Brexit discussion thread III

MBSnr

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

The article is a little misleading. As you say, UK nationals are allowed and anyone is a UK national if born in NI. However in Section 1.7 of the below having a British passport seems to be the way to prove that you are a UK national...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536134/civil_service-nationality_rules_20_june__2016.pdf

Hurrache

EdgeCase wrote: »

Is that not in contravention of the GFA?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Do we know if this is a change of policy, or a rule they've had for previous advertised roles?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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

J Mysterio wrote: »

"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'?"

To work on a lot of the UK state contracts, particularly around security and government, you need to be a UK citizen, plus get a specific level of security clearance. My own company gets lots of contracts with the UK gov and we have to staff them with UK citizens and operate them out of the UK itself, nothing can be off shored. This border force contract probably falls under the same conditions.

I don't think there's an ulterior or political motive behind the requirements, always has been par for the course for a lot of them.

You can apply for any job in the Civil Service as long as you are a UK national or have dual nationality with one part being British. In addition, about 75% of Civil Service posts are open to Commonwealth citizens and nationals of any of the member states of the European Economic Area (EEA). The remainder, which require special allegiance to the state, are reserved for UK nationals.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationality-rules

J Mysterio

Yes Hurrache, but are the contracts you speak of based in mainland Britain? Or are they domestic to Northern Ireland?

In this instance, they are specifically advertising for Northern Ireland Border officials.

Hurrache

Usually on the 'mainland', but that's just because the departments the contracts are for are based there. Same rules would still apply for Northern Ireland though, as they would for Wales and Scotland. A Northern Ireland Border force is a border force for the UK.

FreudianSlippers

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yes Hurrache, but are the contracts you speak of based in mainland Britain? Or are they domestic to Northern Ireland?

In this instance, they are specifically advertising for Northern Ireland Border officials.

I've linked to the job posting. The Home Office is hiring any UK national for a job based in Belfast; there is no such thing as a "Northern Ireland Border official".

It's irrelevant anyway where the position is based.

J Mysterio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

there is no such thing as a "Northern Ireland Border official".

Hopefully not. I guess that remains to be seen.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's irrelevant anyway where the position is based.

Not in the context of the requirements.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

We agree that Brexit is almost entirely founded in internal UK governance problems. You then go on to assert taking Brexit is not about internal UK governance problems but is instead about xenophobia. I'm struggling to understand that leap.

If your understanding is true, then Brexit rightly or wrongly will be the end of the problem. The foreigners/EU are removed, the xenophobes will be satisfied. My view is that Brexit is not the end of the problem: if anything the UK political classes are busy implementing the Global Britain Brexit *they* want and which nobody voted for. This is the problem in my view: top down, managed democracy without choices, policies without discussion and as we've seen 52% of the population with 1.2% representation in the HoC. Hence the political disillusionment and strife will continue, but I don't suppose they'll ever hold a referendum in the UK again.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

We agree that Brexit is almost entirely founded in internal UK governance problems. You then go on to assert taking Brexit is not about internal UK governance problems but is instead about xenophobia. I'm struggling to understand that leap.

I thought it was fairly obvious: the reality is that the problems people face are rooted in internal governance issues; the perception is that those problems are the result of EU membership.

Sand

listermint wrote: »

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

I'm not diffusing what I wrote.

EdgeCase wrote: »

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

I didn't compare the two situations.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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. .

People are getting their bee in a bonnet about something I haven't said.

I responded to a post by OscarBravo. This post.

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.

So I responded to that post which connected control/sovereignty with xenophobia. As if there could be no other motivation.

I did say Ireland is a country made independent by people who valued national sovereignty over any other concern. Which was good because for the next 50 years Ireland was 1) utterly economically beholden to the UK with no representation in the UK at all, 2) culturally, politically and socially strangled by the Roman Catholic Church which dominated the political class, 3) getting smaller despite Catholic birth rates as Irish people left the country in droves seeking the economic benefits of the UK and other countries. Irish per capita GDP shrank from 56% of the UK figure in 1922, to 49% in 1957.

Still national sovereignty was the priority, to the point a bitter and ruinous civil war was fought rather than tolerate any compromise of that sovereignty. Now this is not a comparison, its an observation about the lengths people have gone to securing national sovereignty. I could have used any independence movement, even contemporary ones like Catalonia. The point is the desire for sovereignty does not require xenophobia to explain it.

People can value national sovereignty over other concerns, primarily economic. Someone who prioritises sovereignty and control is not wrong simply because others prioritise economic outcomes. You may not agree with them (I don't - I think Brexit is a disastrous mistake) but dismissing it as xenophobia is tiresome and wrongheaded.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought it was fairly obvious: the reality is that the problems people face are rooted in internal governance issues; the perception is that those problems are the result of EU membership.

And you perceive the reality, but those who voted for Brexit do not?

murphaph

Sand wrote: »

And you perceive the reality, but those who voted for Brexit do not?

In a lot of cases, yes. I (for my sins) frequent the Daily Express comments sections (and if I'm not mistaken so does OscarBravo) and there is shocking ignorance to be found there.

Anthracite

Sand wrote: »

Irish per capita GDP shrank from 56% of the UK figure in 1922, to 49% in 1957.

Still national sovereignty was the priority

Perhaps the bold bit of the first sentence, plus some devastating famines, total disenfranchisement, and generally being treated as scum, explains the second sentence?

Is the UK experience of the EU similar?

Sand

Anthracite wrote: »

Perhaps the bold bit of the first sentence, plus some devastating famines, total disenfranchisement, and generally being treated as scum, explains the second sentence?

Is the UK experience of the EU similar?

Between 1922 and 1956?!?

Sam Russell

Sand wrote: »

Between 1922 and 1956?!?

No but there were significant problems generated for example by the Irish banks refusing to lend money to the Irish Government. There were also problems dealing with the London Government, and obviously problems with the border.

Even the Anglo-Irish FTA of 1966 was much more favourable to Britain than Ireland. We had no negotiating power for the first 50 years of this state. It is only since joining the EU that things have improved.

listermint

Sand wrote: »

I'm not diffusing what I wrote.



I didn't compare the two situations.



People are getting their bee in a bonnet about something I haven't said.

I responded to a post by OscarBravo. This post.



So I responded to that post which connected control/sovereignty with xenophobia. As if there could be no other motivation.

I did say Ireland is a country made independent by people who valued national sovereignty over any other concern. Which was good because for the next 50 years Ireland was 1) utterly economically beholden to the UK with no representation in the UK at all, 2) culturally, politically and socially strangled by the Roman Catholic Church which dominated the political class, 3) getting smaller despite Catholic birth rates as Irish people left the country in droves seeking the economic benefits of the UK and other countries. Irish per capita GDP shrank from 56% of the UK figure in 1922, to 49% in 1957.

Still national sovereignty was the priority, to the point a bitter and ruinous civil war was fought rather than tolerate any compromise of that sovereignty. Now this is not a comparison, its an observation about the lengths people have gone to securing national sovereignty. I could have used any independence movement, even contemporary ones like Catalonia. The point is the desire for sovereignty does not require xenophobia to explain it.

People can value national sovereignty over other concerns, primarily economic. Someone who prioritises sovereignty and control is not wrong simply because others prioritise economic outcomes. You may not agree with them (I don't - I think Brexit is a disastrous mistake) but dismissing it as xenophobia is tiresome and wrongheaded.

Its really not, its entirely xenophobic and whatever wrong headed means..

And your comparison of the EU and Britain in with Ireland and Britain.

Well, it writes its own tale. Awe they dont do tears laughter emoji's

blanch152

Sand wrote: »

I did say Ireland is a country made independent by people who valued national sovereignty over any other concern. Which was good because for the next 50 years Ireland was 1) utterly economically beholden to the UK with no representation in the UK at all, 2) culturally, politically and socially strangled by the Roman Catholic Church which dominated the political class, 3) getting smaller despite Catholic birth rates as Irish people left the country in droves seeking the economic benefits of the UK and other countries. Irish per capita GDP shrank from 56% of the UK figure in 1922, to 49% in 1957.

Still national sovereignty was the priority, to the point a bitter and ruinous civil war was fought rather than tolerate any compromise of that sovereignty. Now this is not a comparison, its an observation about the lengths people have gone to securing national sovereignty. I could have used any independence movement, even contemporary ones like Catalonia. The point is the desire for sovereignty does not require xenophobia to explain it.

People can value national sovereignty over other concerns, primarily economic. Someone who prioritises sovereignty and control is not wrong simply because others prioritise economic outcomes. You may not agree with them (I don't - I think Brexit is a disastrous mistake) but dismissing it as xenophobia is tiresome and wrongheaded.

That is an interesting analogy.

Enzokk

Sand wrote: »

I'm not diffusing what I wrote.



I didn't compare the two situations.



People are getting their bee in a bonnet about something I haven't said.

I responded to a post by OscarBravo. This post.



So I responded to that post which connected control/sovereignty with xenophobia. As if there could be no other motivation.

I did say Ireland is a country made independent by people who valued national sovereignty over any other concern. Which was good because for the next 50 years Ireland was 1) utterly economically beholden to the UK with no representation in the UK at all, 2) culturally, politically and socially strangled by the Roman Catholic Church which dominated the political class, 3) getting smaller despite Catholic birth rates as Irish people left the country in droves seeking the economic benefits of the UK and other countries. Irish per capita GDP shrank from 56% of the UK figure in 1922, to 49% in 1957.

Still national sovereignty was the priority, to the point a bitter and ruinous civil war was fought rather than tolerate any compromise of that sovereignty. Now this is not a comparison, its an observation about the lengths people have gone to securing national sovereignty. I could have used any independence movement, even contemporary ones like Catalonia. The point is the desire for sovereignty does not require xenophobia to explain it.

People can value national sovereignty over other concerns, primarily economic. Someone who prioritises sovereignty and control is not wrong simply because others prioritise economic outcomes. You may not agree with them (I don't - I think Brexit is a disastrous mistake) but dismissing it as xenophobia is tiresome and wrongheaded.

I don't understand what you are trying to say now or then. This is what you posted;

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.

It seems to me that you are trying to link Ireland and its independence and the UK voting to leave the EU and seeking its own independence. Do I have that right? Why else talk about the fight for independence in the same post as the UK voting for Brexit?

A few problems with that, firstly, the UK has not been invaded. How can they fight for independence when they are control of their own laws, set their own immigration rules for countries from outside of the EU and set their own money policies? You will have a tough time trying to convince people that free movement of goods and labour is equal to having people invade your country, but to me that seems to be the comparison you are making.

Also, have a look at the history of some of the countries of the Commonwealth. There has been wars waged against the economic benefits in many countries. Now maybe this is just me, but if all those countries keep fighting the one country, as strong as it was at the time, then surely you have to start wondering why they keep voting against their own economic benefit?

Again, the only way you could have made a case for mentioning the fight for independence in South Africa, Zimbabwe, India and Ireland from the mighty British Empire is if the British had to fight EU soldiers to regain their independence. Seeing as that isn't remotely the case, seems like you have made the wrong comparison between Ireland "voting" against its economic interest and the UK voting to leave the EU.

The decision to fight for independence isn't made on a whim by countries. It usually comes about after years of pilfering from the UK for those countries resources. The EU hasn't pilfered anything from the UK, it probably made the UK the 5th biggest economy (at the time of the vote) through the shared vision of the EU.

On the point of focusing on immigration being misleading, I have yet to see credible arguments for Brexit other than controlling immigration. It will not be better for the economy. It will not mean they will suddenly have control of their own laws, because they had it all the time. The only thing Brexit will give them that people still clearly articulate is to control immigration. That is what most Brexit voters seems to want, to get their country back. If they have control of their laws and their own money and had control of the colour of the passport, what is left that they didn't have? Control of the foreigner, i.e. xenophobia. It really is that simple.

Anthracite

Sand wrote: »

Between 1922 and 1956?!?

So you think I am arguing that national sovereignty was an important issue for Irish people in the early 1900s because they anticipated famines in the the 1950s?

Are are you being disingenuous because you can't refute the point?

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

And you perceive the reality, but those who voted for Brexit do not?

Is that a rebuttal?

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me that you are trying to link Ireland and its independence and the UK voting to leave the EU and seeking its own independence. Do I have that right? Why else talk about the fight for independence in the same post as the UK voting for Brexit?

A few problems with that, firstly, the UK has not been invaded. How can they fight for independence when they are control of their own laws, set their own immigration rules for countries from outside of the EU and set their own money policies? You will have a tough time trying to convince people that free movement of goods and labour is equal to having people invade your country, but to me that seems to be the comparison you are making.

Also, have a look at the history of some of the countries of the Commonwealth. There has been wars waged against the economic benefits in many countries. Now maybe this is just me, but if all those countries keep fighting the one country, as strong as it was at the time, then surely you have to start wondering why they keep voting against their own economic benefit?

Again, the only way you could have made a case for mentioning the fight for independence in South Africa, Zimbabwe, India and Ireland from the mighty British Empire is if the British had to fight EU soldiers to regain their independence. Seeing as that isn't remotely the case, seems like you have made the wrong comparison between Ireland "voting" against its economic interest and the UK voting to leave the EU.

The decision to fight for independence isn't made on a whim by countries. It usually comes about after years of pilfering from the UK for those countries resources. The EU hasn't pilfered anything from the UK, it probably made the UK the 5th biggest economy (at the time of the vote) through the shared vision of the EU.

On the point of focusing on immigration being misleading, I have yet to see credible arguments for Brexit other than controlling immigration. It will not be better for the economy. It will not mean they will suddenly have control of their own laws, because they had it all the time. The only thing Brexit will give them that people still clearly articulate is to control immigration. That is what most Brexit voters seems to want, to get their country back. If they have control of their laws and their own money and had control of the colour of the passport, what is left that they didn't have? Control of the foreigner, i.e. xenophobia. It really is that simple.

The circumstances may be different, the method of leaving may be different, but the point he makes about the underlying principles has some validity.

Reasserting or regaining sovereignty at an economic cost is a factor common to a number of independence movements, including Brexit and Ireland departing the UK.

The British people believe that Brexit gives them back control of a lot more than immigration, just as many Irish people believed the same. You also have to remember that De Valera's vision of dancing and the crossroads, neutrality and economic self-sufficiency was borderline xenophobic.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

The circumstances may be different, the method of leaving may be different, but the point he makes about the underlying principles has some validity.

Reasserting or regaining sovereignty at an economic cost is a factor common to a number of independence movements, including Brexit and Ireland departing the UK.

The British people believe that Brexit gives them back control of a lot more than immigration, just as many Irish people believed the same. You also have to remember that De Valera's vision of dancing and the crossroads, neutrality and economic self-sufficiency was borderline xenophobic.

In general national independence movements tend to assert (and believe) that national independence will increase prosperity, not reduce it.

This doesn't mean that their desire for independence is motivated by a desire for increased prosperity; just that they expect or hope that increased prosperity will result. They generally think that national independence will be beneficial, and they see no reason to make an exception for economic matters. So I don't think it's entirely fair to say that they pursue indepencence at an economic cost; they might pursue independence accepting that there will be some disruption and some economic risk, but they usually expect the economic consequences to be, on the whole, and in the long run, beneficial.

And when we are talking about the national independence of countries which have been subjected to colonial occupation/exploitation, this isn't on the face of it a wildly unreasonable assumption.

Nor is the assumption necessarily proved false if, in fact, there are economic difficulties after independence. There is, after all, no reason to assume that life would have been an economic bed of roses, but for independence. In the Irish case in particular, Ireland was notably badly governed from 1800-1922 (and by "notably" I mean that commentators from third countries remarked on how badly Ireland was governed, compared with Britain) and Northern Ireland continued to be very badly governed after 1922. Yes, some of Dev's policies worked out very badly, but there's no reason to assume that if Ireland had remained wholly within the UK the experience would have been any better. The UK, after all, suffered a general strike, hunger marches during the Depression, etc, etc, during this period. What eventually led to improvement in the conditions of the working classes in the UK was rearmament and the Second World War, but (a) the War had enormous long-term economic costs too, not to mention its human costs, and (b) even the beneficial effects of rearmanent/the war would have been less felt in predominantly agricultural Ireland. I think there's a strong case to be made that, without independence in the south, Ireland would have fared even worse economically than in fact it did.

But the economic history of Ireland is probably a bit off-topic here. In the context of this thread, the interesting question is, to what extent can we draw parallels between the struggle for Irish independence a century ago, and Brexit today? And the answer, I think, is only to a limited extent. Yes, both represent a drive to assert national autonomy at the cost of wider transnational links. But the wider context is completely different; the "wider transnational links" from which Ireland was seeking to escape were basically a colonial status in which it has no national institutions or national democracy, and in which its economic performance was already very poor. The UK's relationship with the EU is not remotely similar to a colonial one and the UK has thriving national institutions and national democracy and, until Brexit, was arguably one of the more successful economies in Europe.

Peregrinus

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

It does, though. If you follow the link you give, it takes you to a web page about the position to be filled. That web page has a further link to the "candidate information pack", which is a .pdf document which, among other things, sets out the eligibility criteria for the job. There are two relevant criteria; to be a candidate you must:

- be a UK national;

- hold a full and valid British passport which you MUST present at interview.

So, yeah, in the NI context this definitely discriminates against those NI citizens who exercise their recognised right to identify with Irish nationality. And it seems inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the GFA to impose an additional requirement for employment in a public position that it's not enough to be a UK national; you have to be a UK national who chooses to hold a British passport. The whole point of the GFA is that both identities are equally legitimate, equally respected by the state. Why should a UK national who chooses to hold an Irish passport rather than a British one be excluded from this employment?

Enzokk

blanch152 wrote: »

The circumstances may be different, the method of leaving may be different, but the point he makes about the underlying principles has some validity.

Reasserting or regaining sovereignty at an economic cost is a factor common to a number of independence movements, including Brexit and Ireland departing the UK.

The British people believe that Brexit gives them back control of a lot more than immigration, just as many Irish people believed the same. You also have to remember that De Valera's vision of dancing and the crossroads, neutrality and economic self-sufficiency was borderline xenophobic.

The principle may be the same, but the example he was using was terrible. No-one forced the UK to join the EU, they voted for it. I don't remember the British Empire canvassing the local population of any of the countries they invaded on whether they wanted to do join the empire. That is why people are calling out the example as terrible. To try and show that other countries, specifically Ireland, also made decisions to leave a stronger union just like Brexit is ridiculous when you consider the history of the two "partnerships" before the break-up was decided or acted upon.

United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

The principle may be the same, but the example he was using was terrible. No-one forced the UK to join the EU, they voted for it. I don't remember the British Empire canvassing the local population of any of the countries they invaded on whether they wanted to do join the empire. That is why people are calling out the example as terrible. To try and show that other countries, specifically Ireland, also made decisions to leave a stronger union just like Brexit is ridiculous when you consider the history of the two "partnerships" before the break-up was decided or acted upon.

United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975

Strictly speaking, the Act of Union with Great Britain was passed by the Irish parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800

You may argue about the legitimacy of that Parliament, but it was an active decision to join the UK.

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

Strictly speaking, the Act of Union with Great Britain was passed by the Irish parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800

You may argue about the legitimacy of that Parliament, but it was an active decision to join the UK.

You make it sound like it was the parliament that we know today.

Here is a brief summary of the time;

However, as the Irish elected assembly gained in power, it paradoxically became less representative. In 1613, in order to approve the seizure of Catholic owned land for ‘plantations’ or settlement of Protestant colonists, electoral boundaries were redrawn to give Protestants a majority. Catholics (around 80% of the population) were banned from holding public office (from the House of Commons in 1691 and from the Lords in 1716) and banned from voting altogether in 1728.[1]

This began to change in 1793, when Catholics and all male property holders of over 40 shillings were allowed to vote for the Irish Parliament. Still at this stage only Protestants could hold office. Constituencies were also very unevenly distributed.

http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/04/08/democracy-in-ireland-a-short-history/

Its kind of like saying that since South Africa had a parliament then obviously the black population had voted for apartheid!

Sand

listermint wrote: »

Its really not, its entirely xenophobic and whatever wrong headed means..

And your comparison of the EU and Britain in with Ireland and Britain.

Well, it writes its own tale. Awe they dont do tears laughter emoji's

Again, I didn't compare them. I'll leave you to continue tilting at your strawman.

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me that you are trying to link Ireland and its independence and the UK voting to leave the EU and seeking its own independence. Do I have that right? Why else talk about the fight for independence in the same post as the UK voting for Brexit?

No, that's incorrect. We're not talking about the fight for independence. We are talking about people prioritising national sovereignty over any other concern. In the post I responded to, that was taken as evidence of xenophobia. I observed the Irish case of prioritising national sovereignty over any other concern.

That's it.

A few problems with that, firstly, the UK has not been invaded.

Well, I have not made any comparison because the situations are clearly different. Irish sovereignty required a 2 year war with over 2,000 civillians dead and another 1,250 combatants and significant damage, including the burning of Cork and the custom house. This was then followed up with a civil war which caused further damage most notably to the four courts, at least 250 civillians killed and anywhere between 2000 and 4000 combatants killed, including a series of bitter atrocities where both sides executed prisoners in tit-for-tat revenge.

Brexit is clearly not the same situation because it doesn't require any war, any civil war, deaths of thousands of civilians, the burning of London or the degeneration of the government into revenge killings.

Clearly, the two situations are very different. Brexit requires a lot less from those who prize national sovereignty.

On the point of focusing on immigration being misleading, I have yet to see credible arguments for Brexit other than controlling immigration. It will not be better for the economy. It will not mean they will suddenly have control of their own laws, because they had it all the time. The only thing Brexit will give them that people still clearly articulate is to control immigration. That is what most Brexit voters seems to want, to get their country back. If they have control of their laws and their own money and had control of the colour of the passport, what is left that they didn't have? Control of the foreigner, i.e. xenophobia. It really is that simple.

Immigration by itself is not a credible argument for Brexit: the UK has full authority over immigration law.

I don't think its so revolutionary that a people, who view themselves as a people, determine that their government should be entirely their own. I don't think that requires extraordinary justification.

Anthracite wrote: »

So you think I am arguing that national sovereignty was an important issue for Irish people in the early 1900s because they anticipated famines in the the 1950s?

Are are you being disingenuous because you can't refute the point?

No, I'm struggling to linking massive famines to the economic performance of Ireland between 1922 and 1957.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is that a rebuttal?

A rebuttal presupposes evidence has been presented. You made an assertion, with no evidence.

blanch152 wrote: »

The circumstances may be different, the method of leaving may be different, but the point he makes about the underlying principles has some validity.

Reasserting or regaining sovereignty at an economic cost is a factor common to a number of independence movements, including Brexit and Ireland departing the UK.

This guy gets it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In general national independence movements tend to assert (and believe) that national independence will increase prosperity, not reduce it.

I think its truer to say economic prosperity is irrelevant in the thinking of national independence movements. No one ever died for quarterly GDP gains. They have fought and died for a sense of a wider group they belong to.

J Mysterio

There is just no comparison to be made between Ireland breaking from the UK, and Brexit.

It's laughable.

MBSnr

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought it was fairly obvious: the reality is that the problems people face are rooted in internal governance issues; the perception is that those problems are the result of EU membership.

I'd have to agree. It's a generalised statement but for some it was a protest vote against Gov. austerity and cuts. Throw in a massive biased right wing media and the poorer areas of the UK tended to vote Leave. You'd have to wonder how much of this was due to the Gov's lack of funding over the years in these areas - effectively the Tories inadvertently securing a Leave vote by mismanagement.

Enzokk

Sand wrote: »

No, that's incorrect. We're not talking about the fight for independence. We are talking about people prioritising national sovereignty over any other concern. In the post I responded to, that was taken as evidence of xenophobia. I observed the Irish case of prioritising national sovereignty over any other concern.

That's it.


Well, I have not made any comparison because the situations are clearly different. Irish sovereignty required a 2 year war with over 2,000 civillians dead and another 1,250 combatants and significant damage, including the burning of Cork and the custom house. This was then followed up with a civil war which caused further damage most notably to the four courts, at least 250 civillians killed and anywhere between 2000 and 4000 combatants killed, including a series of bitter atrocities where both sides executed prisoners in tit-for-tat revenge.

Brexit is clearly not the same situation because it doesn't require any war, any civil war, deaths of thousands of civilians, the burning of London or the degeneration of the government into revenge killings.

Clearly, the two situations are very different. Brexit requires a lot less from those who prize national sovereignty.

Immigration by itself is not a credible argument for Brexit: the UK has full authority over immigration law.

I don't think its so revolutionary that a people, who view themselves as a people, determine that their government should be entirely their own. I don't think that requires extraordinary justification.

I think the vote is simple to explain. Some people may not like it, but it is rooted in xenophobia. People were afraid of the foreigner next door (but would you believe when their lives depended on it they were okay with the nurse from the EU or doctor saving their lives) so when Nigel Farage told them that they would be able to stop people from coming in after leaving the EU but they could be fine financially just like Norway people wanted to believe. At the same time Boris Johnson said that the NHS will have more money, another worry for people in the UK, but his vision contradicts Nigel's vision.

So two messages from people asking for the same vote. Is it any wonder they thought it would be okay to throw out the foreigners? You had people showing them how it would be all right in the end. People were looking for breadcrumbs and it was being provided to them, and those crumbs fed their prejudices. They were being promised control and prosperity.

Just listen to the calls when people are asked to explain why they voted for Brexit, it almost always comes down to immigration. This is true for native Brits as well as recently qualified British citizens from the likes of India and Philippines.

You tried to say this really isn't so because if it is then Ireland were also xenophobic towards the British in 1916. But other than two countries are leaving a stronger union, what can be compared? You yourself post that the situations aren't comparable, so why try to make the point?

MBSnr

Enzokk wrote: »

Just listen to the calls when people are asked to explain why they voted for Brexit, it almost always comes down to immigration. This is true for native Brits as well as recently qualified British citizens from the likes of India and Philippines.

Exactly. Half my family is in the UK. Of those that voted Leave (all the older ones generally - my cousins all my age or younger tended to vote Remain) most when pushed to explain why, mentioned immigration in the first few sentences. In fact the more vocal of those were Irish relatives that had moved over there in the 1970s... The fact that they were immigrants as well, being totally lost on them.

Seth Brundle

I'm not sure if it is as simple as that. Britain has always held the EU in contempt whereas over here, we generally were happy to show our links with Europe.
Look at projects part funded by Europe. They have help transform how Ireland looks today. Most people here realise how much better off we are since we joined the Europe. With EU funded projects, the signage and documentation proudly mentioned how it was part funded by the EU, etc.
In Britain, they didn't tend to do broadcast the help provided by Europe. People don't know what the EU has done for them and decided how to vote (in part) based on ignorance.

Sam Russell

Just a recent example of the above.

When the EU directed that credit card surcharges were to be abolished, the UK Gov announced that the charges were to be abolished - no mention of the EU.

The Conservative party put out a tweet claiming it was they that abolished the charges.

So if it is good - we did it, if it is bad - the EU are to blame.

Hurrache

Yeah, there were a few tweets posted at the time from various members of the UK government claiming credit and subsequent ones in which they were called out on it.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

You make it sound like it was the parliament that we know today.

Here is a brief summary of the time;

http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/04/08/democracy-in-ireland-a-short-history/

Its kind of like saying that since South Africa had a parliament then obviously the black population had voted for apartheid!

Britain leaving the EU is utterly different to Ireland leaving the UK. In the 1960s, you were twice as likely to be unemployed in Northern Ireland if you were Catholic. That's the kind of discrimination that fuelled the WoI. Not xenophobia. Irish people may have become poorer from a basic statistical point of view, but the average Irish person was much better off in an independent republic rather than a monarchy where they were second class citizens. Their own country where they weren't discriminated against on the basis of their religion or ethnicity and where, relatively, there was much fairer distribution of wealth and where they could feel pride in their heritage, culture and independence. I don't think I've ever met an Irish person who would prefer to go back being part of the UK under Her Majesty.

MBSnr

^^^
I grew up in the UK and there was a distinct start of negativity towards the EU from the British press - probably from the late 1980s and certainly from the bendy banana law in 1994, with the papers reaction to it. Facts weren't required and nearly everyone was convinced that the EU was meddling due to the way it was incorrectly reported. Even I was at the time. It was a common consensus by a vast amount of people was that the EU was bad. Certainly seemed to sow the seed and perhaps hasten the dislike for the EU. The Conservatives were in power at this time as well ('79-'96) and they did nothing as I recall to try and change the perception of the EU by the British public.

As Sam says, there was never any real public acknowledgement of any grant/infrastructure project etc being part funded by the EU - maybe a small plaque hidden someplace. I only recall education trumpeting partial funding by the EU during those years. It's as if the British Gov at the time didn't want to admit that it was getting money from the EU.

Hurrache

MBSnr wrote: »

certainly from the bendy banana law in 1994, with the papers reaction to it. Facts weren't required

Yes, the ban on bendy bananas is a myth.

Nody

Hurrache wrote: »

Yes, the ban on bendy bananas is a myth.

Well; sort of. The bendy bananas law was live from 1995 for the highest quality of premium bananas had to conform and only for that top tier of bananas and was replaced in 2011 but there was a restriction on how bent the top quality bananas were allowed to meet the top tier classification.

Hurrache

Yes, but there was no ban, they were just classed differently.

Sam Russell

Hurrache wrote: »

Yes, but there was no ban, they were just classed differently.

There was a ban - I read it in the Daily Express, so it must have been a ban.

I know a couple who were in an unfamiliar part of the UK and saw a very impressive building and thought that it must be part of an EU funded project because it looked too good for the district. Now they knew all such projects carry a plaque announcing the funding so they went hunting for it, and found it. It very small and was on the reverse side of a pillar, out of sight, about 12 inches off the ground.

It is ironic that the count for Wales was conducted in a magnificent building funded by the EU.

ArmaniJeanss

MBSnr wrote: »

^^^
I grew up in the UK and there was a distinct start of negativity towards the EU from the British press - probably from the late 1980s and certainly from the bendy banana law in 1994, with the papers reaction to it. Facts weren't required and nearly everyone was convinced that the EU was meddling due to the way it was incorrectly reported. Even I was at the time. It was a common consensus by a vast amount of people was that the EU was bad. Certainly seemed to sow the seed and perhaps hasten the dislike for the EU.

The Yes Minister episode Party Games is always quite a good time guide to when this sort of thing happened.
In the episode there's an invention of an almost wholly untrue bit of EEC bureaucracy (the Euro Sausage/Offal Tube), built up to be a big deal in the press purely so that a pm candidate can be the hero when he wins out over the 'bureaucracy'.
This was in 1984 so a good few years before you estimated.

Econ_

RTE’s Tony Connolly gave a lecture on Brexit last week - here’s a link to the video podcast if anyone is interested. Some good insight and info that hasn’t been reported in it.

https://ucc.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=fb994727-0fa4-4e48-aec5-a8c400d62f4b

Seth Brundle

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is ironic that the count for Wales was conducted in a magnificent building funded by the EU.

The Welsh? Sure some of them don't know a good thing...

MBSnr

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Yes Minister episode Party Games is always quite a good time guide to when this sort of thing happened.
In the episode there's an invention of an almost wholly untrue bit of EEC bureaucracy (the Euro Sausage/Offal Tube), built up to be a big deal in the press purely so that a pm candidate can be the hero when he wins out over the 'bureaucracy'.
This was in 1984 so a good few years before you estimated.

I was far too young (ahem cough) to be interested in politics then....

Rjd2

That Windrush story is a scandal.
"Come over here and help us and rebuild our country and **** off"

basically, ffs even Nigel Farage thought it was to much.

And earlier we had John Mann read out rape threats of his wife from far left loons.

Where is this new party please?

Capt'n Midnight

Rjd2 wrote: »

That Windrush story is a scandal.

It won't inspire confidence in other people who intend to stay on in the UK the their situation won't change in future. Add in bureaucratic incompetence and bias and it's one more problem that EU citizens don't need.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43794366

Paulette Wilson came to Britain from Jamaica aged 10 in the late 1960s. Now 61, she says she was confused when she received a letter saying she was in the country illegally.
...
Mr Bryan, who came to Britain from Jamaica in 1965, was held in a detention centre twice for nearly three weeks last year.

Capt'n Midnight

Sill no good economic news from Brexit. The best news is "we aren't going backwards" The UK economy isn't catching up. India GDP will overtake soon. The International Monetary Fund has forecast that 2018 will be the strongest year for global growth since 2011.

In its new assessment of the World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicts growth this year and next of 3.9%.

However, it warned that performance could be curtailed by trade barriers.

For the UK, the IMF has made a modest upgrade for growth this year to 1.6%. For next year, the forecast has been slightly reduced, to 1.5%.

Sounds like good news , but it's more like "things aren't getting worse"
The year-long squeeze on wages is nearing an end, official figures for the three months to February suggest.

Household consumption accounts for about 60% of the value of the UK economy.
...
"But wage growth is still weak. Workers are £14 a week worse off than they were in 2007 - with pay packets not expected to return to their pre-crisis level until 2025."

Migrant workers from the EU have accounted for almost all of the employment growth in Northern Ireland since 2008, official figures suggest.

The number of EU-born people in employment rose by 40,000.

Meanwhile the number for UK-born people fell by 10,000.

This is just spin. Pound remains close to post-Brexit high because it's against dollar. The reality is that "The pound fell sharply against the euro following the referendum and has not been back above €1.20 since."


Compare the above to down here.
Spending by consumers in the Irish economy is set to break through the €100bn level this year, according to the Central Bank.
...
Forecasting a continuation of strong economic growth, the Central Bank sees another 99,000 people in work by the end of next year, when unemployment will be below 5%.
...
The Central Bank also forecasts GDP growth of 4.8% for this year and 4.2% next year.

ambro25

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Rjd2 wrote: »

That Windrush story is a scandal.

It won't inspire confidence in other people who intend to stay on in the UK the their situation won't change in future. Add in bureaucratic incompetence and bias and it's one more problem that EU citizens don't need.

The Home Office has been sending thousands of identical 'get out' letters to decades-settled EU immigrants since June 2016, just as illegally/"in error".

Though it would have been difficult for the HO to burn EU immigrants' ID cards and passports, like it allegedly did with the Windrush landing cards under May's ministerial stewardship 4 years ago or so.

Any EU and non-EU immigrant still in the UK, who can't see the font size 100, day-glo writing on the wall, urgently needs an eyesight check.

This won't get any better soon (the HO will just turn to the next target of convenience in the name of political expediency) and exiting the ECHR is next for May & Co.

EdgeCase

I tend to agree, these 'accidents' are getting a bit ridiculous.
This is the same agency that put out "Go Home Vans" in areas with high levels of immigration a few years ago.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

I tend to agree, these 'accidents' are getting a bit ridiculous.
This is the same agency that put out "Go Home Vans" in areas with high levels of immigration a few years ago.

And it’s part of the same policy.

The treatment of the Windrush generation isn’t an error in the system; it is the system. May promised a “hostile environment”. This is what a hostile environment looks like.

On edit: Just to be clear, "hostile environment" isn't a pejorative term used by critics of the policy; it's the government's own term, and it turns up in lots of official documents. This is a government with a policy of hostility. The policy mainly consists of a variety of measures which requires people to prove their immigration status in contexts where this wasn't previously necessary - when applying for a driving licence, opening a bank account, applying for a job, signing a lease, registering at a GP practice, etc. If you can't document your status, this gets reported to the Home Office. Basically, if the government has failed over the years to keep records which establish your immigration status (or if it had those records but destroyed them some years ago) then this becomes your problem. You may actually have indefinite leave to remain in the UK; you may have settled status; you may indeed be a British citizen. But if you can't prove the circumstances that give you this status, you're treated as an illegal immigrant. You lose your job, have your bank accounts frozen, are denied healthcare, cannot rent a home, get threatening letters from the Home Office, get picked up and put in in immigration detention, get deported. The government admits that it does not know how many people with a right to remain in Britain have been deported, nor how many British citizens have been deported.

There has been no evaluation of the policy since it started to be rolled out (in 2014). Indeed, evaluation is hardly possible, since the policy never had any announced targets or outcomes. Nor was it based on any evidence that pre-existing measures were insufficient or ineffective. The government's justification for the policy has never been evidence-based in this way; the justification asserted is simply that the policy is right in principle, and that it is popular.

In short, if you set about designing a policy guaranteed to turn into a train wreck, you'd come up with something quite like this. In the context of Brexit, the timing of the train wreck is, um, inauspicious. Given the barely-concealed xenophobia that underpinned at least a significant part of the Brexit campaign, the EU is understandably concerned about the status and rights of EU nationals in the UK after Brexit. The UK has already made a number of concessions to try to reassure the Union about this, but the current circumstances must call into question the competence and the dependability of the British government to follow through on and honour the commitments it makes with regard to EU citizens. And offers of indefinite leave to remain and/or settled status for EU nationals won't carry the heft they should, given this vivid demonstration of how the UK, as a matter of current policy, treats people who already have those statuses.

The draft withdrawal agreement already contains language providing for an "independent authority" to monitor and enforce EU citizens rights post-Brexit, with the powers that the European Commission now has in this regard. Expect renewed focus on this, and a desire on the EU side to see it beefed up.

LuckyLloyd

I watched the Channel 4 reporting on this on Monday and couldn’t shake the feeling of a society that is completely losing its way, and losing repeated battles to its meanest and most narrow minded elements.