Hate to bump this thread again, but there are two things that I'm kind of wondering about now...
1) the recent habit of UK government to buy ads in local newspapers that are disguised as news articles, and that highlight a handful of companies that are doing great despite of brexit.
On the surface, it reeks of cheap propaganda. It's as if I would pay someone to say the following :
someguy said:
But that's the thing : because of the disclaimer, the whole ad undermines itself and achieves an opposite goal. If brexit's do great why don't the newspapers do their own stories on it? They were largely in favor of it to begin with, so why not bring their own stories rather than act like a capitalist version of communism (1)?
And then there's the 'despite of brexit' part. Granted, I've heard about it through channels that are critical of it to begin with, but the tone isn't 'brexit is great because...' but a 'we've managed despite the hurdles'.
The cynical me likes to believe that brexit is such a total train wreck that not only have the newspapers abandoned all hope to say something positive but even the government is reaching for straws to prevent being boo-ed out of work so they're covertly saying 'okay there's no advantage at all... But it's doable'.
...but I'm not sure on this. As my parody quote indicates : this is just drawing attention to the problem. How is this a better strategy than quietly hoping it'll get better? At the very least there's the 'why's my tax player's money being used for this?' criticism (not mine, but my sources are obviously from the UK), so there's that... But what possible advantage could it have? Quiet the dumber UK residents?
Unfortunately, the second thing is of a larger scale. And is even more absurd...
2) the northern Ireland situation (or protocol, so you will).
This whole thing has always sounded like a'trying to get your cake and eat it to ' situation (which I can almost hear Johnson say, really). More specifically ' we want to leave the single market but don't want to have a real border with countries that use it '.
On one hand, there's the UK internal laws regarding northern Ireland. That good Friday agreement thingy. Nobody wants to mess with it, although the DUP (local political party) is opposed, if I understand things correctly. That whole' leave the single market 'was necessary because it was pushed for (critics claim that it was never what people had in mind when voting to leave, but on the other hand :' brexit is brexit '). So it took the whole transitional period to come up with a way out of this dilemma.
The solution? Have the border on the Irish sea instead. So customs checks between northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Workable, not in breach of agreements and even that villainous EU was kind enough to give a grace period on top of the earlier transition period because... Well... There wasn't transitioning much in that period and the UK was too stubborn to accept extensions (I have no idea how this is different aside the name, but that's a discussion I won't follow).
Of course that DUP wasn't happy, which I can really understand. I mean... A border within the UK? They might just as well rejoin Ireland then.
But ey... You can't please everyone, right?
But again that 'have your cake and eat it' situation : earlier on Britain had proposed legislation against their own deal on this. Perhaps to cater more to the DUP than carrying about international treaties? Either way... That got shot down before it got anywhere, so...
Wait... No. Sorry. Back up : remember that I said the EU kindly gave a grace period? That means not all goods are currently taxed or checked as was intended by the deal. Just a minimum, to minimize disruption. Of course there IS disruption, don't get me wrong. That's just what you get when you want different trade laws from your neighbors. But they're not as much. I'd call it a transitional period but the UK government doesn't like that term.
But now the UK has decided to extend that grace period because there are disruptions. And potentially drop all the checks.
Erm... Gee. It's kind of hard not to get pedantic about this, but someone needs to look up the definition of 'a deal'. The EU allowed for the grace period, not the UK. The UK can decide to NEGOTIATE an extension with the EU but not change the terms on their own. Doing that would be - and frankly : is - a breach of international law.
I'll admit that that 'and potentially drop all the checks' is really just the DUP spokesman talking. Since they rather tore up the good Friday agreement, I can see their opinion... But from my point of view they got overruled by the UK government. Yes, they've got the right to disagree, no they shouldn't make public statements like this.
Ahem... Back on - topic: that illegal extension isn't just damaging for any future deals with other countries your going to make ('so... Why should we sign a trade deal with you if you' re just going to alter parts of it in a couple months without consultation? '). In the most absurd way possible, the timing couldn't be worse.
See... That trade deal with the EU? While finalized, it hasn't been put into law yet (ratified' s the fancy word for it). Back when it was signed, translations still had to be done, copies sent out to all the EU leaders and potential questions needed to be asked. I'd say 'similar to in the uk', but I've heard Johnson didn't want any of that process.
That has now been done, and voting to agree with the UK on the deal is set to take place in...
Johnson : haai guys! Don't mind me... We're just extending your grace period, mmkay?
So... What the hell is this? The end of last year was like a tense car race
(sports commenter voice) 'is it going to be a deal? Is it a no - deal? Still a deal? No deal? A deal is getting more likely! No deal is gaining traction...a deal is getting second base. Will he make it? No deal is flanking on the right! But oooh! A deal is made right on the Christmas finish line!!!
'
What was the point of even attempting to strike a deal if you can't even commit to the basics?
I get that Boris doesn't want to take responsibility for a no deal brexit, but perhaps he should try fucking steer AWAY from it instead of chasing it head first.
(1): no, it's never thought I'd say something like that ever, but that's what it am mounts to : 'we' ll run all the government stories provided we're payed for them. We're just not going to pretend it's an article, that's all '.