Brexit discussion thread III

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, those people who want a sense of control over their lives - as distinct from any actual control over their lives - get huffy at the idea that Brexit is and always has been fundamentally about nothing whatsoever but xenophobia.

Because, let's face it, what you're arguing boils down to nothing more noble than the idea that some people would rather be worse off than live with the suspicion that foreigners have any input into their lives.

Well, we live in a country that fought a guerrilla war and then a bitter civil war to exit one of the richest and most influential great powers of the time. Clearly motivated only by xenophobia when you consider the losses vs. the economic benefits of being in the UK. Sometimes a people do simply want a government by the people, of the people, for the people even if they would be richer by accepting foreign influence. Some people are not as emotionally detached from that as they might pretend given their indignation at the concept.

As I said, its a powerful idea, which people have willingly risked and lost their lives for countless times through history, rightly or wrongly. All that Brexit requires is a % drop in national income.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that back in the 90s, Clinton stated "Its the economy, stupid". Its not, not anymore. And again, the fixation with foreigners is largely misleading: Brexit is about internal UK governance problems. Not so much the EU. But its still genuine in its aim.

Sand

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is while I agree with your overall point. By leaving the EU I'd argue that the UK is giving up its sovereignty in many areas. If the government or businesses end up just co opting and updates in trade regulations made by the EU the UK will in effect be making changes that are effectively dictated by the EU either directly or indirectly. As a member of the EU the UK has a direct say on any changes.

While I agree listing the economic impacts won't change the views of many leavers. However as the EU is comfortably the UK largest trade partner and will remain so into the future. The EU will directly impact the UK with any changes it makes internally. The could end up a version of fax diplomacy where the EU decides something and the UK has no other practical option but to go along with it.

It was a failing of remain campaign to link the two.

Agreed, but Brexit was a decision of the peoples of the UK, not the UK government or UK business (which was unified against Brexit). Brexit came as such a shock because of the detachment of the UK government from the peoples of the UK. The interests of the UK government are not those of the peoples of the UK, and vice versa.

listermint

Sand wrote: »

Well, we live in a country that fought a guerrilla war and then a bitter civil war to exit one of the richest and most influential great powers of the time. Clearly motivated only by xenophobia when you consider the losses vs. the economic benefits of being in the UK. Sometimes a people do simply want a government by the people, of the people, for the people even if they would be richer by accepting foreign influence. Some people are not as emotionally detached from that as they might pretend given their indignation at the concept.

As I said, its a powerful idea, which people have willingly risked and lost their lives for countless times through history, rightly or wrongly. All that Brexit requires is a % drop in national income.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that back in the 90s, Clinton stated "Its the economy, stupid". Its not, not anymore. And again, the fixation with foreigners is largely misleading: Brexit is about internal UK governance problems. Not so much the EU. But its still genuine in its aim.

Hold your bloody horses there.

That same country let millions of our population die from starvation and threw much of the population off their land. And you call it xenophobic.


Give over will you.

Your comparison is literally laughable

sink

Sand wrote: »

Well, we live in a country that fought a guerrilla war and then a bitter civil war to exit one of the richest and most influential great powers of the time. Clearly motivated only by xenophobia when you consider the losses vs. the economic benefits of being in the UK.

No, this is entirely wrong and completely ignores a history of conquest, colonisation and segregation/deprivation. You might as well be arguing that the native Americans were motivated by racism and xenophobia when they resisted being slaughtered and driven off their land.

PeadarCo

Sand wrote:

Agreed, but Brexit was a decision of the peoples of the UK, not the UK government or UK business (which was unified against Brexit). Brexit came as such a shock because of the detachment of the UK government from the peoples of the UK. The interests of the UK government are not those of the peoples of the UK, and vice versa.

The UK government was in touch with 48% of its population (which is a higher percentage than what's usually required to win a general election in the UK) so the government can't be described as been out of touch. On the leavers side I wouldn't describe them as been in touch either given the wide variety of post EU scenarios possible and that none was actually offered as an agreed alternative.

What is clear from the vote is that there is no overall EU position that has been decided by the "peoples of the UK". It's a highly divided country as evidenced by the voting patterns based on location. Thersea May's biggest hindrance in the the negotiations as been that she has had to try and satisfy so many different people. Remember even her own cabinet don't have an agreed position. That says how divided the UK. Its impossible for any government to be "in touch" or "out of touch" for that matter given the diversity of views.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

I guess what I'm trying to say is that back in the 90s, Clinton stated "Its the economy, stupid". Its not, not anymore. And again, the fixation with foreigners is largely misleading: Brexit is about internal UK governance problems. Not so much the EU. But its still genuine in its aim.

I wouldn't say that it doesn't apply. I'd say that it does as much as it ever did. If people think that things are going well, populists like Nigel Farage would never have gotten anywhere near being elected and Brexit would never have happened.

The Resolution Foundation has stated that Britain is on course for the biggest fall in living standards since records began in the fifties (Source). You also have a generation of people coming through who can barely afford to live in the same city as their parents. Many graduates from University who leave with over £50,000 of debt face the difficult choice of living in the prosperous southeast where owning their own home is a fantasy or seeing what they can get in their hometowns though if those are up north there's not much hope there. I live in zone 4 in a place where the rent on a one-bedroom flat is about 70% of my net monthly income.

Ultimately, if immigration had been managed better, starting with restrictions on people coming over from the East along with clampdowns on non-EU migration while managing it properly by investing in housing and services instead of this perverse obsession with austerity people would likely feel more secure and optimistic so the fearmongering and populism wouldn't have made any headway. Without that foundation.... I have no idea where the UK is heading.

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, those people who want a sense of control over their lives - as distinct from any actual control over their lives - get huffy at the idea that Brexit is and always has been fundamentally about nothing whatsoever but xenophobia.

Because, let's face it, what you're arguing boils down to nothing more noble than the idea that some people would rather be worse off than live with the suspicion that foreigners have any input into their lives.

Do you know what the evil eu are planning next ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43741545

The EU Commission plans to collect data on a range of foods, so that countries can compare brand quality more easily.

Can you believe it ? It's the thin edge of the wedge , next they'll stop food makers from being able to sell sub-standard food using the same brands in some countries :eek:



It's why the EU will continue to be a major food exporter to places like China which still bans UK beef and some milk products. Though the ban may end after the summer - it's worth about £50m a year so pocket change and may be undermined by accepting US beef in to the UK.
https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/02/01/China-to-end-decades-old-UK-beef-ban-in-six-months

flatty

PeadarCo wrote: »

Sand wrote:

You stated that the UK chose to pool their sovereignty with others in the EU. If that was a genuine choice which they freely made, then you must equally accept now that they choose not to. There will be consequences to that, but they're not going to have to die for it.

The problem is while I agree with your overall point. By leaving the EU I'd argue that the UK is giving up its sovereignty in many areas. If the government or businesses end up just co opting and updates in trade regulations made by the EU the UK will in effect be making changes that are effectively dictated by the EU either directly or indirectly. As a member of the EU the UK has a direct say on any changes.

While I agree listing the economic impacts won't change the views of many leavers. However as the EU is comfortably the UK largest trade partner and will remain so into the future. The EU will directly impact the UK with any changes it makes internally. The could end up a version of fax diplomacy where the EU decides something and the UK has no other practical option but to go along with it.

It was a failing of remain campaign to link the two.

Agree, but I think that line of argument if adopted strongly by the remain campaign at the time may just have been twisted by the leavers into further anti eu rhetoric.

flatty

Everyone involved seems to have become suspiciously quiet. I wonder if a fudge is afoot. (wishful thinking I'd say in truth)
As regards the drop in living standards, the baby boomers have absolutely had the youth over, and continue to do so.
The business lounges at UK airports are rammed with grim faced pensioners who have ridden the property boom, have retired on bomb proof pensions, have triple locked their state pensions on top, maintained their winter fuel allowance irrespective of means, and point blank refuse to sell anything to pay for their own care as they age. Meanwhile the govt comfortably found the wherewithal to remove child support from any household with a single earner on more than 60kpa.
They vote as a block, so no govt will take them on.
A leader is needed with the courage to enthuse the youth and the so called squeezed middle, means test the elderly like they do everyone else, and reinvigorate politics for all. Tony Blair did initially. Unfortunately it transpired he was a psychopath.
Until this happens, the UK will splinter and drift.
I still think the Scotland question has a way to run. They've always voted with their wallets.

Sand

listermint wrote: »

Hold your bloody horses there.

That same country let millions of our population die from starvation and threw much of the population off their land. And you call it xenophobic.


Give over will you.

Your comparison is literally laughable

I don't see that I made a comparison in the post you responded to.

sink wrote: »

No, this is entirely wrong and completely ignores a history of conquest, colonisation and segregation/deprivation. You might as well be arguing that the native Americans were motivated by racism and xenophobia when they resisted being slaughtered and driven off their land.

I'm not even arguing the Irish were motivated by xenophobia. I'm observing that arguments for sovereignty can, have and will trump economic self interest. Hence it is not necessary to say that rejection of diminished or pooled sovereignty against economic interest is motivated by xenophobia. For people it has often been enough that they put greater legitimacy in government of their own people.

The big issue I have with the Remain campaign is they never gave a vision of the UK peoples also being European peoples, so that they could see the EU as their own. Rather than a conspiracy of 27 foreign states doing things to the UK.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK government was in touch with 48% of its population (which is a higher percentage than what's usually required to win a general election in the UK) so the government can't be described as been out of touch. On the leavers side I wouldn't describe them as been in touch either given the wide variety of post EU scenarios possible and that none was actually offered as an agreed alternative.

What is clear from the vote is that there is no overall EU position that has been decided by the "peoples of the UK". It's a highly divided country as evidenced by the voting patterns based on location. Thersea May's biggest hindrance in the the negotiations as been that she has had to try and satisfy so many different people. Remember even her own cabinet don't have an agreed position. That says how divided the UK. Its impossible for any government to be "in touch" or "out of touch" for that matter given the diversity of views.

What I mean by detachment is the winner takes all nature of UK politics. 98.6% of the HoC parties supported Remain. That is a large discrepancy from the 48% of the people who ultimately voted Remain. It is a divided country: it would have been better for that division to be represented in the HoC.

As it is, the detachment has completely reversed. Now practically all the HoC supports Brexit, and the 48% who voted Remain have little or no representation.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it doesn't apply. I'd say that it does as much as it ever did. If people think that things are going well, populists like Nigel Farage would never have gotten anywhere near being elected and Brexit would never have happened.

The Resolution Foundation has stated that Britain is on course for the biggest fall in living standards since records began in the fifties (Source). You also have a generation of people coming through who can barely afford to live in the same city as their parents. Many graduates from University who leave with over £50,000 of debt face the difficult choice of living in the prosperous southeast where owning their own home is a fantasy or seeing what they can get in their hometowns though if those are up north there's not much hope there. I live in zone 4 in a place where the rent on a one-bedroom flat is about 70% of my net monthly income.

Ultimately, if immigration had been managed better, starting with restrictions on people coming over from the East along with clampdowns on non-EU migration while managing it properly by investing in housing and services instead of this perverse obsession with austerity people would likely feel more secure and optimistic so the fearmongering and populism wouldn't have made any headway. Without that foundation.... I have no idea where the UK is heading.

Agreed to an extent. I think the mass immigration, the youth who are worse off than their parents and the irrelevance of voting since 1997 (as reflected by reduced turnout) would have always led to a revolt against the parties who just promise more of the same. Even economic prosperity could serve to further build resentment rather than reduce it: "That's your bloody GDP. Not ours"

I think it would have been better for that revolt to have been in a general election rather than Brexit. And I think it will be if Brexit turns out to be more of the same: mass immigration, economic insecurity and disillusionment with politics.

Enzokk

flatty wrote: »

Everyone involved seems to have become suspiciously quiet. I wonder if a fudge is afoot. (wishful thinking I'd say in truth)

I think almost all of us on here would welcome the news of a fudge. I don't see how it is possible to get it through parliament though. There are 11 Tory "rebels" who seem to want a soft Brexit though I still doubt when push comes to shove that they will actually vote against the government that may mean a new election. They are all talk but when their jobs is on the line they will vote against their principles.

So it is easier to get a hard Brexit through parliament. The DUP wants out of the EU, they campaigned for it and paid their silver to Cambridge Analytica for it. Then you have about 60 MP's who has written a letter to Theresa May requesting a hard Brexit. This list includes JRM, Priti Patel and IDS among others.

Tory MPs' hard Brexit letter to May described as ransom note

So the same way when you look at what the UK wants from Brexit and what can actually be delivered, you realise that it is not possible to deliver what we want. Just like you cannot have immigration control without either dropping the GFA or having a sea border. Just like you cannot have leave the single market and customs union and still have frictionless trade. I see the current government not being able to deliver a fudge of a soft Brexit because of the numbers and alliances they currently have.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Agreed to an extent. I think the mass immigration, the youth who are worse of than their parents and the irrelevance of voting since 1997 (as reflected by reduced turnout) would have always led to a revolt against the parties who just promise more of the same.

I think it would have been better for that revolt to have been in a general election rather than Brexit. And I think it will be if Brexit turns out to be more of the same: mass immigration, economic insecurity and disillusionment with politics.

I forgot to mention the elderly but flatty has made a point there that I largely agree with though in fairness, the system is skewed that way because they actually vote in contrast with their younger counterparts. I recall a young woman on Question Time complaining about the elderly making such an important decision for the young only to be humiliated when she told David Dimbleby that she didn't actually vote.

I do think that this was ultimately about the economy. The reason that this didn't win Remain the referendum was because they used a very negative campaign style simply because the Scots bought it in 2014. If people were at least as wealthy as their parents, I don't think this would have happened. Immigration would have been confined to something that people would complain about sporadically.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I do think that this was ultimately about the economy. The reason that this didn't win Remain the referendum was because they used a very negative campaign style simply because the Scots bought it in 2014. If people were at least as wealthy as their parents, I don't think this would have happened. Immigration would have been confined to something that people would complain about sporadically.

It is interesting that Scotland actually didn't go with independence when they had the chance. Their choice was self governance at a cost of economic prosperity and they chose economic prosperity. That is one example where the economics argument won out. I still think it is silly to try and compare Brexit to Ireland in 1916 though, but here is a real world example where a country actually didn't go for the option of economic harm.

listermint

Sand wrote: »

I don't see that I made a comparison in the post you responded to

.

You are either taking the Mickey or being deliberately obtuse.


Your words

Sand wrote: »

Well, we live in a country that fought a guerrilla war and then a bitter civil war to exit one of the richest and most influential great powers of the time. Clearly motivated only by xenophobia when you consider the losses vs. the economic benefits of being in the UK.

I don't see how anyone can construe anything other than you saying Ireland fought with itself in an xenophobic attempt to get away from Britain who was just great... The best in the world ..




As is said before your post is laughable and your attempt to diffuse what you wrote as containing a different meaning more so.

PeadarCo

Sand wrote:

What I mean by detachment is the winner takes all nature of UK politics. 98.6% of the HoC parties supported Remain. That is a large discrepancy from the 48% of the people who ultimately voted Remain. It is a divided country: it would have been better for that division to be represented in the HoC.

Your argument is very simplistic and ignores the detail. The division was represented in the house of commons The Conservative Party were completely split. That split was the reason for the referendum in the first place. Also Labour was and is led by a person who could be at best described as lukewarm warm towards the EU and at worst a person who supported Brexit. So there were clear divisions within parties. Those divisions remain.

Do the majority of people in the House of commons support the EU yes they do. Politicians are generally not in the business of making life worse for the people they represent which all economic reports show and that current economic trends since the vote support.

trellheim

At this point in time its useful to look at what actually has been agreed* by the EU and the UK on a transition deal, and the answer is

Nothing. At this point in time, the UK Hard Brexits with no deal and a hard border.

(Agreed meaning - signed treaties and so on)

Nitrogan

The likely outcome is a hard-ish Brexit.

The way the UK has played it's hand so far is bluff and double bluff for their domestic audience while everyone else in Europe watches in amazement.

The strategy of hard core Brexiters seems to be asking the rest of the EU to solve the problems they've created.

Like the Irish border it's a problem of their making so it's their's to solve.

Tough on Ireland in the short term but perhaps a good thing in the long run, being less dependant on the UK.

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

At this point in time its useful to look at what actually has been agreed* by the EU and the UK on a transition deal, and the answer is

Nothing. At this point in time, the UK Hard Brexits with no deal and a hard border.

(Agreed meaning - signed treaties and so on)

I would not think that is so.

What has been agreed, if there is to be any agreement of any type, is that there will be no border on the island of Ireland. If there is no agreement, then it is crash out time with no plane, no trucks, and deep deep trouble. The M20 becomes a lorry park, queues of people at Heathrow and Gatwick, factories unable to open because supplies held up at Calais, etc etc.

What that means is utter chaos. Would the Brexiteers go for that? - it calls their bluff - are they made of stern stuff or will they/May fold like a map?

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

At this point in time its useful to look at what actually has been agreed* by the EU and the UK on a transition deal, and the answer is

Nothing. At this point in time, the UK Hard Brexits with no deal and a hard border.

(Agreed meaning - signed treaties and so on)

Yes, but that's always going to be the case right up until the moment a treaty is signed. "There's no treaty until there's a treaty" is true but trite; it tells us exactly nothing about the likelihood of whether there will be a treaty.

"No withdrawal agreement" is very much against the UK's interests. I still think it more likely than not that there will be a withdrawal agreement. The UK will make the concessions needed to secure one.

Nitrogan

The UK will try kick the can down the road next year as the 31/03/19 deadline approaches with no agreement but the UK-EU relationship has countless administrative and legal barriers which will only become apparent to most companies the day after the UK leaves.

The Brexit Bug.:eek:

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

And again, the fixation with foreigners is largely misleading: Brexit is about internal UK governance problems. Not so much the EU. But its still genuine in its aim.

I have to confess that I'm having trouble understanding your point. Yes, the motives that drove Brexit are almost entirely founded in internal UK governance problems. But "taking back control [from the foreigners]" and "reclaiming sovereignty [from the foreigners]" aren't expressions of a desire to improve internal governance; they're expressions of a belief that the UK's problems are caused by foreign interference, and can be solved by the removal of that interference.

Now, as anyone with the faintest hint of cop-on is already aware, that belief is delusional. You can argue that it's heartfelt and genuine, but it's still delusional. And, more to the point, even if it's delusional, it's still ipso facto xenophobic.

trellheim

Yes, but that's always going to be the case right up until the moment a treaty is signed. "There's no treaty until there's a treaty" is true but trite; it tells us exactly nothing about the likelihood of whether there will be a treaty.

"No withdrawal agreement" is very much against the UK's interests. I still think it more likely than not that there will be a withdrawal agreement. The UK will make the concessions needed to secure one.

In that spirit, though, its worth noting that the wide range of agreements-in-principle that should be pretty much set in stone by now just plain do not exist, apart from NI - things like Euratom and EASA

jonsnow

Sand wrote: »

Well, we live in a country that fought a guerrilla war and then a bitter civil war to exit one of the richest and most influential great powers of the time. Clearly motivated only by xenophobia when you consider the losses vs. the economic benefits of being in the UK. .

But the catholic irish weren't getting any of the spoils of that empire. With very few exceptions they weren't going to benefit in any real ways from that empire. They werent ever going to be in the upper ranks of british army civil service or politics etc. It is startling to see how few catholic irish were even in the top tier of the administration running Ireland as late as the 1910s.

Where were all the native Chief constables, army generals Chief Secretaries Under-Secretaries, the Lord Chancellors, the Attorney-Generals etc. Yes a few could excel in business or the arts but that wasnt enough for a class of people. We didnt have any real influence and when it was displayed on occasion in politics then westminster just changed the rules to discount whatever gains had been made.

It made sense for irish elites to revolt - they would be big fish in a small pond instead of microscopic pondlife in a lake.

EdgeCase

There's an absolutely enormous difference between the UK exiting the EU and Ireland exiting the UK and the British Empire.

1. The EU is a cooperative organisation.
2. Membership is entirely voluntary. Nobody's forced to join.
3. It's fundamentally committed to subsidiarity - decisions being made at the lowest level possible and member states being treated as partners, not possessions of some entity.
4. There's absolutely nothing blocking someone from leaving. All that's being asked of the UK is that it tries to do so in the least disruptive way for their own and the EU members' economies.

Compare that to UK and British empire.

1. Membership was based on being taken over by hostile force and integrated into the empire.
2. Exiting resulted in the British army coming in and trying to quell the rebellion, using everything from special forces to shelling.
3. There was a very aggressive trade war after the Republic left the UK and Empire that more or less destroyed it for decades. Nothing remotely like that is being suggested with the UK and EU.

Ireland exited the UK and British Empire pretty much in the aftermath of what had been horrific mismanagement of the economy and social structures after the act of union (i.e. when the Irish Government was non-existent and we were run directly by Westminster). The Famine took place under the UK Government and that is undoubtedly what led to Irish agitation for home rule and ultimately full independence, even if that was only achieved decades after the event, it had been brewing for decades.

The two situations are not remotely comparable unless someone wants to engage in fantasies about the EU being an evil empire. This is something the UK tabloids like to engage in all the time.

Peregrinus

What EdgeCase said.

Sands talks about considering "the losses vs. the economic benefits of being in the UK", which kind of presumes that Ireland benefited economically from being in the UK. In fact it did not; pretty much throughout the whole of the period of the union, 1800-1922, taxes collected in Ireland exceeded public expenditure in Ireland. Ireland, the poorest country in the Union, was subsiding wealthy England. British agricultural policy, British trade policy, etc, were all developed in response to predominantly English concerns. If they were of benefit to Ireland, this was mostly coincidental, and in fact most of the time they were not of benefit to Ireland.

That's not to say that the British never got anything right. Land purchase, for example, when they finally got around to it, was a good policy, and the establishment of the Congested Districts Board did a good deal to raise living standards for the rural poor. But, on the whole, Irish experience within the Union was, in economic terms, a sharply negative one.

People tend to assume that because the early decades of the Free State were not economically prosperous that independence was economically damaging. This doesn't follow. The economic history of Northern Ireland during this period is equally dismal. Ireland was badly governed under the Union; there is no reason to think that this would have changed had 1922 never happened.

It wasn't until after WWII, and the introduction of the welfare state, that participation in the Union started to deliver significant economic benefits to NI. The rollout of the welfare state resulted in substantial financial transfers from GB to NI which, as we know, continue to this day. But (a) this was hardly something that would have factored into views about independence in 1916-1922; nobody could possibly have foreseen it. And (b) while it has benefited NI, over the period since 1945 the Republic has substantially outperformed NI in terms of economic performance, so even allowing for these transfers we still can't say that Ireland has paid an economic price for independence.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

In that spirit, though, its worth noting that the wide range of agreements-in-principle that should be pretty much set in stone by now just plain do not exist, apart from NI - things like Euratom and EASA

They're not set in stone yet, even as agreements in principle, since they involve the UK compromising on one or more of its "red lines" - most obviously, the "no submission to ECJ jurisdiction" red line.

But we have good reason to think that they'll compromise on that red line when they have to, because they already have compromised it to the extent needed to secure the transitional period. And of course because of the transitional period, they have put off the evil day when they will have to compromise further, in order to secure indefinite participation in EASA, etc.

None of that means they won't compromise when it's necessary, though. Their pattern throughout has been to cave to the EU's position rather than expose themselves to a hard Brexit, but only to do so at the last possible minute, in order to present the ultra-Brexiteers with a fait accompli and give them no time to organise against it.

I expect this pattern to continue, unless May is deposed and replaced by an ultra-Brexiter. And I don't expect that to happen.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

(b) while it has benefited NI, over the period since 1945 the Republic has substantially outperformed NI in terms of economic performance, so even allowing for these transfers we still can't say that Ireland has paid an economic price for independence.

The economic history of Northern Ireland since 1945 can be divided in two, before 1970 and after 1970.

The demise of the shipyards and the inability to replace the industrial jobs, allied to the IRA terrorist campaign have ensured that Northern Ireland has had a dismal time since 1970.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

The demise of the shipyards and the inability to replace the industrial jobs, allied to the IRA terrorist campaign have ensured that Northern Ireland has had a dismal time since 1970.

Protestant Northern Ireland, that is.

Catholic Northern Ireland was having a dismal time before 1970 too.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

The economic history of Northern Ireland since 1945 can be divided in two, before 1970 and after 1970.

The demise of the shipyards and the inability to replace the industrial jobs, allied to the IRA terrorist campaign have ensured that Northern Ireland has had a dismal time since 1970.

I'd have to say that things started to go pear-shaped in NI long before 1970. In 1921 the two big industries were shipbuilding (in Belfast) and linen (everywhere else) but the linen industry was largely gone by the Second World War, and it had not been replaced. The War provided a temporary employment-and-spending boost which masked the problem but did nothing to solve it, and of course the dysfunctional politics of the place meant that there was no political attention given to NI's parlous economic situation, and what might be done to address it. In so far as the NI government had a trade or economic policy, it was largely driven by the desires to protect established industries and interests, and to advantage one community over the other. Growing problems were partly masked by a very high public sector employment rate - even in the 1950s, the NI public sector workforce was much bigger, proportionally, than the Republic's, and of course this is still the case. The shipbuilding industry was in steep decline by 1960, and there was little to replace it. The Troubles didn't help, of course, but NI's problems were already decades old.

PeadarCo

Peregrinus wrote:

I'd have to say that things started to go pear-shaped in NI long before 1970. In 1921 the two big industries were shipbuilding (in Belfast) and linen (everywhere else) but the linen industry was largely gone by the Second World War, and it had not been replaced. The War provided a temporary employment-and-spending boost which masked the problem but did nothing to solve it, and of course the dysfunctional politics of the place meant that there was no political attention given to NI's parlous economic situation, and what might be done to address it. In so far as the NI government had a trade or economic policy, it was largely driven by the desires to protect established industries and interests, and to advantage one community over the other. Growing problems were partly masked by a very high public sector employment rate - even in the 1950s, the NI public sector workforce was much bigger, proportionally, than the Republic's, and of course this is still the case. The shipbuilding industry was in steep decline by 1960, and there was little to replace it. The Troubles didn't help, of course, but NI's problems were already decades old.

Did Terrance O Neil leader of Night in the 1960s not get into trouble because he reached out to nationalists. One of reasons he did that to deal with the economic decay in Northern Ireland. Obviously what happened later just made the situation worse.

There's no comparison to the UKs reasons for leaving the EU and Ireland leaving the UK. Aside from the fact that they were both nationalist movements at a broad level. But the reasons, the triggers and means of leaving bare no comparison.

Leroy42

NI suffers from the same problem that Donegal does. Donegal is out of sight for most of time for ROI, it just isn't a place that many (in political terms) worry about.

The same is true for NI, worse in that the elections there tend not to have any influence on Westminster (although that is obviously not the case this time).

When looking at where to invest, NI is well down the list in terms of the UK. Of course they spend £bns in the place already, but that is mainly to maintain at rather than look to invest in it.

I feel Brexit will only make this worse. Depending on how BRexit goes, NI will either be blamed for not allowing the full Brexit, or for causing a full brexit, depending on your stance. The people in Britain, if the financial projections calling for higher costs etc come to pass, will start to look for new targets to blame. NI will be a large target. There will be quite a lot of pressure on the UK government to invest in all areas across UK, to spend the Brexit dividend and show what taking back control can achieve.

I find it difficult to envisage a scenario where NI gets investment ahead of the likes of Cornwall or the North East.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

NI suffers from the same problem that Donegal does. Donegal is out of sight for most of time for ROI, it just isn't a place that many (in political terms) worry about.

The same is true for NI, worse in that the elections there tend not to have any influence on Westminster (although that is obviously not the case this time).

When looking at where to invest, NI is well down the list in terms of the UK. Of course they spend £bns in the place already, but that is mainly to maintain at rather than look to invest in it.

I feel Brexit will only make this worse. Depending on how BRexit goes, NI will either be blamed for not allowing the full Brexit, or for causing a full brexit, depending on your stance. The people in Britain, if the financial projections calling for higher costs etc come to pass, will start to look for new targets to blame. NI will be a large target. There will be quite a lot of pressure on the UK government to invest in all areas across UK, to spend the Brexit dividend and show what taking back control can achieve.

I find it difficult to envisage a scenario where NI gets investment ahead of the likes of Cornwall or the North East.

If the payments of £10 billion a year to the EU was seen as a major argument in the movement to leave the EU, how does the current budget for NI for expenditure of £12 billion for this year passed recently in Westminster stand scrutiny?

If Brexit plays out badly as is expected by most of a non Brexiteer standpoint, where will the blame be placed, and where will the first economic cuts be felt?

The NHS will be seen as needing extra money, but NI - does it need so much support?

NI will suffer if direct spending cuts are imposed, but also if there are cuts to agriculture support, or a downturn in prices for agricultural prices resulting to a change on tariffs or food standards. All in all, NI has so many ways to suffer, they should be out there campaigning for a special status to shield them from the impending ravages of Brexit.

MBSnr

I see the UK is looking for Border Force employees in NI that must hold a British passport.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/04/16/news/only-british-passport-holders-can-apply-for-brexit-border-force-jobs-1305050/

EdgeCase

MBSnr wrote: »

I see the UK is looking for Border Force employees in NI that must hold a British passport.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/04/16/news/only-british-passport-holders-can-apply-for-brexit-border-force-jobs-1305050/

Is that not in contravention of the GFA?
It could also end up with a severely unbalanced border force in NI drawn predominantly from the unionist community, feeding straight into sectarian problems.

Who is planning this stuff ?!? Do they have some agenda to restart the NI conflict? It certainly looks that way.

FreudianSlippers

EdgeCase wrote: »

Is that not in contravention of the GFA?
It could also end up with a severely unbalanced border force in NI drawn predominantly from the unioni community, feeding straight into sectarian problems.

Who is planning this stuff ?!?

What section specifically?

EdgeCase

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What section specifically?

That's why I'm asking the question as Northern Irish residents can be Irish British or dual nationals without any issue in normal circumstances.

There's a risk of creating a the kinds of problems that plagued the RUC.

Leroy42

I don't see an issue with a country wanting their border employees to be citizens of that country, it makes sense to me. All NI people are de factor British citizens so it is in no way limiting to who can apply.

FreudianSlippers

EdgeCase wrote: »

That's why I'm asking the question as Northern Irish residents can be Irish British or dual nationals without any issue in normal circumstances.

There's a risk of creating a the kinds of problems that plagued the RUC.

There is nothing, to my knowledge, in the GFA that dictates to either country who they can and can't employ in law enforcement roles.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't see an issue with a country wanting their border employees to be citizens of that country, it makes sense to me. All NI people are de factor British citizens so it is in no way limiting to who can apply.

I'm not sure that all NI citizens have a GB passport. I would have thought the majority of the Nationalist community would have Irish passports only.

ArmaniJeanss

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is nothing, to my knowledge, in the GFA that dictates to either country who they can and can't employ in law enforcement roles.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd have thought that the sections which grant you the right to have only an Irish passport (or only a British one, or both) would by assumption mean that you can't be discriminated against for whichever decision you make?
******
Do we know if this is a change of policy, or a rule they've had for previous advertised roles?

FreudianSlippers

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm not sure that all NI citizens have a GB passport. I would have thought the majority of the Nationalist community would have Irish passports only.

Regardless of holding they are (a) entitled to it (b) UK nationals by birth in the UK.

J Mysterio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Regardless of holding they are (a) entitled to it (b) UK nationals by birth in the UK.

Entitled to it and holding it are two very different things, especially in the North. You're being a little obstuse on that point.

LeinsterDub

MBSnr wrote: »

I see the UK is looking for Border Force employees in NI that must hold a British passport.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/04/16/news/only-british-passport-holders-can-apply-for-brexit-border-force-jobs-1305050/

Is this anti EU law or is there an national security exclusion?

Leroy42

My understand is that anybody in NI can choose to claim Irish citizenship, along with their birth UK citizenship.

Whether they ever actually go out and get the passport is of course up to them, but they are not being discriminated against as the post seems to imply (well they are I guess in terms of picking only those that actually bothered to get one).

They are UK citizens. They may not like it, may not ever acknowledge it, but doesn't change it

J Mysterio

Ms Hanna, an SDLP MLA for South Belfast, said: "Having failed to put forward any serious ideas for how to address Brexit, it appears that the UK government are now finally doing some planning but for the one thing they promised to avoid.

"They should spell out clearly what form of border they anticipate these employees to be guarding.

"The apparent bar on Irish passport holders applying is exclusionary and chilling, and likely to be in breach of fair employment guidance.

"In a post-Brexit scenario, what other jobs or services are to be reserved only for, as the Home Office has put it, those with 'special allegiance to the Crown'?"

FreudianSlippers

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm no lawyer, but I'd have thought that the sections which grant you the right to have only an Irish passport (or only a British one, or both) would by assumption mean that you can't be discriminated against for whichever decision you make?
******
Do we know if this is a change of policy, or a rule they've had for previous advertised roles?

The job is "Open to UK nationals only." - it says nothing about passports.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?SID=c2VhcmNoX3NsaWNlX2N1cnJlbnQ9MSZjc291cmNlPWNzcXNlYXJjaCZqb2JsaXN0X3ZpZXdfdmFjPTE1Nzg3OTMmcGFnZWFjdGlvbj12aWV3dmFjYnlqb2JsaXN0Jm93bmVyPTUwNzAwMDAmcGFnZWNsYXNzPUpvYnMmb3duZXJ0eXBlPWZhaXImdXNlcnNlYXJjaGNvbnRleHQ9NTUzNTg3NjEmcmVxc2lnPTE1MjM4ODEyNjMtOGNmNzhmOTFkNjJlNDAwNGIwYWJkMjdkNTJiMjVhYzZjYzMwN2NmMQ==


In short, I think you're right - if challenged, a British Citizen who holds an Irish passport (and I mean for the avoidance of doubt a person born in NI) would need to be eligible to apply for the job. Now, I do agree that it seems a bit silly to play that game and argue that if one is of the opinion that they morally cannot hold both passports, that one should be able to work for the UK border force.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understand is that anybody in NI can choose to claim Irish citizenship, along with their birth UK citizenship.

Born on the island of Ireland = entitled to Irish passport.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are UK citizens. They may not like it, may not ever acknowledge it, but doesn't change it

Well, the fact that the jobs advertised say [edit: are reported to say:] "must hold a UK passport" means that if you don't acknowledge it, you can't be in the Border force.

Now, what do you think the community breakdown is between people who hold a UK passport and people who do not?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that people who refuse to have or use a British passport will generally be from the Nationalist community.

Didn't we just spend a long time trying to change from the RUC to a new PSNI which would represent both communities?

FreudianSlippers

J Mysterio wrote: »

Born on the island of Ireland = entitled to Irish passport.

Not sure what point you're attempting to make here?

The GFA allows for people to identify as British, Irish or both. It allows people who identify as any of the above to reside in NI. It provides that people shouldn't be discriminated against for this decision. It does not in any part of the GFA impose obligations on either country to allow people who do not recognise as a citizen of that nation to be afforded positions in government bodies or security forces.

As I've said above, I've looked at the job posting and it says nothing about passports; but even if it did, I think that it is not their intention to exclude NI citizens who identify as Irish.

J Mysterio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not sure what point you're attempting to make here?

The point is that youre entitled to either passport if you're born in the North. The North is supposed to be equal opportunities to both communities, it's not rocket science.

As Zube says above, this is a regressive step which will further polarise the communities.

Having a 'Border force' who are loyal to the crown and drawn from one community only is a recipe for a disaster in the North (as has been seen), and particularly at this juncture in the Brexit negotiations.