of difficult...

[Jiminy Cricket]

In the immediate term, yeah, ultimately the choice was to force a modification of what May was offering or take the election. But I would question what would follow that with the 'It's the wrong Brexit' crowd and how stable that compromise would have been when torn between people who hated it for very different reasons.

It is clear, from everything which has followed, that in the event of no second referendum (and reversal of course), a No-Deal Brexit was/is the ultimate destination. I mean, the 'compromise' was defeated for a harder Brexit, and we are still going harder.

[Red-Soldier]

To me, it was always obvious that a no-deal Brexit was the end game for Cummings and Johnson.  It is the only way they can enact their roadmap for a fully deregulated the UK.

[thaddeus]

...
Which all reads like a lot of bollocks to me and an excuse for state funded crony capitalism rather than 'socialism'. But does match the reasons mentioned.

Crony capitalism is exactly what they appear to be gearing up for.  Covid-19 has inadvertently given then an opportunity - and the rest of us to see - what state involvement would look like under this government; £billions being siphoned off to the favoured few with no accountability.

Making the UK attractive to technology companies, both start-ups and the more established, is a sensible aim but case studies like the Track & Trace app suggest it will be a smokescreen for pilfering.  How long the racket is allowed to run for and the damage done to the country is within the gift of this government for the next four years and probably longer with media backing.

As an aside, Starmer would seem a good fit for delivering some accountability.  Angrily shouting likely less effective than dissection.

[12C]

Crony capitalism is exactly what they appear to be gearing up for.  Covid-19 has inadvertently given then an opportunity - and the rest of us to see - what state involvement would look like under this government; £billions being siphoned off to the favoured few with no accountability.

Making the UK attractive to technology companies, both start-ups and the more established, is a sensible aim but case studies like the Track & Trace app suggest it will be a smokescreen for pilfering.  How long the racket is allowed to run for and the damage done to the country is within the gift of this government for the next four years and probably longer with media backing.

As an aside, Starmer would seem a good fit for delivering some accountability.  Angrily shouting likely less effective than dissection.

It’s the Russian model. Cummings and Johnson have plenty of mates to show how it’s done.

State kleptocracy where millions are siphoned from the public purse and the bastards won’t even have to move abroad - they can carry on living like the Russians in London

[TepidT2O]

If I were Johnson, I would be absolutely furious with whoever  negotiated that last deal.

What an ass!

[Zeb]

Not surprised whoever said this kept it off the record to preserve anonymity. Wonder if they had a straight face or whether they and the journalist were just in absolute bulk about them now saying it.



(Via Hugo Rifkind)

[killer-heels]

Cummings is thick, arrogant fuck - who’s in his position because he’s slightly less thick than the man he’s advising.

On a seperate point, weird how one of the biggest mistakes made by the shocker that was the 2017-19 parliament was in voting down Mays deal.

Parliament has been fucking things up with Brexit since 2015. In May’s final year it was absolutely dreadful and culminated in peak idiocy when Letwin and co took control of the agenda. Even in a situation where it was clear that some consensus had to be found, there was none.

I remember watching Ken Clarke speak about compromise and then Layla Moron of Lib Dem fame got up and said we should have a second vote where the options are a Norway style deal or Remain. What a plonker.

Now, we are getting what this country deserved. Having said that, I still think there will be some last minute agreement but if not, it doesn’t matter because this country is fucked either way.

[oldfordie]

Not surprised whoever said this kept it off the record to preserve anonymity. Wonder if they had a straight face or whether they and the journalist were just in absolute bulk about them now saying it.



(Via Hugo Rifkind)

One of the things Brexit has shown me is just how abysmal many of our MPs are, nothing has happened to change my opinion, on the contrary, talk like this just  shows how true it is. it's as if they have only got round to reading/understanding the WA they voted for back in December, maybe someones had to explain it to them, there is nothing contradictory, it's a solution to prevent a hard border in NI, the EU bent over backwards to stop the Troubles returning to Ireland, the Tories don't seem that bothered.
So the senior government official argues, the WA talks about protecting the integrity of the SM which is true, goods from uk into NI wont have tariffs charged but if those goods are then exported into the Republic then they will have tariffs added to protect the integrity of the SM. they say it talks about NI being given unfettered access to the UK market, maybe am missing something but wouldn't all that be up to the UK government, why would they need to check goods going from NI to the UK. so seems you can have both so no contradiction.
All the at risk goods were discussed in November , back to just how abysmal some of our MPs are, it's now September ,10 months ago, embarrassing.

Has someone told them they agreed to EU customs officers policing the NI/UK border yet.