Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

So the British government has no idea or projections about how Brexit will effect the economy given different scenarios. That's criminally negligent.

I think there's an explanation.

Most of the Cabinet, remember, and most of the Parliamentary party, were remainers during the referendum campaign. If they're now Brexiters, that's either a cynical pretence because they think it politically necessary/politically advantageous, or a principled acceptance that The People Have Spoken, And We Must Obey; take your pick. Either way, though, they are not enthusiastic about brexit, and the reasons for their original "remain" stance as as strong as they ever were. So they are committed to the implementation of a policy which they believe to be bad for the country. That's a pretty depressing situation to find yourself in.

I imagine that they expect that, if they were to research the impact of brexit, the evidence would confirm that, yes, it's definitely bad for Britain. (All the various independent research efforts have come to this conclusion.) Committed as they are to negotiating and implementing brexit, this is not knowledge which it would be advantageous to have. There is nothing you could do with this knowledge anyway - having it would only steer you towards a course which, for reasons of pragmatism and/or principle, you have already ruled out.

Therefore, you ensure that you are not burdened with this useless and embarrassing knowledge by not doing any brexit impact assessments.

As they say, if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In quoting my posts here, you make the incorrect assumption that my references to "logic and fact" pertained to economic matters only. Not at all. There are many ways in which the EU is beneficial regarding identity, culture and immigration. Indeed, I made exactly that point in a subsequent post about how Remain made a crucial mistake in not focussing on the positives of EU membership.

In that context, you are wrong when you assert that views on Brexit cannot be significantly shifted. A poll last week showed that 51% now want to stay in the EU whereas only 41% want to leave.

Prof, you're quite right. There has been a shift in the remain/leave split in the polls. Last week's 51/41 split may be an early sign of a more significant shift, or it may turn out be an outlier, but if we look here at opinion polls over time there definitely has been a shift.

Nevertheless the fact-based arguments (both economic and other) seem to me to be so overwhelming, and to be be so well born out by unfolding events, that we are left wondering how there was ever a "leave" majority, and why there isn't now a massive "remain" majority. I'm still driven to the conclusion that, to a substantial extent, people's positions on this are not being driven by the facts, and there's a limited extent to which their opinion can be shifted by fact-based arguments.

(FWIW my guess is that even the shift we have seen so far is not largely a response to the factual arguments, but rather to the manifest incompetence and ineptitude of the UK government in its pursuit of implementing the "leave" vote. People are questioning the faith which they have reposed in leaders who are advocating or implementing Brexit.)

Peregrinus

Apparently Premier League players in the UK are demanding contracts denominated in euros. They require the clubs to insulate them from the risk of further slides in sterling.

Samaris

Bit embarrassimg for Davis et al that some of his "work" has actually been released after the ridiculous level of secrecy with these documents.

"Shh, the EU mustn't know that an island nation fishes...we want to blindside them with it!"

Not as embarrassing as having actually produced this Wikipedia Britain cull rather than something useful though.

Enzokk

So the blue passport will return for the UK. This is the type of control people were looking for.

'Iconic' blue British passport to return after Brexit

The fact that the UK chose to change passport colour is neither here nor there I suppose, nor that passport cover colour seems not to be a EU requirement.

Croatian passport

mickoneill31

Enzokk wrote: »

So the blue passport will return for the UK. This is the type of control people were looking for.

It's an expensive change alright and could have been done for free :P
but at least Nigel is happy.

Peregrinus

This comes as no surprise. Restoring the US-coloured passport has been a brexiter fetish for years.

Even if it weren’t, I think the UK would be expected to change their design anyway. Issuing passports confusingly similar to EU passports would probably piss off the EU.

ThisRegard

I hate to taint my browser but this is hilarious

BRITS will get their iconic dark blue passports back after Brexit, ministers announce today — in a stunning campaign victory for The Sun.

The Government has agreed to our demand to scrap the EU’s burgundy model, enforced on the nation from 1988.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5192542/uk-dark-blue-passport-back/

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/944121990008528897

murphaph

Easily worth a 10% drop in GDP. Depressing how this irrelevant stuff excites so many people. I mean, who cares what colour a passport is?!

listermint

These guys are out looking for any win, literally anything that displays this farce in a positive light.

This is all they have come up with.

Leroy42

murphaph wrote: »

Easily worth a 10% drop in GDP. Depressing how this irrelevant stuff excites so many people. I mean, who cares what colour a passport is?!

As has been said, I don't think the colour of the passport was a mandate (although I assumed it was) but even if it is and Brexit will give them back the old colour, I wonder will that keep them happy when they are forced to queue with all the non-EU others when travelling outside the UK.

Those queues always seem to move really slowly whenever I'm at the airport and I really notice the difference when I travel further abroad and have no 'EU channel'.

Enzokk

listermint wrote: »

These guys are out looking for any win, literally anything that displays this farce in a positive light.

This is all they have come up with.

Yet here we are talking about the colour of a passport and not that shambles of those papers they released yesterday where they are able to tell you that an aircraft has wings and fishing has employment on the coast.

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

As has been said, I don't think the colour of the passport was a mandate (although I assumed it was) but even if it is and Brexit will give them back the old colour, I wonder will that keep them happy when they are forced to queue with all the non-EU others when travelling outside the UK.

Those queues always seem to move really slowly whenever I'm at the airport and I really notice the difference when I travel further abroad and have no 'EU channel'.

I believe the Burgundy is an EU directive and Croatia has an exemption until a certain date, but I may be wrong on that.

However, other countries (Russia springs to mind) have Burgundy too, so the UK would not be forced to change.

Kind of pathetic when these silly things are being trumpeted as the benefits of Brexit. It's ironic also insofar as many Brits who are just getting by (the ones most likely to have voted for this fiasco) will be made so poor by Brexit that foreign travel will become a distant memory for them, never mind the technical problems with flights and airline safety regulation falling into a huge gray area.

Did amyone watch BBC Parliament last night? They were showing the Brexit Select Committee hearings from the 20th with Prof Anand Menon, Prof Michael Dougan and Stephen Booth? They cut through so much bulls**t in that session it was refreshing. This crap should have been discussed like this BEFORE the referendum was ever called. Shame on Cameron.

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

I believe the Burgundy is an EU directive and Croatia has an exemption until a certain date, but I may be wrong on that.

However, other countries (Russia springs to mind) have Burgundy too, so the UK would not be forced to change.

Kind of pathetic when these silly things are being trumpeted as the benefits of Brexit. It's ironic also insofar as many Brits who are just getting by (the ones most likely to have voted for this fiasco) will be made so poor by Brexit that foreign travel will become a distant memory for them, never mind the technical problems with flights and airline safety regulation falling into a huge gray area.

Did amyone watch BBC Parliament last night? They were showing the Brexit Select Committee hearings from the 20th with Prof Anand Menon, Prof Michael Dougan and Stephen Booth? They cut through so much bulls**t in that session it was refreshing. This crap should have been discussed like this BEFORE the referendum was ever called. Shame on Cameron.

Do you know whether it is a guidance or a directive? I am trying to find out but I cannot find the information on what it is. What is a fact is that the UK will lose the benefit of going to any other EU countries embassy in a foreign country and asking for assistance if there is no UK presence in that country. That for the colour of a passport.

I watched some of that hearing. That is where I think Prof Menon mentioned that the only way to avoid a border of any sort is to be part of the customs union and the single market. I think he framed the single market and the customs union as one as as being only in one doesn't really make sense as you are following the rules of the other so you can just go with either none or both.

ThisRegard

Enzokk wrote: »

Do you know whether it is a guidance or a directive?

According to this guy...

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/943977351087566848

Blowfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They didn't even do a summation of the financial numbers they listed in the reports. Have they even decided which areas to prioritise ?

compare to this from over a year ago
http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2017/Documents/An_Exposure_Analysis_of_Sectors_of_the_Irish_Economy%20_final.pdf

or this from 24 Jun 2016 , the day after the Referendum
https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0624/797814-ireland-reax/

Even earlier than that, given that a referendum was a part of their campaign promises, the ESRI began working on it as soon as the Tories won the election, resulting in this analysis being published in November 2015.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

I believe the Burgundy is an EU directive and Croatia has an exemption until a certain date, but I may be wrong on that.

However, other countries (Russia springs to mind) have Burgundy too, so the UK would not be forced to change.

Kind of pathetic when these silly things are being trumpeted as the benefits of Brexit. It's ironic also insofar as many Brits who are just getting by (the ones most likely to have voted for this fiasco) will be made so poor by Brexit that foreign travel will become a distant memory for them, never mind the technical problems with flights and airline safety regulation falling into a huge gray area.

Did amyone watch BBC Parliament last night? They were showing the Brexit Select Committee hearings from the 20th with Prof Anand Menon, Prof Michael Dougan and Stephen Booth? They cut through so much bulls**t in that session it was refreshing. This crap should have been discussed like this BEFORE the referendum was ever called. Shame on Cameron.

Sure what would they know? Cue a Gove comment on experts in 3...2...1...

Enzokk

Here is the link for that session.

Exiting the European Union Committee
Wednesday 20 December 2017 Meeting started at 9.22am, ended 11.32am

murphaph

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the link for that session.

Exiting the European Union Committee
Wednesday 20 December 2017 Meeting started at 9.22am, ended 11.32am

Well worth watching.

CelticRambler

From the Guardian article, "The humiliation of having a pink European Union passport will now soon be over and the United Kingdom nationals can once again feel pride and self-confidence in their own nationality when travelling" says Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell. Does that humiliation extend to carrying a pink EU drivers' licence? If the colour of a travel document is that important, presumably UK nationals will still lack pride and self-confidence while driving their highways and byways with a pink photocard in their wallet? :pac:

As an Irishman living in England for ten years, mostly in the 90s, it always puzzled me that there was no sense of pride in English national identity. True Anglo-Saxon (baby) names were ridiculed, likewise traditions such as Morris dancing and the Green Man. There's no celebration of a national day; the closest thing to an expression of national pride is Last Night of the Proms ... (and when working this summer in Tory Heartland about 60% of my English work colleagues didn't know what that phrase referred to :eek: )

Contrast that with being Irish outside of Ireland. Almost anyone can tell you that our colour is green, the dogs in the streets know our day is Saint Patrick's Day (even if the French have trouble pegging it to within ten days of 17th March :rolleyes: ), our national symbol is the (four-leaf??? ) shamrock, we love Guinness and whiskey (:( ) ... and who has ever been asked the colour of their passport?

Regardless of the involvement of the tabloids and political agitators such the DUP, I think it is this chronic lack of national British pride/self-confidence that drove and carried the Brexit vote; and like any gawky teenager, the current government has shut itself in it's room, shouting "go away, I hate you!" As the responsible adult in the household, the EU seems to be doing what most parents do: tolerate the insults, repeat the "my-house-my-rules" mantra, and wait out the strop ...

Sam Russell

I think the problem with British nationalism is the total lack of identity in the usual expressions of nationalism.

In most countries (such as France) the name of the country in common parlance comes from one of two sources.

The first is what the call themselves on their stamps (in France it is France) wich in the British case is - well nothing. They have a profile of the Queen - so no help there.

The second one is the name they give their national soccer team. Again in France it is 'France'. For Britain it is - no wait - they do not have a British team, they have four teams. No wonder they do not win too many international competitions.

So no help there. There is a problem with most commentators who confuse British with English, many using the two terms as synonymous, which they are not. Then there is the confusion of the term English to refer to the language and English relating to the people. Now the French speak French, but everyone speaks English.

Then there is the currency run by the Bank of England. The head of state is the Queen of England who is also head of the Church of England, the established church. Obviously there are many other examples such as English law. Even the Conservative Party is an English political party with very little support outside of England. In the 2010 election, the Conservative had a single seat in Scotland and no seats in NI.

So with such a confused identity, no wonder there is confusion with identity when it comes to politics. In these terms Brexit is just a deep seated cry for a definite identity and a desire for a return to Rule Bitannia, and those wonderful days when the British Empire ruled the world.

MBSnr

Sam Russell wrote: »

The second one is the name they give their national soccer team. Again in France it is 'France'. For Britain it is - no wait - they do not have a British team, they have four teams. No wonder they do not win too many international competitions..

Exactly - Look at the 1966 World Cup final. England played but most of the flags waved were British ones.
The English view themselves as British. Therefore British = English. It's just not the English that do this. Australians often refer to the Poms meaning the English and not the original meaning of British. I saw a facebook post the other day from friends in Oz. They captioned it "Drinks with the Poms, Scots and the Welsh...."

Scotland, Wales and NI are seemingly an afterthought throughout the "Old Empire" as well. I think that's why it's hard for the English to understand and identify with those in NI who believe they are more British than the English.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

Easily worth a 10% drop in GDP. Depressing how this irrelevant stuff excites so many people. I mean, who cares what colour a passport is?!

I hear that for a bit extra you can get one that plays Land of Hope and Glory when its opened.

swampgas

On passports, and passport colours ... Jack Dee did a comedy routine on this which, although tongue-in-cheek, was also quite perceptive about how some in the UK perceive foreigners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA4v1H-tY_M

I worked with an English lad, northern, he had a real chip on his shoulder about London (he had to move south to find work) and also about his European co-workers. He expressed annoyance one day that England didn't celebrate St. Georges day. The funny thing was he didn't know anything about St. George, and assumed that he must have been a historical English character.

I printed off the Wikipedia page on St. George and left it on his desk. Poor lad was gutted to find out that the English flag (he had a huge one over his desk) was first used in Genoa, and that St. George himself was most likely a Roman of Greek parentage.

The more I think about it the more I seem to think that the English in particular don't really have a well defined sense of identity. They are fractured along class lines, North/South lines, ethnic lines, and religious lines. How much of this has affected Brexit is hard to say but there does seem to be some connection between pro-Brexit attitudes and a desire to restore a sense of lost pride in being English.

flaneur

The reason for the Croatian passport not adopting the EU harmonised colour recommendation are local politics. It looks too much like the old Yugoslav passport and the modern Serbian one.

There's no obligation to have EU passports exactly the same colour, it was just a harmonisation recommendation.

Vronsky

flaneur wrote: »

The reason for the Croatian passport not adopting the EU harmonised colour recommendation are local politics. It looks too much like the old Yugoslav passport and the modern Serbian one.

There's no obligation to have EU passports exactly the same colour, it was just a harmonisation recommendation.

Interestingly, I believe adopted by the darling of the right, Ms Thatcher.

Creol1

Vronsky wrote: »

Interestingly, I believe adopted by the darling of the right, Ms Thatcher.

I don't think she'd have appreciated the "Ms" -- but maybe that was deliberate.:p

If you were a pragmatic individual who viewed brexit as a disaster and a reckless act of misguided nationalsm, you would possibly be very very very happy for the UK to exercise as much of this nationalist tendandcies in the pursuit of pretty meaningless stuff like this.

This might indeed be exactly the type of ****e and 'unnecessary drama' you might support as it is almost 'free' compared to some of the issues that are due to arrive as this process continues...

Rjd2

mickoneill31 wrote: »

It's an expensive change alright and could have been done for free :P
but at least Nigel is happy.

The passport contract was up for renewal and from all accounts it would have cost the same no matter what colour it was.

It doesn't excuse Brexit as the ****show as it is, nor should the colour matter,but so many false and stupid takes today on twitter from both left and right makes you despair for the future of politics but heh "hot takes =retweets"

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/22/british-passports-will-return-iconic-blue-cover-brexit-confirmed/

A £490 million contract to redesign and produce a new version of the document was announced earlier this year.

https://twitter.com/mrjohnofarrell/status/944124469337116672



But the fact remains they could have changed the colour anytime they wanted to.

An Ciarraioch

A new Panelbase poll puts support for Scottish independence at 49% - how high will it go by 2019?

https://wingsoverscotland.com/anybodys-game/

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/22/british-passports-will-return-iconic-blue-cover-brexit-confirmed/

Telegraph Reporters
22 DECEMBER 2017 • 12:22PM
British passports will return to having blue covers after Brexit, it has been confirmed.

The new design, which will no longer include the European Union insignia, will replace the burgundy cover that has been a feature of the UK passport since the 1980s once Britain leaves the EU in 2019.

Home Office Minister Brandon Lewis said the new passport will be the "most high-tech and secure we have ever seen", making it more resistant to fraud and forgery.

A £490 million contract to redesign and produce a new version of the document was announced earlier this year.

https://twitter.com/mrjohnofarrell/status/944124469337116672



But the fact remains they could have changed the colour anytime they wanted to.

So another week and a half that the red bus will have to park up before the NHS gets its few millions. I wonder will it every get out of the bus park, what with the bill for Brexit already running at £750 million and counting - and that is before they do a single impact assessment. [ Edit: I am not counting the £50 billion exit bill - that takes the wheels off the bus.]

I hope someone is keeping a tot of all these stray costs. No-one mentioned them before the referendum.

CelticRambler

The £490 million would have been spent anyhow, as the passport was due for a scheduled re-design. However, the fundamental features are mostly decided by external bodies, specifically the ICAO which specifies the size and shape so that airports don't have to adapt to wacky individual designs, and the US who specify what (minimum) security features must be included otherwise they won't let you in.

So yes, they're paying a huge amount to "design" something that can really only be a different colour, but for once, it's not a Brexit expense.

Creol1

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A new Panelbase poll puts support for Scottish independence at 49% - how high will it go by 2019?

https://wingsoverscotland.com/anybodys-game/

Panelbase appears to be a company that runs polls among people who join its website and are given a financial reward; this is not a scientific sample and moreover the question is clearly framed in a prejudicial manner.

mickoneill31

CelticRambler wrote: »

The £490 million would have been spent anyhow, as the passport was due for a scheduled re-design. However, the fundamental features are mostly decided by external bodies, specifically the ICAO which specifies the size and shape so that airports don't have to adapt to wacky individual designs, and the US who specify what (minimum) security features must be included otherwise they won't let you in.

So yes, they're paying a huge amount to "design" something that can really only be a different colour, but for once, it's not a Brexit expense.

How is it half a billion to redesign the passport. That number can't be correct.

Leroy42

All that is true CelricRambler, except that the brexiteers were out in force yesterday claiming it as a win.

So they then must take the costs too. You can't have honesty in only one direction.

Nody

mickoneill31 wrote: »

How is it half a billion to redesign the passport. That number can't be correct.

It's the cost to design it as per certain standards (paper has to have 3D images and be only a limited type of high quality hard to copy etc.), print it etc. for a duration of 5 or 10 years. In essence it's buying a SaaS contract except the delivery is a physical product.

Sam Russell

Well I think it is a Brexit expense.

It is part of the RED WHITE and BLUE Brexit as promised by T May.

They had the RED lines.

Then they had the WHITE flag as they agreed in full to the EU demands for phase I.

Now they have the BLUE passports.

A true RED WHITE AND BLUE Brexit.

Peregrinus

And of course some of the costs will be recouped from the charges made for the issue of passports.

It's a cost which would have been incurred, Brexit or no Brexit. Brexit is merely the occasion for the redesign to extend to a new colour for the cover, but I can't imagine that materially increases the cost of the project.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

And of course some of the costs will be recouped from the charges made for the issue of passports.

It's a cost which would have been incurred, Brexit or no Brexit. Brexit is merely the occasion for the redesign to extend to a new colour for the cover, but I can't imagine that materially increases the cost of the project.

You have to wonder whether a change of colour may have been on the cards in any case, Brexit or not. Even if the vote was to remain it would have been a gesture to those that voted to leave.

Sam Russell

Of course they will be a sudden increase in cost when they have to change 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to 'The United Kingdom of England and Wales' but that is a while away.

sink

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course they will be a sudden increase in cost when they have to change 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to 'The United Kingdom of England and Wales' but that is a while away.

It could not be called 'United Kingdom' anymore as wales is not a Kingdom in it's own right, Wales is legally a part of the Kingdom on England.

If the English are being generous they could adopt the title 'The Kingdom of England and Wales', but the default name for the remaining rump of the UK would be 'The Kingdom of England'. It would be entirely up to the 95% majority of English voters to decide the name of the country that Wales would belong to. Giving Wales such prominence in the countries official title would ruffle a few feathers in places like Cornwall with it's distinct ethnocultural character and Yorkshire which is almost the same size as Wales and has a higher population.

Sam Russell

sink wrote: »

It could not be called 'United Kingdom' anymore as wales is not a Kingdom in it's own right, Wales is legally a part of the Kingdom on England.

If the English are being generous they could adopt the title 'The Kingdom of England and Wales', but the default name for the remaining rump of the UK would be 'The Kingdom of England'. It would be entirely up to the 95% majority of English voters to decide the name of the country that Wales would belong to. Giving Wales such prominence in the countries official title would ruffle a few feathers in places like Cornwall with it's distinct ethnocultural character and Yorkshire which is almost the same size as Wales and has a higher population.

With so many English, it would be united. If you want to be pedantic, it should be 'The United Kingdoms of .....'

sink

Sam Russell wrote: »

With so many English, it would be united. If you want to be pedantic, it should be 'The United Kingdoms of .....'

Well I'm only going by tradition and historic norms. In reality they can legally call it whatever they like, so long as no other UN state objects. But it would be a lie to call it 'United Kingdom' as that term is intended to signify the uniting of two or more Kingdoms.

flaneur

It's starting to degenerate into a debate that's nearly as logical as the Northern Irish flags protests - passionate discussions about symbolism and national allegiances that ultimately need to nothing but jingoism, animosity, economic self-harm and general chaos.

The big problem in the UK at the moment is a complete dearth of serious political leadership that is prepared to put the national interest ahead of party interest. It's degenerated into a complete and utter mess.

To make matters worse, both major parties are suffering from the same illness and are internally at each others' throats with factions ripping into factions.

That same split is also spilling into the media community and the general public too. It's almost like a non-violent civil war over this topic.

The worrying bit is that I don't see any sensible leadership emerging. Maybe they're going to have to have a full blown economic crisis before that happens, as for now this is all theoretical fun and games and there have been no real, harsh economic consequences to the utter stupidity of the whole thing.

At this stage, it's more the total lack of predictability and stability that is going to kill them, not just leaving the EU. Nobody has any clue what the regulatory environment will be in 12 months time and that is making investment and development of business strategies increasingly difficult.

steddyeddy

The Telegraph reports that Gibraltar accuses the the EU of treating their citizens shamefully.

Let's examine that statement in light of what happened. ~98% of people in Gibraltar voted to remain in the EU as they realise it's important for their economy. That desire was ignored and no special arrangement was sought for Gibraltar by the British government. Now the EU says that Spain will have some say over the transition arrangement and apparently that's not acceptable to the people of Gibraltar. I feel for the people living on the rock but it's Britain and not the EU they should be angry at.

The EU is looking after it's member states and the UK isn't. It's that simple.

flaneur

Well the narrative is blame the EU for everything. It’s how they’ve arrived at Brexit and I assume that’s how they intend to proceed.

steddyeddy

flaneur wrote: »

Well the narrative is blame the EU for everything. It’s how they’ve arrived at Brexit and I assume that’s how they intend to proceed.

Gibraltar will likely be destroyed by this. One Spanish commentator described Gibraltar belonging to the British as akin to the Isle of Wight belonging to the Spain. It's not sustainable.

flaneur

To be honest, it's about as legitimate as the Spanish claims to Melilla and Ceuta in Morocco.

I can see the Spanish annoyance, but pot, kettle, former colonial powers both clinging to historical enclaves springs to mind.

The Gibraltarians have two choices - be in the UK or be in the EU. There's nothing stopping Gibraltar being a micro country and EU member in its own right and cooperate with Spain in a way that the nationality no longer matter.

steddyeddy

flaneur wrote: »

To be honest, it's about as legitimate as the Spanish claims to Melilla and Ceuta in Morocco.

I can see the Spanish annoyance, but pot, kettle, former colonial powers both clinging to historical enclaves springs to mind.

The Gibraltarians have two choices - be in the UK or be in the EU. There's nothing stopping Gibraltar being a micro country and EU member in its own right and cooperate with Spain in a way that the nationality no longer matter.

Completely agree that it's a pot meets kettle situation. Neither form of colonialism is acceptable or sustainable in this day and age.