Brexit Thread VIII: Taking a penalty kick-ing

[really]

When has Johnson or the UK shown in any way that the UK has the stronger position?
Everything starting from the time table, to Ireland, to the divorce payment, to citizens rights has been agreed to by the UK or Johnson himself. Red lines passed, things that we were told the EU could go whistle for have been agreed by Johnson and approved by his new parliament.

When exactly are the UK going to play these cards?

 

[Arakhor]

Instead, the "victory" that the Torygraph was touting the other day was that the trade talks would be conducted... in English. I've forgotten where I read that, but if I'd stumbled onto a parody site by mistake, I didn't notice.

 

[Kyriakos]

Nice

English is, after all, still one of the official languages of the german union (due to England once being in the Eu, due to also english being a popular choice for foreign language learning, and now also because it is one of the official languages in Ireland).
Tbh, I doubt many english officials aren't monolingual. It's a trend in the anglosphere.

 

[Arakhor]

Ah, no, apparently it was in the Express, but that might as well be a parody site when talking about the EU.

Meanwhile, apparently the UK is refusing to sign up to human rights legislation as part of the EU trade deal, because apparently Johnson's idiot government think that they know better than the post-war governments about who deserves which rights.

 

[innonimatu]

When has Johnson or the UK shown in any way that the UK has the stronger position?

They're not locked by treaty with the EU into any effective "regulatory agreement", are they? Not even NI. That was the overriding goal of the EU, and so far it failed. The card is, quite simply, to refuse to sign any such agreement.

 

[Senethro]

What does that achieve?

 

[innonimatu]

In the abstract, the same thing that the independence or the Republic of Ireland achieved. If you want one of many possible examples.

 

[Arakhor]

But if the UK's only card is refusing to play, that exposes a gaping hole in all those vaunted Brexiteer claims over the last four years, including Oerdin's. It will also expose the desperate pretence of Johnson's govt that Brexit is "done", when it is in fact very far from being so.

 

[Arakhor]

And next on the "let's pull out of something European because we feel like it" list is aviation safety. Of course the Tories have a plan to institute something comparable in less than ten months, right?

 

[Hrothbern]

The only way to have full control over experts yes-nodders is to have them on your own payroll and can fire (at) them at will.

 

[Oerdin]

You've been saying that the UK has been on the verge of total crushing victory for years now. Perhaps you could give a date for when it'll finally happen?

Please do stop lying. I have never said the UK is on the verge of anything. What I have repeatedly said is the EU is and always has been a bad faith actor who cannot be trusted. They should just exit on WTO terms and let the EU lose their trade surplus entirely.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Please do stop lying. I have never said the UK is on the verge of anything. What I have repeatedly said is the EU is and always has been a bad faith actor who cannot be trusted. They should just exit on WTO terms and let the EU lose their trade surplus entirely.

UK Finacial surplus == advantage UK
UK Manufacting deficet == advantage UK
UK smaller trade partner == advantage UK

Meanwhile

India wants more immigration if UK wants a FTA
US wants IP protections and removal of Generic drugs if the UK wants a FTA
But only the EU is a bad faith actor

 

[EnglishEdward]

The only way to have full control over experts yes-nodders is to have them on your own payroll and can fire (at) them at will.

And what possible value is that?

Independent experts are useful, but their word ought not to be taken as a Gospel truth?

The questions one ought to ask are:

(a) What information sets are they basing their advice on?
(b) What is their methodology, their mathematical model etc
(c) What is their field of expertise?
(d) Is their advice on a subject within their field of expertise?
(e) What are the other independent experts saying?
(f) Are they really independent?

 

[Yeekim]

I just wanted to say I miss Brexit...

 

[mitsho]

It will be postponed due to Corona... ;-)

 

[cardgame]

I thought it was finally over and done with.

 

[Gorbles]

And what possible value is that?

Independent experts are useful, but their word ought not to be taken as a Gospel truth?

The questions one ought to ask are:

(a) What information sets are they basing their advice on?
(b) What is their methodology, their mathematical model etc
(c) What is their field of expertise?
(d) Is their advice on a subject within their field of expertise?
(e) What are the other independent experts saying?
(f) Are they really independent?

Imagine if you applied this rigour to the government's expert advice, opinions, or generally anything they come out with. I can only conclude that these aren't sincere questions; they're questions you apply to things you're already predisposed not to trust. Which makes the exercise a bit futile, really.

 

[Hrothbern]

Nice

English is, after all, still one of the official languages of the german union (due to England once being in the Eu, due to also english being a popular choice for foreign language learning, and now also because it is one of the official languages in Ireland).
Tbh, I doubt many english officials aren't monolingual. It's a trend in the anglosphere.

In case you still read posts:
sipping my self-isolation and missing the Brexit drama...
I saw, or should I say, I binged recently the TV series "The Crown"
and learned that this Battenberg, or Mountbatten issue was much bigger than I was aware off... that Philip, Prince of Greece, had to escape in an orange crate the Greece mobs
Just imagine that the Windsors would have become German Battenbergs... omg... it would show that Germans are everywhere... the Sonnenkinder took over the world... follow that other German Trump and all the Germanic fly-over areas in the US.

And what possible value is that?

Independent experts are useful, but their word ought not to be taken as a Gospel truth?

The questions one ought to ask are:

(a) What information sets are they basing their advice on?
(b) What is their methodology, their mathematical model etc
(c) What is their field of expertise?
(d) Is their advice on a subject within their field of expertise?
(e) What are the other independent experts saying?
(f) Are they really independent?

I think it does depend on the field of expertise
With hard-sciences there is very much a continuous growth of knowledge with little discontinuities and an effective falsification process in place. Epidemiology is hard science benefitting a lot from today's powerfull math modelling.
And still politicians and politics are able to screw that with ideological dogmas and rivalry considerations. The people the loser from distractions affecting serious technical, practical info from newsmedia and government institutions and bodies.

Economical experts, having mostly more macro financial statements than economical ones, are a totally other breed. And having some banker experience often seen as qualified expert.
Not only is economics a soft science... under pressure of politics... it is more a voodoo science, running out of date as well with at least 20-30 years, which has mostly to do with the generational inertia of the career duration of established economy experts, newsmedia guru's and top politicians, and ofc establiseh sentiments-opinions among The People.
Every dogmatic faction has its own priests experts.

But one thing is for me certain: politicians and soundbite newsmedia hinder greatly the normal science debates-deliberations-falsifications between economists, that should deliver the points you mention.
And my conclusion is that politicians are not able to distinguish enough between their responsibility to pick up changing values of the population... and on the other hand their executive responsibility to govern to implement with experts.

The current breed of UK politicians is an island between the population and the experts, disconnected with both and using cheap methods to "take back control for themselves".
Some circus and bones for the people and eliminating the inconveniencies of experts.

As Churchil, that big example of BoJo, said:
Let accuracy never stand in the way of truth
His truth
and his post-war PM-ship proved the disaster he was for the UK

 

[EnglishEdward]

Imagine if you applied this rigour to the government's expert advice, opinions, or generally anything they come out with. I can only conclude that these aren't sincere questions; they're questions you apply to things you're already predisposed not to trust. Which makes the exercise a bit futile, really.

Well, what is the alternative? To just accept peoples' status as self proclaimed
experts without checking their credentials and simply believe everything they say.

I

As Churchil, that big example of BoJo, said:
Let accuracy never stand in the way of truth
His truth and his post-war PM-ship proved the disaster he was for the UK

Winston Churchill was too old then.

As for Boris Johnson, IMO best of a poor bunch.

 

[Hrothbern]

Winston Churchill was too old then.

As for Boris Johnson, IMO best of a poor bunch.

Apparently no checks and balances within the political elite to replace Churchill fast enough.

And about his period in WW2

I think Europe was lucky that the US intervened.