Brexit discussion thread III

BonnieSituation

Thargor wrote: »

Oh yeah I'd tax the living sh1t out of pensioners if I had my way, the lost decade we went through didn't cost them a cent, it's just a critical election in the middle of the Brexit debate wasn't the best time to make a move in that direction.

I thought I was the only one.

If I hear anyone upwards of 55 say "when I was your age..." I'm usually very close to murder.

When you were my age a house was barely 2 times your wages and you saved goodo because there were actual interest rates because without your savings banks couldn't lend. hrmpf.

---

It does show what happens when the narrative is lost. Same with Water charges here. Nothing in essence wrong with it, but sold terribly.

It's also the reason I would wager that Brexit isn't perceived in Britain as the omnishambles that it is here because of who's telling the story and who's listening to it.

EdgeCase

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the bit I don't get.

I'm not in IT, but know enough of IT projects, and projects in general to know the significant hurdles that they all face. This is an IT project on a massive scale, probably unprecedented as other borders systems would have evolved over time rather than be set up from scratch.

It also, as you pointed out, needs buy in from the EU

Given all the easily identifiable potential issues, why are the UK government continuing down this road? Politicians, by the very nature of the game, need to avoid making promises, certainly promises that may be open to not being achievable. In this case they seem to be going out of their way to make promises on things they know cannot possibly be delivered.

The only conclusion I can come to is that they are unrealistic and only care about electoral politics and have no focus on facts and pragmatic details of reality at all.

There is no logical expiation for it at all.

I would imagine the UK civil service must be absolutely furious about having to implement all of this kind of crazy stuff without any rational planning. It's really an unprecedented level of lack of logic from the UK.

LeinsterDub

Sky saying if these results are converted into a general election you'd have a hung parliament but Labour and the tories requiring 2 other parties to form a government

EdgeCase

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Sky saying if these results are converted into a general election you'd have a hung parliament but Labour and the tories requiring 2 other parties to form a government

A general election would be much more energetic and hard fought. There's no way they'd translate directly.

Kermit.de.frog

Guardian reporting the Irish Sea border is very much on the agenda.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/04/irish-border-backup-plan-suggests-checks-ports-airports-brexit

CrabRevolution

How did sky reach that conclusion? Seems a bit pointless trying to extrapolate a UK wide general election result from a vote that only covered about half of England.

They're either excluding the possibility of the SNP, DUP, Sinn Féin etc. gaining any seats (which is ridiculous), or they're assuming the results in NI,Scotland, Wales and the rest of England remain totally static and are identical to the 2017 GE results.

Capt'n Midnight

In other news, to give you an idea of how big a news story Brexit is elsewhere.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43992841

35,000 German Students complained about their English exam.


Students in the south-western state were asked to compare two cartoon images of Brexit.

flutered

Thargor wrote: »

Oh yeah I'd tax the living sh1t out of pensioners if I had my way, the lost decade we went through didn't cost them a cent, it's just a critical election in the middle of the Brexit debate wasn't the best time to make a move in that direction.

it has escaped some folks attention that one of the items pensioners had do deal with was paying tax at 70% or even more, pensioners have been shafted enough already

Sam Russell

flutered wrote: »

it has escaped some folks attention that one of the items pensioners had do deal with was paying tax at 70% or even more, pensioners have been shafted enough already

Actually, prior to the recent decade or so, interests were up to 17%, but between 7% and 12% for mortgages. Income tax was way above 50% for high earners, inflation was at 20% and higher in the 1970s. The inflation pushed ordinary earners into the very high tax rates because while wages rose, tax bands did not change. Talk to any pensioner and see how they survived.

Farmers had tough times too, but that is not news.

joeysoap

The current generation of pensioners were probably the first generation of two people working to pay mortgage. Ask any female pensioner what her take home pay was. Took a court case to get equal tax allowances for working wives, who paid crippling income tax.

Capt'n Midnight

No surprise but UK IT systems just aren't prepared , and the goalposts are still moving.

So affecting
Department for International Trade (DIT)
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)
And Customs and Border technology

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/04/it_systems_still_in_limbo_as_departments_await_brexit_policy_mps/

In a no-deal scenario, Defra is currently looking at introducing manual processes if IT systems are not ready.

...
Both the PAC and the National Audit Office have flagged concerns over HMRC's customs union IT replacement not being ready in time for Brexit, and the Home Office's border technology

Manual processing :eek:


one comment was

The Agri & Horticultural Development Board impact study reckons most british farmers..

are f**ked.

Only Pig farmers survive in all scenarios.

The only way it's BAU for "British Farming Ltd" is for DEFRA to maintain all the CAP payments.

Otherwise upland sheep, lowland dairy and cattle, arable and worst case even chicken production is all roadkill.

https://ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/Horizon_BrexitScenarios_11oct17.pdf


Interestingly enough the EU has relaxed rules for NI farmers because of bad weather and is also promising EU money to NI after Brexit for peace stuff.


What exactly is the criteria for non-nationals to stay in the UK ?
We know from Windrush that being in the UK since 1948 isn't enough.
Apparently neither is putting your life on the line AND having a five year residency.



There's something about the EU asking Belgium to offer it's UK employees citizenship - but remember that the EU made it very clear that those employees could stay as soon as Brexit was announced. (Citizenship only to be offered to UK nationals where there wasn't a conflict of interest)

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What exactly is the criteria for non-nationals to stay in the UK ?
We know from Windrush that being in the UK since 1948 isn't enough.
Apparently neither is putting your life on the line AND having a five year residency.

Being in the UK since 1948 is enough, its proving you have been there since 1948 though. Good luck to EU citizens proving they arrived in 2008 when they don't have their electricity bill from that time any longer.

An Ciarraioch

Unsurprisingly, Tony Connelly concludes that the current Tory rift will either end in the customs union, or with no deal:

https://www.rte.ie/amp/960472/?__twitter_impression=true

An Ciarraioch

The Irish Times is rather more pessimistic, however:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/increasing-pessimism-in-dublin-over-prospects-for-brexit-talks-1.3484661

Nody

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, Tony Connelly concludes that the current Tory rift will either end in the customs union, or with no deal:

https://www.rte.ie/amp/960472/?__twitter_impression=true

Actually he's wrong on the whole CU being enough; it requires membership of the single market to meet the requirements he ascribes to the CU of no border checks. Membership of the single market requires being part of EU (Turkey is in a CU for example, as is Norway and both countries have border checks).

Capt'n Midnight

A partial CU is a nightmare when it comes to rules of origin, in a country already facing a fine over mis-declared Chinese imports.

The UK is a nett importer of food, and food ingredients.

EU tariffs are €419 per tonne of white sugar, 41c a Kg. By definition the main ingredient of confectionery is sugar. So that's a huge chunk of the UK food industry limited to the domestic market unless they match the EU rules or pay tariffs.

https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/04/04/Cocoa-chocolate-and-sugar-confectionery-worth-1.1bn-to-UK-economy
UK confectionery is worth £1.1Bn
Foreign exports were £680m, 61% and mostly to EU countries


https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2017/09/28/EU-chocolate-exports-to-Canada-set-to-rise-as-tariffs-lifted
EU exports are €170.6m and thanks to CETA trade deal are set to grow as the 10% tariff is removed.
UK exports of chocolate to Canada are £21.8m. Now imagine how that works out if there's internal competition within Cadbury's where the Polish factory can undercut the UK one.

Rinse and repeat for other sectors.

Econ_

Nody wrote: »

Actually he's wrong on the whole CU being enough; it requires membership of the single market to meet the requirements he ascribes to the CU of no border checks. Membership of the single market requires being part of EU (Turkey is in a CU for example, as is Norway and both countries have border checks).

Norway is not in the Customs Union. They are in the single market. You do not need to be a member of the EU to effectively be in the Single Market. Look up the European Economic Area. Turkey, who are signed up to a partial Customs Union with the EU, are completely different and really shouldn't be spoken of in the same breath as Norway.

Connolly never states that membership of the Customs Union alone solves the problem; in fact, he has stated the precise opposite on numerous occasions.

Also, full membership of the single market is not required to avoid border checks. Membership of a comprehensive Customs Union and signing up to the regulatory standards of the Single Market is enough.

Strazdas

Econ_ wrote: »

Norway is not in the Customs Union. They are in the single market. You do not need to be a member of the EU to effectively be in the Single Market. Look up the European Economic Area. Turkey, who are signed up to a partial Customs Union with the EU, are completely different and really shouldn't be spoken of in the same breath as Norway.

Connolly never states that membership of the Customs Union alone solves the problem; in fact, he has stated the precise opposite on numerous occasions.

Also, full membership of the single market is not required to avoid border checks. Membership of a comprehensive Customs Union and signing up to the regulatory standards of the Single Market is enough.

I have my doubts this would ever be offered to the UK. Britain is acting the eejit and trying to set itself up as an open competitor and rival to the EU, having essentially told them to eff off. Why would the EU grant them any sort of special CU arrangements after this?

Econ_

Strazdas wrote: »

I have my doubts this would ever be offered to the UK. Britain is acting the eejit and trying to set itself up as an open competitor and rival to the EU, having essentially told them to eff off. Why would the EU grant them any sort of special CU arrangements after this?

Because it wouldn't be a special arrangement.

They'd have to sign up to the EU's rules and abide by them. Various EU officials (Barnier, Tusk et al) have confirmed this is an option for the UK.



As I expected to happen, it looks like there's movement within parliament on this front.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-rebel-tories-single-market-vote-theresa-may-labour-backing-a8336971.html

Seth Brundle

‘Absolute determination’: May pledges to deliver Brexit, leave customs union

Writing in the Sun On Sunday, Ms May said she had an “absolute determination to make a success of Brexit, by leaving the single market and customs union and building a new relationship with EU partners that takes back control of our borders, our laws and our money”.

She said the United Kingdom was “making good progress towards that goal and we will carry on doing so with resolution in the months ahead”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/absolute-determination-may-pledges-to-deliver-brexit-leave-customs-union-1.3485862

Leroy42

Seth Brundle wrote: »

‘Absolute determination’: May pledges to deliver Brexit, leave customs union

I really don't understand it. Why even write something like that? It is clear that the options facing UK are starting to crystalise around either continued membership (in some form) or hard Brexit.

So why even bother? She is painting herself and the country into a corner, something politicians should be usually against

Capt'n Midnight

news just in :

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44021119

A new "customs partnership" with the EU - which is fiercely opposed by some Tory Brexiteers - is still on the table, the business secretary says.

We used to have a Rotating Taoiseach here.

Current UK policy seems based on the name of the Terry Prachett character who was The Grand Vizier of the Agatean Empire, Nine Turning Mirrors. Except that fictional Grand Viziers always have achievable goals and backup plans within plans .

Strazdas

Econ_ wrote: »

Because it wouldn't be a special arrangement.

They'd have to sign up to the EU's rules and abide by them. Various EU officials (Barnier, Tusk et al) have confirmed this is an option for the UK.



As I expected to happen, it looks like there's movement within parliament on this front.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-rebel-tories-single-market-vote-theresa-may-labour-backing-a8336971.html

Are you referring to the UK remaining in the Single Market? (That's what the Independent article refers to). I was talking about the prospect of the UK being in "a customs union" (but not *the* customs union) with the EU after Brexit).

J Mysterio

Seth Brundle wrote: »

‘Absolute determination’: May pledges to deliver Brexit, leave customs union


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/absolute-determination-may-pledges-to-deliver-brexit-leave-customs-union-1.3485862

Absolute determination to pig headedly pursue Brexit at all costs. Great.

Inquitus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Absolute determination to pig headedly pursue Brexit at all costs. Great.

She doesn't have the votes, that's the simple truth, she either comes up with a compromise that works for the Tory remainers or they remain in the CU, I don't see how anything else can work, despite her protestations.

J Mysterio

What amazes me is she is trying to suggest this deal to her cabinet whereby the UK would collect tariffs for the EU. That won't ve acceptable to the EU, so why are they wasting time on it?

Dymo

Econ_ wrote: »

As I expected to happen, it looks like there's movement within parliament on this front.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-rebel-tories-single-market-vote-theresa-may-labour-backing-a8336971.html

I don't think it s serious offer.

And little chance of it happening, Tories aren't voting against their own whip cos if they do May's government could collapse and for all their talk they don't want a general election any time soon.


The purpose of this is to weaken the Labour vote by saying "look we offered Labour membership of the single market but Corbyn turned it down cos he's a Massive Eurosceptic" which will possibly dent Labour's support and give the Lib Dems a small boost, splitting the anti-Tory vote and thus helping the Tories stay in power.

Econ_

Strazdas wrote: »

Are you referring to the UK remaining in the Single Market? (That's what the Independent article refers to). I was talking about the prospect of the UK being in "a customs union" (but not *the* customs union) with the EU after Brexit).

The independent article is a separate but related point. We will see parliament edging towards demanding that the UK effectively remains in the Single Market, imo.

My reply specifically to your assertion that the EU won't offer the UK a special solution;

There won't be a special offering, but there doesn't need to be in order to solve the Irish question. It is on the table for the UK to sign up to a customs union that's very similar to *the* customs union. This, along with signing up to the regulatory rules of the single market, will allow for an open border.

I am just emphasising that this is on the table for the UK, as posters on this thread have questioned that. The EU have themselves confirmed that this is the case! The issue is that while it's good for Britain in that it will a) protects jobs and b) avoid a hard border in Ireland, they would essentially become a vassal state of the EU (abide by all the rules but have no say in the making of them) - but that is price they would have to pay for the folly of the decision to leave. It is far better for the country than a no deal scenario or a standard free trade agreement with the EU (which still imposes severe frictions on trade; which will mean many job losses)

Dymo wrote: »

I don't think it s serious offer.

And little chance of it happening, Tories aren't voting against their own whip cos if they do May's government could collapse and for all their talk they don't want a general election any time soon.


The purpose of this is to weaken the Labour vote by saying "look we offered Labour membership of the single market but Corbyn turned it down cos he's a Massive Eurosceptic" which will possibly dent Labour's support and give the Lib Dems a small boost, splitting the anti-Tory vote and thus helping the Tories stay in power.

Tories already voted against their own whip in December on the 'meaningful vote'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42346192



Many of those Tory rebels (if not all of them) would vote against the government again. Additional Tory rebels (on top of the December ones) have indicated they would vote to keep the UK in a Customs Union.

Tory whips have briefed the government that they don't have the numbers to stop it.

May's government doesn't fall if it happens btw (over the Customs Union anyway - the final deal could be a different story). She might have a leadership challenge after it but that's even unlikely because any new PM would be left in the exact same position - at the mercy of whatever parliament directs them to do.

It is now that May's government and the Brexiteers are starting to really feel the effects of the 2017 general election where the parliamentary arithmetic fundamentally changed.

LeinsterDub

Dymo wrote: »

I don't think it s serious offer.

And little chance of it happening, Tories aren't voting against their own whip cos if they do May's government could collapse and for all their talk they don't want a general election any time soon.


The purpose of this is to weaken the Labour vote by saying "look we offered Labour membership of the single market but Corbyn turned it down cos he's a Massive Eurosceptic" which will possibly dent Labour's support and give the Lib Dems a small boost, splitting the anti-Tory vote and thus helping the Tories stay in power.

But surely the fixed term parliament act means you can vote against the government without requiring a GE?

An Ciarraioch

And Foster equally seems determined to avoid remaining in the Single Market, even when it's the only way to meet her current red lines:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-44021708?__twitter_impression=true

EdgeCase

It’s all party before country for the past number of years. I suspect you’ll see a deadlocked Westminster and the whole thing crashing and defaulting into hard Brexit.

What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

I would suggest bracing yourself for a 2019 / 2020 recession though.

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And Foster equally seems determined to avoid remaining in the Single Market, even when it's the only way to meet her current red lines:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-44021708?__twitter_impression=true

Arlene Foster wants 'less rhetoric' from the EU on Brexit It's NI love, rhetoric central.


Would this be the same Arlene who has such a grasp on the reality of the situation ?

Ms Foster said she does not believe Northern Ireland has to stay in the customs union to have free-flow across the border.

Arlene Foster takes swipe at those using 'threats of violence' at Irish border as 'bargaining chip' , meanwhile earlier today Pipe bomb device found during security alert in Newtownabbey


How well are the DUP handling Brexit ?
Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hermon expects to see border poll

Capt'n Midnight

EdgeCase wrote: »

It’s all party before country for the past number of years. I suspect you’ll see a deadlocked Westminster and the whole thing crashing and defaulting into hard Brexit.

What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

I would suggest bracing yourself for a 2019 / 2020 recession though.

I disagree.

The infighting on either side isn't about preserving the party, it's about controlling what's left of the party.

And unless someone backs down it's either going to be a fudged Brexit In Name Only which won't be cheap, or Hard Brexit in a world where the EU is making deals with countries who don't want to be squeezed by the US or China.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, Tony Connelly concludes that the current Tory rift will either end in the customs union, or with no deal:

https://www.rte.ie/amp/960472/?__twitter_impression=true

From your link, it seems that from some will want the UK to decide on what they want and if it is customs checks then lets get on with it, instead of trying to raise a miracle from the ashes in October.

If the hard Brexiteers seize control of the ship of state and steer it towards the "no deal" rocks, some in Dublin will regard that with grim stoicism.

"Let them threaten, let them go through that," says one exasperated official. "Let us all know that that’s what’s on offer. But let us do that now, and not in October. Fine, pull it all down, say we’re going to walk away with no deal, put in Jacob Rees-Mogg and then we’ll all make our decisions."

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And Foster equally seems determined to avoid remaining in the Single Market, even when it's the only way to meet her current red lines:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-44021708?__twitter_impression=true

I am amazed on how she sees the negotiations at the moment. Its denial and blaming the other side. Somehow she seems to see it as the EU has an obligation to negotiate with the UK and to negotiate the UK position. The fact that the UK position will not in any way be accepted doesn't seem to register, its the EU's fault if they don't give the UK what they want.

"In August of last year, the government put forward various proposals," she said.

"We were disappointed there was not the engagement from the European Union at that time.

"What we would like to see from the European Union is less rhetoric and actually more engagement in relation to the pragmatic way forward."

There was engagement from the EU. It was said these proposals are not going to be accepted. So it seems she wants the EU to negotiate with the UK on something that will not be accepted. Well done Theresa, you have let the wolf in the hen house and now you will have to deal with it. Seems to me that actually the biggest threat to getting a deal done is not JRM and the ERG, but the DUP and their absolutely ridiculous ideas on what can be achieved.

Infini

Seth Brundle wrote: »

‘Absolute determination’: May pledges to deliver Brexit, leave customs union


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/absolute-determination-may-pledges-to-deliver-brexit-leave-customs-union-1.3485862

She's basically incompetent and paralysed by indecision. It's gonna come back to haunt her sooner than she might think. They can't stall past June without making hard decisions. It's already being reported that if there's nothing realistic and achievable by then, then the EU will basically veto any further talks with Ireland being the one to give the final say on this.

If there was anyone else there right now their only real choice in this matter would be to face down the bullshyteers and make it clear that they're the ones without any plan or support. Wanna trigger a no confidence vote? Go ahead because if you do and lose then you have nothing left. If you win then YOU get to be the one that goes down with the ship when you put ignorant BS and ideology before the greater good.

Fact is we're at the point where the real show will begin. If Britain doesnt get it's act together it will walk itself strait into the biggest politcal and economic train wreck in decades and they will only have themselves to blame. Short of Parliament basically outright rebelling against Downing Street and basically voting to stop brexit and rerun the referendum there wont be any stop to this stupidity until its too late.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

But surely the fixed term parliament act means you can vote against the government without requiring a GE?

Well, it makes it easier for government backbenchers to vote against the government without triggering a GE. But it's not a slam-dunk; as I understand it, the government can designate a particular matter a matter of confidence, in which case if the government loses the vote there can be a GE. So if the government fears that it might lose a vote it can raise the stakes by declaring that the issue is one of confidence.

Of course, doing that is tantamount to an admission by the government that it fears losing the vote, which means that it's not in control of its backbenchers, which makes the government look weak. So while it's a tactic that might save the government today, it can also undermine it in the medium to longer term. So governments have to think carefully before doing this.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

What amazes me is she is trying to suggest this deal to her cabinet whereby the UK would collect tariffs for the EU. That won't ve acceptable to the EU, so why are they wasting time on it?

She's dealing with one problem at a time. She's negotiating this with her party; if she wins that negotiation she'll worry later about the negotiation with the EU.

It's true that the EU have indicated some pretty negative vibes about the customs partnership, but they haven't formally rejected it, and her hope is that they will look at it a second time if she can present it as something that will definitely fly at the UK end, that the party is behind. It can help to keep the Irish border open, which is a big plus, and it also requires close alignment on regulatory standards, and even sets limits on how far the UK can diverge from the common customs tariff. (The UK can set lower tariffs than the EU, but not higher.) So it's kind of semi-membership of the customs union, and semi-membership of the single market. It's a real attempt by her to address EU concerns and priorities.

The main objections to it are that it's certainly cumbersome, it's legally problematic and there's a high chance that it's practically unworkable.

Bigus

It's all our fault now and not just Brexit,

Ireland has ‘undermined Britain for over 100 years’

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-has-undermined-britain-for-over-100-years-1.3486305

Wanderer78

Bigus wrote:

Ireland has ‘undermined Britain for over 100 years’

Only another 700 years to go then, to balance things!

Kermit.de.frog

Bigus wrote: »

It's all our fault now and not just Brexit,

Ireland has ‘undermined Britain for over 100 years’

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-has-undermined-britain-for-over-100-years-1.3486305

Not what was said. Non story.

Peregrinus

What he said was that the issue of Ireland has undermined British governments for over 100 years.

Which is of course quite correct. It was the dominant political issue in the UK Parliament for most of the second half of the nineteenth century. Parties split over it, governments fell over it, elections were won and lost over it.

laoch na mona

anyone elso noticing how Defence cooperation is being left out of the Brexit deal?

The UK and France are working to ensure that theis cooperation just continues as it has, rhetoric aside the UK is the biggest military player and anyone in the defence community knows that any European measures not including the UK won't have the military clout they want or be acceptable to NATO

Peregrinus

laoch na mona wrote: »

anyone elso noticing how Defence cooperation is being left out of the Brexit deal?

The UK and France are working to ensure that theis cooperation just continues as it has, rhetoric aside the UK is the biggest military player and anyone in the defence community knows that any European measures not including the UK won't have the military clout they want or be acceptable to NATO

Defence issues fall out of the Brexit deal quite naturally.

As we know, Brexit day will be followed by a transition period, and during that period a lot of things to do with customs, the single market, free movement, etc, will remain unchanged. But one thing that will change is that the UK will no longer be a member state, and will have no seat at the Council of Minister. And Foreign Policy and (to the extent that the EU has a defence aspect) Defence are very much driven by the Council of Ministers, and decisions are made by unanimity. The UK is going to be completely out of the loop, and the transition period will do nothing to change that.

There is to be a separate security and defence deal between the EU and the UK. This is supposed to be dealt with on a fast track but, to be honest, I don’t know how much progress is actually being made. That could be because of the nature of the subject matter; no-one wants to talk about it. Or it could be because, in fact, not much progress has been made.

The are looking for a creative model of association for the UK to participate in EU defence. The UK wants “deep and special” ties with the EU. No suprise there, but also not much clue as to what is involved, given how vague the UK is about the “deep and special” relationships it aspires to in other matters. France is a bit cagey, possibly spotting an opportunity to assume a leadership role itself. It’s true that the UK is a signficant military power, but it’s also true that it is much more focussed on NATO, and on its own post-imperial commitments, than it is on European military missions. The French are hinting that, when it comes to European defence issues, the UK are barely pulling their weight at present, and if they departed altogether that would be a loss but a manageable one - “We can compensate”.

The UK hasn’t signed up to PESCO and, presumably, isn’t going to. There will be mechanisms for non-members to participate in particular PESCO projects on a “pay-to-play” basis, but these haven’t been fleshed out yet. It remains to be seen whether there’ll be a special deal for the UK in this regard but, even if there is, the UK must be somewhat marginalised as a non-member state.

Econ_

Peregrinus wrote: »

What he said was that the issue of Ireland has undermined British governments for over 100 years.

Which is of course quite correct. It was the dominant political issue in the UK Parliament for most of the second half of the nineteenth century. Parties split over it, governments fell over it, elections were won and lost over it.

I agree that is what he meant. It's his use of the word 'undermined' to articulate that point is why people are taking issue with it.

That word is closely associated with words like frustrate, sabotage, subvert, twart etc.

So the implication by using the word 'undermining' is 'bad Ireland have unnecessarily caused trouble for us in the past'

Peregrinus

I think also he stumbled over the point when he was making it - that's live television for you - and this helped to contribute to misunderstanding.

But it is a misunderstanding. Correctly understood, he's not saying anything controversial or objectionable. We should probably keep our anger for those who are.

An Claidheamh

Peregrinus wrote: »

What he said was that the issue of Ireland has undermined British governments for over 100 years.

Which is of course quite correct. It was the dominant political issue in the UK Parliament for most of the second half of the nineteenth century. Parties split over it, governments fell over it, elections were won and lost over it.

True, but Moggs then went on to claim we've been "undermining" them for hundreds of years before that as well - referring to our occupation and struggle for existence.
Is that what he meant?
In planet Britain that's being "undermined".

It does prove once again the ignorance in the British media.
And I do agree it was not controversial if phrased properly.
However, another Adam Boulton type moment all the same.

Yet we're forced to believe we've "so much in common" with these clowns.

Surely any other country/media would acknowledge that they invaded us!???!, during that exchange just for clarity.

On another note, this shows how important it is to keep history in the Junior Cert lest we end up like across the water - ignorant of the past.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/higgins-is-right-that-history-should-be-compulsory-for-junior-cert-1.3484386%3fmode=amp

Capt'n Midnight

laoch na mona wrote: »

anyone elso noticing how Defence cooperation is being left out of the Brexit deal?

The UK and France are working to ensure that theis cooperation just continues as it has, rhetoric aside the UK is the biggest military player and anyone in the defence community knows that any European measures not including the UK won't have the military clout they want or be acceptable to NATO

Odd that you mention France. They've a habit of going it alone when it comes to military hardware.

How much is it costing them ?

Can they UK replicate this, or is BAE and others too linked into the US ?

I'm not really sure it's a Brexit cost though.

EdgeCase

Peregrinus wrote: »

What he said was that the issue of Ireland has undermined British governments for over 100 years.

Which is of course quite correct. It was the dominant political issue in the UK Parliament for most of the second half of the nineteenth century. Parties split over it, governments fell over it, elections were won and lost over it.

Well, you could also argue that due to centuries old over centralisation of power, lack of a fair federal democracy, a rigid and formalised class system that undermined reform, blatent sectarianism and an obsessive need to control and posses other countries that the British government experienced long periods of completion dysfunction.

However, I think they prefer to imagine that Ireland is just an annoying awkward thing that won't do what it's told.

It's the same with the "negotiation" with the EU. The UK side is being utterly arrogant and uncompromising, and in this case doesn't even recognise that it has no leverage. So the negotiation have gone no where.

It's sheer arrogance and I think it will ultimately sink the UK. It's sad, as it's only a segment of British politics that has this particular issue it it seems to bubble up every now and again and cause chaos.

If you were writing a school report about England's right leaning establishment : "doesn't play well with others" would crop up a lot.

An Ciarraioch

Paisley is obviously trolling, but aside from the glaring annual subvention paid to NI, the economic value of Irish resources appropriated by England and later the UK for centuries would far exceed the converse:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/993239156527714307

EdgeCase

Revisionist history at its finest, considering "Britian" as a political entity didn't even exist for much of that 1000 years.