Bloomberg clarity, Diane Abbott Brexit priority on trade

About an hour ago I saw an interview with Diane Abbott on Bloomberg. Francine Lacqua was relaxed and polite but asked relevant questions. Freedom of movement may be an issue around trade, there may be a difference with the Brexit expected, but Diane Abbott was allowed the space to make clear that Labour has a priority for jobs and the economy, including financial services, rather than the Conservative priority for immigration control.

I still find that this is not well reported in newspapers or most TV / radio. the election has been called about the negotiation but there is very little discussion on what the negotiation is aiming to do or how to set about it.

Hope this clip turns up on YouTube soon.

=============

UPDATE LATER THAT SAME DAY


about 8 minutes in

( My view is that Bloomberg should make Brexit the headline title. Most other media are not reporting Labour priority on Brexit. It could be news especially if contrasted with Conservatives. Remain comment could allow space for this possibility rather than expecting Lib Dems to totally reverse referendum result. More on this in a future post.

================

Meanwhile have found the Andrew Neil interview with Teresa May. He concentrates on immigration although she makes several statements about Brexit in general. When will the BBC explore Conservative ideas around jobs in more detail?

Conservatives on YouTube link to BBC, can BBC maintain their own balance?

Quick look on YouTube finds this

careful edit from Laura Kuenssberg interview with Jeremy Corbyn. Previously I have suggested that the main news aspect of this interview is the priority for trade rather than immigration. The way the BBC reported it allowed such ambiguity that the Conservatives can make this edit.

May is quoted here just saying that some in the EU do not want the negotiations to succeed. But it is she who says that no result would be better than a bad result. Michel Barnier in Guardian page 4 23 May is quoted "That is not my choice and I would advise anyone to explain exactly what no deal would entail."

Andrew Neil had several topics to raise. Priority for trade was not one of them. Will the BBC get round to reporting Corbyn priority for trade or asking Conservatives what it is they are negotiating or how?

What happened to Labour with City connections? Time to speak out?

See previous posts for suggestions that a) Labour is more interested in trade than immigration as a priority for EU negotiation b) newspapers and TV/radio are not reporting this difference well and are not asking the conservatives any searching questions on detail of policy.

I am beginning to wonder if this explains some of the problems during the referendum. Lord Mandelson, Will Straw, Alistair Campbell, they could be asking questions about this sort of thing. I might have missed it. It is possible that knocking Corbyn is such a high priority that they would rather be silent. Not sure, time will tell.

I don't think I am just being rude at this point in time. There are some trading concerns that could become urgent and clear statements could get attention.

Still not much scrutiny of what Conservatives are negotiating

Both Marr and Peston seem to avoid asking what the Conservative negotiation on Brexit is aimed at. The Observer has story on Damien Green suggesting remainers should vote Tory as there are some Tories apparently with a softer take than May appears to be suggesting. But Marr asks nothing about this. Who are these people? What do they think? Is the Conservative Party any more united than Labour on Trident?

Peston allows Boris to make statements about Labour policy on Brexit that I find misleading. "Corbyn does not know if he wants to be in the single market or out of it." Not true as far as I can follow it. Corbyn has a different take on immigration and might negotiate on the single market within the scope the EU is starting from. Boris seems to support an exit from the single market or just walking away from negotiation. this followed by a free trade deal that is far from clear on timescale or whether it would happen. In the Mail on Sunday he writes about a "great Free Trade Agreement". Is this the sort of thing Peston should ask for detail about?

Sunday Times has "Old Knuckleduster" David Davis "in mood for a scrap with EU". Andrew Neil and panel consider this "rhetoric" will vanish after the election and relations with EU will return to calm but this may not happen. I do not find any comment about how sensible it is to drop this sort of thing into negotiations. Reporting is still around the idea of Teresa May as a strong personality. Newspapers will continue along party lines so TV and radio might be more investigative. Not yet as far as I can tell.

I still think the Labour interest in jobs and the economy offers a real difference in how negotiations could turn out. The soft end of Fleet Street is doing nothing to support this however. Lib Dems still getting the attention for a sharper point of view that sounds better but will not have much effect.

Future post to look at the online aspects of this. Newspapers and TV so closed down I guess there is an alternative discussion somewhere.

PS. Checking papers today finds Dan Hodges p18 in Mail on Sunday who praises Teresa May's bravery but claims that at an event in Bristol he has "never seen a prime minister less comfortable in the public arena." ....... "The strategy of hiding her from voters and the press is born of necessity, not opportunity."

Will anyone get to ask a question on what the Brexit aims are? As compared to Labour? Not on personality as reported, just on policy?

FT sense on Brexit in podcast - no paywall

Strongly suggest this is worth a listen.

Podcast on Brexit has several points that make sense for me but are not much covered in the rest of UK press.

What strikes me

difficulty of getting a UK trade deal    ( EU will not allow a better situation outside EU than in )

5.42

unpleasantness, downside of argumentative atmosphere during the election

8.26

election will not make much difference to strength of UK position

8.59

( timings just in case you have to skip, really worth listening to the whole thing. )

My own guess is that May wants a hard Brexit, the election has not helped a good atmosphere for negotiation.

Things may soon change but I expect the largest part of Fleet street to stick to bashing Brussels with none of these issues being raised as questions for the Conservatives. Possibly the TV interviewers could be concerned. But I think this election will be completed with even worse reporting than during the referendum.

Meanwhile Labour manifesto.

 We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.

Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'cliff-edge’ for the UK economy.

There is clear difference here. Again, not much chance of Fleet Street pointing this out.

But the FT at least talks some sense some of the time.

Bloomberg follows up on Davis, @Guardian scrutiny still obscure

Search on Twitter suggests Bloomberg is the main report on Davis story as it continues.  Includes video from studio discussion. Apparently we should not expect any detail from May during an election. there is a Plan A and Plan B. My impression is that this means there is a threat to walk away. Trade deal outside EU is supposed to negotiated as much the same as if nothing had happened. I may be wrong about this but so far this is about as much info as UK media has discovered. Bloomberg doing much better.

Yesterday Guardian opinion.

Matthew d'Ancona

as the PM approaches her negotiations with Brussels, it must rid her of the outlandish and (in some cases) downright misleading claims of last year’s leave campaigns. There was never the slightest chance that departing the EU would yield a dividend for the NHS of £350m a week. But – until she has her own distinct mandate for Brexit – May will be dogged, not unreasonably, by this and the other promises of the 2016 referendum.

I can't see anything else on what May offers at this time. Will actual Brexit be just as much a shock as the referendum fallout? Fleet street including the Guardian is not doing any scrutiny. It is well known that May rarely answers a question and sometimes selects the questions to answer. But there can be comment that results in discussion somewhere. The Davis interview has not been much reported. 

Then you get a Remoaners article that fails to mention Corbyn priority on immigration / jobs.

There is a choice between the two main parties. The "misleading claims" from the referendum continue with the misreporting of this election.

Bloomberg is well placed to report on the UK,

And Another Thing, David Davis and the people who "hate Brexit"

Peston with David Davis. Labour Press tweet

Previously Marr suggested to Corbyn that there was no difference between Labour and May on Brexit policy. this interview shows otherwise. I still expect confusion reporting from the Guardian and selective quotes from most of Fleet Street. But the evidence is there for social media and journalists outside the UK.

Just to repeat from previous posts, is it reasonable to expect EU officials to be wildly pro Brexit? just how much unanimity is Davis working towards? This kind of mixing it may win extra seats in an election but will it help negotiation? Do they actually want a negotiated result?

Extra aggro could be just a side effect of the election decision that was not considered. Who would know?

Brexit will dominate the next few years, taking up almost the entire bandwidth of the next Government.

A big majority will ease things, virtually guaranteeing Theresa May will be able to get any outcome through the House of Commons – but the sheer amount of energy she will have to devote to it means the Prime Minister will have to be selective on the domestic policy front.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4503724/Think-week-s-Tory-manifesto-scarcely-matters.html#ixzz4h3v6kh11
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Craig Oliver in the Mail on Sunday. What I gathered from the press reviews on BBC etc was that this article is about the need for clarity. I thought this might be clarity about whatever it is that is being negotiated. It turns out that "any outcome" will get through the Commons. Is that it then. Expectations of clarity in the manifesto or probing from journalists have not been set very high.