Brexit Penny Dropping?

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

ByDaniel Hannan

Edited August 26, 2023 by Ringy Rose

[Flubbergump]

On 8/26/2023 at 5:32 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

PK can put this book on his Christmas list.

 

What Went Wrong with Brexit, by veteran journalist Peter Foster, is a strange, credulous book that prefers the pro-EU point of view

ByDaniel Hannan26 August 2023 • 1:00pm

 

Brexit Derangement Syndrome is a terrifying condition. It can take intelligent people and turn them into the type of activists you see outside Parliament wearing blue berets with yellow stars. Consider the case of Peter Foster who, for many years, wrote sensible reports for this newspaper, and was latterly its Europe Editor. Even then, Foster didn’t disguise his distaste for Brexit: he gave prominence to forecasts suggesting that Britain’s economy would tank, he wanted to stay in the customs union, and he was one of the earliest supporters of the “backstop” – which removed Ireland’s incentive to push the EU to a more open trade-deal. In general, however, he strove to be informative, not declaratory.

Not any more. In What Went Wrong with Brexit, every gloomy report by a Europhile think-tank is quoted as objective truth, and every Eurocrat is treated as a disinterested expert. In his accounts of the past and his recommendations for the future, Foster praises British concessions to the EU as mature and sensible, while condemning any assertiveness as unrealistic. For example, he thinks it obvious that the UK should sign up to whatever regulations the EU might adopt in future, at least as regards food and veterinary standards. To see how odd that notion is, try flipping it around and demanding that the EU accept “dynamic alignment” with the UK, arbitrated by our supreme court.

At no stage does Foster recognise that the EU can be vindictive or inconsistent. At Salzburg in 2018, Theresa May offered to accept Brussels standards unilaterally and even to pay for the privilege; but, conditioned to reject every British proposal, EU leaders said no, thereby missing their best chance to have the kind of tight relationship that Foster wants. This episode goes unmentioned. 

Indeed, this is a book which makes no pretence at balance or nuance. Brexit is presented as an unmitigated calamity with no upsides at all. Foster mentions Covid-19 in passing, but the idea that paying people to stay home for the better part of two years might have a more serious impact on our economy than a change in our trading patterns is not considered.

Polemics have their place: I wrote one myself before the referendum. But I did so as, so to speak, a columnist rather than a news reporter. Foster started at the Telegraph under Charles Moore, who liked to hire correspondents who disagreed with the paper’s line, knowing that this would make them police their own biases. 

 

Since Foster moved to the Financial Times three years ago, however, it seems as though such restraints have come off. Again and again, he gives his stories an anti-Brexit angle. Trade deals are portrayed as threats to British farmers, and the UK’s recognition of the EU’s CE kitemark, which the FT might have hailed as a welcome step towards mutual recognition and jurisdictional competition, is howled down as a Brexit failure. Most recently, Foster claimed – in a news piece, not on the opinion pages – that proposed changes in our intellectual-property rules to allow easier imports were a Brexit-driven threat to our creative industries.

That, reader, is what you get here for 175 pages – pamphleteering dressed up as analysis. And, no doubt, it will sell. A terrifying number of people are unable to move on from the 2016 referendum. Some actively wish for Brexit’s failure so as to be able to say “I told you so”. Yet it isn’t even as though they had a plan to rejoin. Foster accepts that such a move is off the menu, and instead he proposes various ways to deepen our co-operation with the EU. But you feel, somehow, that all this is secondary. Like 18th-century Jacobites, the #FBPE crowd have no real plan beyond insisting to one another that they were right all along. This book is for them. 

I'm sorry

Is someone trying to present Daniel Fucking Hannan as an objective viewpoint on Brexit or anything related to the Johnson government?

That's a first

[The Voice of Reason]

40 minutes ago, Flubbergump said:

I'm sorry

Is someone trying to present Daniel Fucking Hannan as an objective viewpoint on Brexit or anything related to the Johnson government?

That's a first

He’s entitled to his opinion as you are to yours

[The Voice of Reason]

I did read the Guardian review of the same book ( whilst I hadn’t reached the limit of my free reading- as if I’d actually pay for that guff!)

It was just a gushing endorsement

You pay your money ( or not) you make your choice🙂

[La Colombe]

48 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I did read the Guardian review of the same book ( whilst I hadn’t reached the limit of my free reading- as if I’d actually pay for that guff!)

There is no limit. 

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, La Colombe said:

There is no limit. 

Yes there is. ( we’ll at least there is for me!)

You are now allowed x articles per so many days.

Started about a month or two ago.

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[P.K.]

10 hours ago, Flubbergump said:

I'm sorry

Is someone trying to present Daniel Fucking Hannan as an objective viewpoint on Brexit or anything related to the Johnson government?

That's a first

 

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

He’s entitled to his opinion as you are to yours

The Barclay brothers purchased the Telegraph back in 2004 for the sole purpose of running down the EU and working towards brexit which would preserve their tax advantages such as Non-Dom status. 

Having achieved their objective in 2019 they put what was left of the "newspaper" up for sale. Unfortunately their rabid anti-EU stance had basically turned it into a comic. For years it had spouted the most appalling hairy sphericals about just about everything EU-wise that wouldn't have fooled a ten-year-old so there were few takers for the rag. Leading the anti-EU charge was one Daniel Hannan who really wrote some rubbish even by the then appallingly low standards of the Telegraph which did nothing for sales.

After four years with no buyer in sight Lloyds lost patience with it and in June this year it made moves to seize the shares because of the nearly £1bn in debts owed to it.

With the remaining Barclay brother no longer in editorial control Hannan immediately flipped and starting putting out pieces that didn't exactly show the totally stupid and completely unnecessary brexit in a very good light.

However the remaining Barclay brother has since tried to come to an arrangement with Lloyds to "take back control" (MWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) of the title.

Where now for Hannan's so-called opinions...?

[manxman1980]

On 9/4/2023 at 1:26 AM, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes there is. ( we’ll at least there is for me!)

You are now allowed x articles per so many days.

Started about a month or two ago.

 

There genuinely isn't a limit.  It even says its a request for a donation and not a pay wall.

Simply click on the register later button and you can continue to read.

I don't pay to read any newspaper anymore.  

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

There genuinely isn't a limit.  It even says its a request for a donation and not a pay wall.

Simply click on the register later button and you can continue to read.

I don't pay to read any newspaper anymore.  

Thanks but I’m sure I was given two options:-

1) Cough up now; or

2) Wait until the next period starts when I get my free allocation of articles.

Anyway I’m now in that next period of free articles which I shall use up before the period expires and see what it says then.

I will report back. I may have missed something.

 

Thanks

[La Colombe]

There is no limit. 

[The Voice of Reason]

51 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

There is no limit. 

 

[manxman1980]

@The Voice of Reason

There are two prompts popping up on The Guardian website.

The one you are referring to hides part of the article and asks you to become a supporter.  There are four support levels which have different benefits but essentially are a newsletter,  fewer adverts and fewer requests for support.  

You can choose not to support them but you will occasionally get requests for support from them.  These also tell you how many articles you have read in the past month.  You can just click past these as there is a "not now" or "skip" type option.

The other is another request to subscribe to a printed version but again it does not block you from any content. 

[The Voice of Reason]

[Zarley]

16 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Might be because you're using their app? I only ever read the Guardian in a web browser and I've never had to pay. They ask me to, but ignoring the request has never resulted in being denied access.

[The Voice of Reason]

15 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Might be because you're using their app? I only ever read the Guardian in a web browser and I've never had to pay. They ask me to, but ignoring the request has never resulted in being denied access.

No still get same message “ You’ve reached your free article limit in our app” even when accessing the Guardian website via Google. I’ll uninstall the app see if that helps.