Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe, he's decided that NI is more trouble than it's worth, he has bigger fish to fry with the EU. Also he probably remembers that the NI Unionists voted against the previous deal that forced the election last year.

Oh - absolutely! That could easily be the case. The question remains though - how is it a UK victory to agree to the proposal the EU and Ireland helped created.

How is it a UK victory for Boris to agree to something which is so terrible it forced Boris to resign over it once before?

ancapailldorcha

moon2 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here - but didn't Boris resign a few years ago after Theresa May accepted a deal which included this?

I believe he said that no PM could possibly accept a deal which split the union?

He did end up accepting this though, after he became PM.

If I've remembered correctly then this is hardly a UK victory... Unless agreeing to the EU proposals is now a UK negotiating victory?

Hiding behind Arlene Foster and the Union was a convincing facade after the deal May cut with the DUP. Now, they're responsible. In 2018, Johnson told the DUP party conference that he would not permit Belfast being trapped in a form of vassalage to Brussels.

It was just useful posturing. The Brexiters never cared for the union. I daresay many of them would happily jettison NI if they could find a pretext for doing so that would play well with their support base.

moon2

moon2 wrote: »

Oh - absolutely! That could easily be the case. The question remains though - how is it a UK victory to agree to the proposal the EU and Ireland helped created.

How is it a UK victory for Boris to agree to something which is so terrible it forced Boris to resign over it once before?

Getting rid of NI could easily be seen as a victory for middle English conservatives, they resent paying so much to supporting that part of the UK..

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Getting rid of NI could easily be seen as a victory for middle English conservatives, they resent paying so much to supporting that part of the UK..

Maybe you can say we're mutually winning then. It's definitely not a UK 'victory' over the EU - we seem to be in clear agreement there your claim is that both parties got what they wanted. The EU got their agreement and the UK got to split NI out

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Getting rid of NI could easily be seen as a victory for middle English conservatives, they resent paying so much to supporting that part of the UK..

Do they?

As I see it, the only reason the British right have been tolerating NI is down to a combination of an appreciation of overt and aggressive nationalism from Unionists, an aversion to their country shrinking and the sunken cost fallacy.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do they?

As I see it, the only reason the British right have been tolerating NI is down to a combination of an appreciation of overt and aggressive nationalism from Unionists, an aversion to their country shrinking and the sunken cost fallacy.

I think it is down to the fact they do not realise how much it actually costs. The costs are hidden in so many ways, and the UK Gov wants it to stay that way.

For example, was it ever said that NI cost the UK more than the EU (net)?

When Ian Smith (of Rhodesia) was looking to declare UDI (Unilateal Declaration of Independence) because of the British demand for 'one man ome vote', Ian Smith told Harold Wilson the 'One man one vote' did not pertain in the Uk - specifically NI, where the Unionists could command up to six votes, while few Nationalists qualified. HW did not believe him, but on checking, found it was true.

NI did not figure in UK politics until 'Bloody Sunday', and has not figured in a positive way since.

Enzokk

Not sure if this was highlighted but here is a story with a twitter thread from farmer in Yorkshire and why the US is able to produce food and a lower price. We have discussed these before, but the interesting part is the MP's from the area that voted against the amendment that would have prevented a trade deal being struck with lower food standards with the US.

The brutal truth about farming standards

As we’ve already highlighted elsewhere, some 19 MPs from the Yorkshire and Humber region voted against an amendment to the Agriculture Bill that would have prevented the government agreeing any free trade deal that allowed the import of lower-quality agricultural and food products into this country. The amendment was defeated. This leaves farmers in Yorkshire and elsewhere facing an uncertain future when the Brexit transition period ends, which could be as soon as 31 December.

Now for me the interesting thing is how Labour is maneuvering at the moment. This is another example where they are actually getting Tory MP's to vote against something that you know will be used against them in the future. This is like the Tory MP's cheering when they defeated the amendment in the Queens Speech that they should give NHS staff a raise. It is as much about the optics of it all as changing the direction the government is going. These Tory MP's will have to justify why they voted for the Agriculture Bill if farmers are harmed in the subsequent trade deal with the US. They cannot hide behind the fact that they didn't know about the standards, the amendment addressed this directly.

The second one was when Starmer questioned Johnson about NHS staff having to pay the surcharge and he said it was the right thing to do. Labour announced they would bring an amendment to change this, forcing the government and their MP's to vote against NHS staff again was too much and they changed their policy very quickly.

ArmaniJeanss

It's not really that novel an idea by Labour, it's pretty standard for all opposition parties.

Introduce a bill or amendment which is to all intents and purposes 'good'. Do so full in the knowledge that the government will vote it down. Further down the line use this as a stick to beat the government MPs with in an election - the entire party or sometimes just individual MPs in relevant constituencies.

It's basic politics, but there are ways to defend against it. Those Yorkshire MPs will valiantly try to point out that voting against this amendment was a good thing as it gave the UK a stronger hand in negotiations, led to a better outcome etc etc.

Leroy42

I do wonder why Labour cotinue to remain silent on the issue of the extension? The Tories, again as with Corbyn, are being given a free pass. THey have raised a few questions but it seems they fear the pushback from voters and have simply accepted what the Tories are going to decide to do.

I get that you will have many that saw it was what we voted for etc, except that the opinion polls seem to indicate that the majority would accept a transition.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder why Labour cotinue to remain silent on the issue of the extension? The Tories, again as with Corbyn, are being given a free pass. THey have raised a few questions but it seems they fear the pushback from voters and have simply accepted what the Tories are going to decide to do.

I get that you will have many that saw it was what we voted for etc, except that the opinion polls seem to indicate that the majority would accept a transition.

I'm not sure how much good it would do. I'd say any new Conservative MP's were thoroughly vetted before being allowed to stand to prevent any more rebellions.

If Starmer starts pushing hard for an extension, there's a risk of him being accused of leading some sort of treasonous remoaner plot or some such for no gain.

Enzokk

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It's not really that novel an idea by Labour, it's pretty standard for all opposition parties.

Introduce a bill or amendment which is to all intents and purposes 'good'. Do so full in the knowledge that the government will vote it down. Further down the line use this as a stick to beat the government MPs with in an election - the entire party or sometimes just individual MPs in relevant constituencies.

It's basic politics, but there are ways to defend against it. Those Yorkshire MPs will valiantly try to point out that voting against this amendment was a good thing as it gave the UK a stronger hand in negotiations, led to a better outcome etc etc.

Yes, it is basic politics and Corbyn did it with the amendment on the Queens Speech where they wanted to undo the raise restriction on NHS workers. Maybe I am forgetting or maybe Labour just wasn't good at it or Brexit dominated everything the past 2 years, but I cannot for the life of me remember much else like this, other than for Scottish MP's voting against the wishes of their voters, from Labour.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder why Labour cotinue to remain silent on the issue of the extension? The Tories, again as with Corbyn, are being given a free pass. THey have raised a few questions but it seems they fear the pushback from voters and have simply accepted what the Tories are going to decide to do.

I get that you will have many that saw it was what we voted for etc, except that the opinion polls seem to indicate that the majority would accept a transition.

I also don't think it is time yet. Nothing has happened for Labour to get loud about. Maybe after this weeks meetings and if no progress they will start asking questions. We have the meeting with Johnson and Von Der Leyen in the middle of the month as well where the real talks about the extension will be so it seems to me it is not yet time to ask the government.

Also, the same MP's that voted for Brexit by 124 votes will not vote for an extension, not matter how good the argument that Starmer puts forth. Why fight a losing battle when what Johnson will want to happen will happen when it comes to Brexit at least.

farmchoice

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder why Labour cotinue to remain silent on the issue of the extension? The Tories, again as with Corbyn, are being given a free pass. THey have raised a few questions but it seems they fear the pushback from voters and have simply accepted what the Tories are going to decide to do.

I get that you will have many that saw it was what we voted for etc, except that the opinion polls seem to indicate that the majority would accept a transition.

if your enemy is making a mistake dont interrupt them.

Leroy42

farmchoice wrote: »

if your enemy is making a mistake dont interrupt them.

That was Corbyn excuse all the time.

We can all see that there is abundant reasons to ask for an extension. Surely Labour can see these as well and should be pressing the government to explain why they have chosen to ignore those reasons.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

That was Corbyn excuse all the time.

We can all see that there is abundant reasons to ask for an extension. Surely Labour can see these as well and should be pressing the government to explain why they have chosen to ignore those reasons.

Big difference, Corbyn had the numbers to make a difference. There is nothing Starmer can do now. Look at the votes for changing the way parliament works.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1267846174133927936?s=20

Tory MP's know what they are voting for is ridiculous and a waste of time and still it doesn't stop them voting for it. When Johnson chucked the likes of Ken Clarke out of the party he sent a message to the new crop of MP's, my way or get out of my party.

I know it is frustrating, but the blame lies with the Lib Dems who voted for a new election and Corbyn for just being useless. They have tied the opposition's hands for the next few years.

timetogo1

Leroy42 wrote: »

That was Corbyn excuse all the time.

We can all see that there is abundant reasons to ask for an extension. Surely Labour can see these as well and should be pressing the government to explain why they have chosen to ignore those reasons.

Corbyn was getting what he wanted so he just halfheartedly objected.

Starmer is going more along the lines of "you say you can meet the deadline, so we won't object". If he objected now it'd just give ammo to the idiots that blame remoaners for every failing of Brexit. At least this way he can say, we didn't stand in your way and you still failed.

Although I'm not sure how much that matters over there now, it seems that some people will support their parties over there no matter what they do.

ancapailldorcha

I don't know if anyone remembers but in 2015, Daniel Hannan wrote a libertarian utopianist piece for the Telegraph. Today marks its 5-year anniversary:

It’s 2020, and the UK is flourishing outside of the EU. The rump Union, now a united bloc, continues its genteel decline, but Britain has become the most successful and competitive knowledge-based economy in the region. Our universities attract the world’s brightest students. We lead the way in software, biotech, law, finance and the audio-visual sector. We have forged a distinctive foreign policy, allied to Europe, but giving due weight to the US, India and other common-law, Anglophone democracies.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11644904/A-vision-of-Britain-outside-the-EU-confident-successful-and-free.html

Safe to say it's aged like a bottle of milk from the same date. The UK remains confused about what sort of compromise it could live with, stuck with a government staffed by loyalists clearly selected for on that basis and is now so hopelessly short on leadership that it can't even take the obvious and expedient decision to ask for more time to negotiate.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if anyone remembers but in 2015, Daniel Hannan wrote a libertarian utopianist piece for the Telegraph. Today marks its 5-year anniversary:



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11644904/A-vision-of-Britain-outside-the-EU-confident-successful-and-free.html

Safe to say it's aged like a bottle of milk from the same date. The UK remains confused about what sort of compromise it could live with, stuck with a government staffed by loyalists clearly selected for on that basis and is now so hopelessly short on leadership that it can't even take the obvious and expedient decision to ask for more time to negotiate.

When did India become anglophone?

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When did India become anglophone?

Clearly when the overwhelming trading might of bucaneering global Britain became apparent after Brexit they decided to up their chances of getting a trade deal by ditching multiple languages thousands of years old to please the likes of Hannan and Jacob Rees-Mogg in due deference to their former overlords.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When did India become anglophone?

With 28 States and 8 Union territories each of which speak different languages, some states having multiple languages, they needed a unifying language.
English was the obvious choice as most educated Indians had already learnt the language, almost all business and political discussions that involve more than one region are conducted in English. It also avoids the one-upmanship that someone could gain by the discussion being in their native tongue.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

With 28 States and 8 Union territories each of which speak different languages, some states having multiple languages, they needed a unifying language.
English was the obvious choice as most educated Indians had already learnt the language, almost all business and political discussions that involve more than one region are conducted in English. It also avoids the one-upmanship that someone could gain by the discussion being in their native tongue.

Only about 10% of Indians can speak English, and only 0.02% have it as their first language. The percentage of the population that claims to speak English is, surprisingly, dropping; in 2000 it was 12.6%. While English does serve a useful role as a "neutral" common language for use between people from different linguistic communities, its significance in that role has been declining, with Hindi (spoken by 57% of the population) increasingly serving as the main common language. Hindi also has the advantage of being widely understood in Pakistan (it is closely related to Urdu) and Afghanistan.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Only about 10% of Indians can speak English, and only 0.02% have it as their first language. The percentage of the population that claims to speak English is, surprisingly, dropping; in 2000 it was 12.6%. While English does serve a useful role as a "neutral" common language for use between people from different linguistic communities, its significance in that role has been declining, with Hindi (spoken by 57% of the population) increasingly serving as the main common language. Hindi also has the advantage of being widely understood in Pakistan (it is closely related to Urdu) and Afghanistan.

"Bridge" languages have been used as common second languages for centuries. The term often used is Lingua Franca, which was a language contrived to allow people around the Mediterranean communicate (for trade mostly).

Mandarin is spoken by huge numbers - because many languages are spoken in China so they imposed a common one.

English, French/Belgian, Portuguese and Russian are widely used to enable linguistic groups communicate in their former colonies in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa.

French used to be the language of global diplomacy.

There was an attempt some years ago to invent a worldwide language (anyone remember Esperanto?) It didn't take.

English now fills that role and is used for almost all international trade and political communication as well as aviation. My business takes me to Central/Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia. English is used in all of them.

But we can thank Hollywood for that at least as much any cultural influence from the UK.

Enzokk

Nissan has confirmed if there is no deal the Sunderland plant would not be sustainable.

Nissan: UK factory still under threat from no-deal Brexit

The UK's largest car manufacturing plant is "unsustainable" if the UK leaves the European Union without a trade deal, owner Nissan says.

The Japanese company's global chief operating head told the BBC people had to understand the EU was the Sunderland factory's biggest customer.

Ashwani Gupta said that Nissan's commitment could not be maintained if there was not tariff-free EU access.

I don't think this will change minds in Westminster. They will carry on and may even see Brexit as the light at the end of the coronavirus tunnel (not my thoughts but from here.

The prime minister will be more attached than ever to that script now because it gets him out of his gloomy Covid-19 pit, back to flights of optimism. He does not sound himself when urging caution. Hard truths are pitched below his natural vocal range. He will hate the solemn tones of the coming recession even more. He wants to be singing hymns to blue skies over Global Britain. The darker the horizon, the more he will need to believe in that brave new dawn, the more he will want to talk it into existence.

Even the prime minister’s allies do not describe him as a man of principle. He struggles with fidelity to people and facts. But his longest relationship is with rhetoric and it is a mistake to dismiss it all as bluster. The lies surround a solid kernel of belief – in himself and his role in Britain’s national destiny. It may seem counter-intuitive, given the reputation for dishonesty, but to really understand Boris Johnson it pays to take him at his word.

Headshot

Enzokk wrote: »

Nissan has confirmed if there is no deal the Sunderland plant would not be sustainable.

Nissan: UK factory still under threat from no-deal Brexit



I don't think this will change minds in Westminster. They will carry on and may even see Brexit as the light at the end of the coronavirus tunnel (not my thoughts but from here.

Why would they close the Spain plant rather than seeing how Brexit talks go and decide after that?

Very strange

Peregrinus

Headshot wrote: »

Why would they close the Spain plant rather than seeing how Brexit talks go and decide after that?

Very strange

Not strange at all.

- The Barcelona plant is not viable; therefore close it. No need to await the outcome of the UK talks because nothing in a UK/EU FTA would make the Barcelona plant viable.

- The Sunderland plant may or may not be viable, depending on whether the UK makes a zero-tariff FTA with the EU. Therefore defer a closure decision until this is known.

True, if both plants closed Nissan would have a very limited manufacturing capacity in Europe. But of course it can import cars tariff-free from Japan into the EEA, and will probably be able to do that in the UK also. Plus, it has a long-standign alliance with Renault and Daimler and, if it makes sense to build up manufacturing capacity in Europe again, can do so in partnership with them. So it does have options.

Nody

Headshot wrote: »

Why would they close the Spain plant rather than seeing how Brexit talks go and decide after that?

Very strange

Most likely based on what manufacturing line they plan to leave for Europe is in the plant already (or can cheaply be upgraded to have it) as Nissan is pulling back globally to focus on only seven markets; they will reduce the number of models sold in Europe etc. accordingly.

Quin_Dub

Headshot wrote: »

Why would they close the Spain plant rather than seeing how Brexit talks go and decide after that?

Very strange

Because the markets that the Spanish plant covers can now be supplied directly from Japan following the EU/Japan trade deal.

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not strange at all.

There is also from Nissan's perspective a wonderful choreography in that by closing down Spain first, they had the UK and brexiters celebrating and highlighting Nissan as a win - and now they (with a more amplified voice) issue a now very credible threat that they will leave the UK.

Peregrinus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Because the markets that the Spanish plant covers can now be supplied directly from Japan following the EU/Japan trade deal.

This is true also for the markets covered by the Sunderland plant.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is true also for the markets covered by the Sunderland plant.

No, not the UK market.

Shelga

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, not the UK market.

True, but they sold 92k vehicles in the UK in 2019, which was already a 10% drop on 2018.

Is that enough to justify a factory with 6700 staff members?