Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

The reality is the British government have the means to forcibly hold the union together . . .

Yes, but what is the value of a union held together by force? This it not a purely theoretical question, as we in Ireland know. The British government had the means to forcibly hold the union together by force a hundred years ago, but the political costs of doing so were unacceptable, and so here we are.

Obviously, the situation in Scotland in 2020 is different from the situation in Ireland a hundred years ago, and I'm not expecting a Scottish War of Independence. But if anything the differences between then and now will make it harder for Westminster to hold Scotland against its will, not easier. Scotland now, unlike Ireland then, has a government and adminsitration that can organise for, press for and plan for independence, and ensure that it remains a live political issue. The principle that Scotland is entitled to form and act upon a view about whether it wishes to remain in the Union was pretty much conceded in 2014. While Westminster can hold out against a second referendum for a time, it can't hold out forever, and the legitimacy of denying Scotland its wishes in this regard will be hard to defend. And therefore the political costs of continuing to defend it will get higher and higher.

And we have to ask whether the will is there, even among English nationalists. There is strong evidence that, e.g., many Brexiteers would prioritise hard Brexit over keeping Scotland and/or NI in the union. And once you have made that calculation in your own mind, why would you pay a high price to keep Scotland against its will? It's not difficult to convince yourself that your country will in many ways be better off without the Scots holding it back, being obstructive, etc, etc.

VinLieger

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not difficult to convince yourself that your country will in many ways be better off without the Scots holding it back, being obstructive, etc, etc.

Indeed, I wonder if Scotland could even become the new EU as far as the blame game is concerned?

johnnyskeleton

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

What you described is fascism. All of this has happened before 80-90 years back. With added
use of modern technologies such as social media for propaganda to bolster techniques of the past.

I dont agree. The UK is not a fascist state. The Conservative party is not a fascist party. Brexit and its varied meanings are not a facist policy.

Sure, some of the things in the UK now are similar to Italy of the 30s but the key ingredients - totalitarian control of the political system and the economy, together with Military expansionism - are simply not there.

The fact that the fascists allegedly made the trains run on time doesn't mean that punctual public transport is an excusively fascist policy.

Comparing Brexit to fascism is as inaccurate as how the Brexiteers sometimes (unironically) compare it to e.g. the Irish war of independence.

As regards what Brexit is or historical parrallels, I struggle to either define it or find a valid comparison. The best I can comw up with is that it is similar on an emotional level to the Prussian desire to dissolve the German Confederation and replace it with the Prussian dominated German Empire. Brecit was intended to destroy the perceieved to be weak and ineffective EU and replace it with a strong Uk dominated organisation. But unlike the Prussians, they grossly miscalculated and have now found themselves isolated. So Brexit has lost its purpose and is struggling desparately to find a new one. Hence the ironies

listermint

You are aware the conservatives have broke the system and are defacto in totalitarian control of the state and all of its functions. Even rewriting laws to ensure their will. They also rule the state media with an iron fist.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

You are aware the conservatives have broke the system and are defacto in totalitarian control of the state and all of its functions. Even rewriting laws to ensure their will. They also rule the state media with an iron fist.

They are also introducing laws that says a minister is the final arbiter of wheter laws need to be adhered to.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are also introducing laws that says a minister is the final arbiter of wheter laws need to be adhered to.

The obvious way to have a functioning democracy with separation of powers.

Oh .. wait

Peregrinus

They're publicly attacking the rule of law in a variety of ways which, yeah, is worrying.

Fascism is hard to define and encapsulate. You can always point to something a Fascist regime did that another regime is not doing to deny that the other regime is Fascist. But the ways in which the regime is adopting characteristically Fascist positions are probably more important.

Johnnyskeleton denies that the UK is moving towards fascism because of a lack of "military expansionism". I'm not sure whether he means expansion of military capacity, like the German buildling up of the armed forces after 1933, or the use of military means to assert state power internationally, like the Italian attempt to construct a colonial empire in Africa by invading Ethiopia in 1935. Either way, the UK isn't doing anything like either of thes things. But I'm not sure that these things are essential to Fascism; Portugal under Salazar and Franco under Spain attempted to cling to the colonial empire they had interited but not to expand them, and neither engaged in signficant military buildups. And most accounts of Fascism don't focus on this at all, but on, as the Wikipedia article puts it, "dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy".

The UK certainly isn't there yet, but it can be seen to be moving in that direction in at least some respects. Parliament is being tamed and sidelined in ways strikingly similar to the marginalisation of the Reichstag between 1933 and 1935 in Germany. A supposedly conservative government is embracing populist political intervention in the economy in ways that are a striking departure from its own tradition and values, but that look a lot like Fascist responses to the Great Depression. And, as mentioned, attacks on political and societal institutions which might act as a check on or a critic of government - the courts, the universities, the legal profession, critical media - are being normalised.

Is the UK a Fascist state? No. But should it worry about this? Yes, I'm afraid it should.

CelticRambler

20silkcut wrote: »

The reality is the British government have the means to forcibly hold the union together. Look at how Spain quelled the basques 3 years ago. I can’t see any British government blithely allowing the disintegration of the U.K.

Civilised trading blocs like the EU don't tend to look favourably on political régimes that forcibly maintain an unhealthy union. If, in ten years, the UK is still looking for frictionless access to the Single Market, it entirely foreseeable that the EU would insist on London first granting the Scots their IndyRef2 and/or holding a NI referendum under the terms of the GFA.

Whatever hesitation and avoidance of the issue the EU showed in respect of Catalonia will be excused on the grounds of that region being part of a member state. Different rules entirely apply to third countries. :P

Sam Russell

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

They are going down the road that Russia started going down 20 years ago, a country which now by any standard is very much fascist.

Its not like on 1st of January they wake up in a fascist regime, the whole brexit process has been 5 years of slowly moving goalposts pushing politics, public opinion and media further and further to the right and up the authoritarian ends of the political compass.

Maybe 20th century fascism is not 100% the correct label, what we have developing now i would call oligarchic dystopia with maybe 90% overlap with 20th century fascist regimes and 10% new twists due to new technologies, just look at Russia (and maybe US in parts)

We can look at it another way to make you guys think, what would {Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal} in 20th century look like IF they had access to modern internet+social media and 24/7 news channels in their day.

Well, if you think about, apart from the speed of communication, they did have newspapers that were read avidly, and not just daily papers but evening papers. They had, in urban centres, a postal service that gave same day deliveries. I believe in the 1930s, that London bankers would send a postcard home to say they would be late for their tea. A letter posted in Dublin (or most places in GB) would be delivered next day anywhere in the GB or Ireland without fail.

Communications in the 1930s was not an issue - people who were interested kept themselves well informed.

What is going on in the UK at the moment is gross incompetence and gross corruption - at a level that is not even hidden - whether it is Covid or Brexit. There has to be a reaction to this - a massive reaction. Otherwise there is no hope for them.

Silent Running

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if you think about, apart from the speed of communication, they did have newspapers that were read avidly, and not just daily papers but evening papers. They had, in urban centres, a postal service that gave same day deliveries. I believe in the 1930s, that London bankers would send a postcard home to say they would be late for their tea. A letter posted in Dublin (or most places in GB) would be delivered next day anywhere in the GB or Ireland without fail.

Communications in the 1930s was not an issue - people who were interested kept themselves well informed.

What is going on in the UK at the moment is gross incompetence and gross corruption - at a level that is not even hidden - whether it is Covid or Brexit. There has to be a reaction to this - a massive reaction. Otherwise there is no hope for them.

I look at what's happening in the UK and wonder how much the people can take before they blow. A lot has happened in the last couple of years that would have most governments out on their ear, but not in the UK.

OK we've had marches with a million people showing their discontent, but that has just been ignored.

My fear is that if the lid blows off after the end of this year, when people see and feel the real effects of Brexit, that it will be a huge upsurge, possibly with blood on the streets.

The Raging Bile Duct

Silent Running wrote: »

My fear is that if the lid blows off after the end of this year, when people see and feel the real effects of Brexit, that it will be a huge upsurge, possibly with blood on the streets.

That's the time you make your money according to Jacob Rees-Mogg's daddy.

Sam Russell

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

That's the time you make your money according to Jacob Rees-Mogg's daddy.

Unless it is your blood on the street.

Snickers Man

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yeah true. But I do like pointing out some of the ironies it causes. Gove saying that red tape is the price of Brexit, when many campaigned for Brexit to remove red tape etc (cant find any clear refer to red tape by gove in 2016, but he did say they could reduce regulation in his manifesto article).

Daniel Hannan was another great one for saying that Big Corporates loved the EU because they can absorb the cost of all the regulation and thereby keep small, nimble, innovative competitors out of the game.

Then he'll bull**** about giant British corporations "achieving their true potential" in a global market unfettered by the red tape and constrained trade deals of Brussels....

20silkcut

CelticRambler wrote: »

Civilised trading blocs like the EU don't tend to look favourably on political régimes that forcibly maintain an unhealthy union. If, in ten years, the UK is still looking for frictionless access to the Single Market, it entirely foreseeable that the EU would insist on London first granting the Scots their IndyRef2 and/or holding a NI referendum under the terms of the GFA.

Whatever hesitation and avoidance of the issue the EU showed in respect of Catalonia will be excused on the grounds of that region being part of a member state. Different rules entirely apply to third countries. :P

I understand that and the points that prengirius makes about Scotland/ Northern Ireland being seen as a burden but the thing is when countries go down the fascist route giving up and ceding territories is not what happens.
And there is a strong desire at the top of the current British government to keep their territory intact. And the SNP get fairly rough treatment in Parliament. Mind they are able to give it too.
I often wonder are they in a similar place to where Irish MPs were 100+ years ago.

An Ciarraioch

Snickers Man wrote: »

Daniel Hannan was another great one for saying that Big Corporates loved the EU because they can absorb the cost of all the regulation and thereby keep small, nimble, innovative competitors out of the game.

Then he'll bull**** about giant British corporations "achieving their true potential" in a global market unfettered by the red tape and constrained trade deals of Brussels....

Should really have bookmarked his classic article about ourselves, Holland and Denmark joining Britain in leaving:

https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

The Raging Bile Duct

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Should really have bookmarked his classic article about ourselves, Holland and Denmark joining Britain in leaving:

https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

That article is comedy gold.

MBSnr

Read today that Toyota and Nissan are asking the UK to basically pay the tariffs if there is no FTA deal.

https://twitter.com/pernilleru/status/1313051137877192704

Snickers Man

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Should really have bookmarked his classic article about ourselves, Holland and Denmark joining Britain in leaving:

https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

Er, I did. Just a few days ago :)

The Raging Bile Duct

MBSnr wrote: »

Read today that Toyota and Nissan are asking the UK to basically pay the tariffs if there is no FTA deal.

https://twitter.com/pernilleru/status/1313051137877192704

Further along...

https://twitter.com/pernilleru/status/1313055034817622016

Sounds like they are lining up to leave.

VinLieger

MBSnr wrote: »

Read today that Toyota and Nissan are asking the UK to basically pay the tariffs if there is no FTA deal.

https://twitter.com/pernilleru/status/1313051137877192704

Theories going round this is them coming back to ask for what May promised them in that secret letter back in 2016.

MBSnr

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Sounds like they are lining up to leave.

You might be right. I'm wondering that if a major company informs the media that it's going solely due to Brexit, will that then start other companies indicating the same? However negative PR might be a factor to stop them. But a public notice for a dose of reality is required for the UK 52%...

Banks have started some processes for EU customers which I think was mentioned earlier in the thread. Barclaycard asking customers to register a UK address or other banks just closing accounts. I got an email from Revolut who are changing their licence held for EU customers from UK to Lithuania. Means the IBAN changes to LT and then changes again to IE, once they get their Irish license authorised later in 2021.

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

They're publicly attacking the rule of law in a variety of ways which, yeah, is worrying.

Such as? The most obvious one that comes to my mind is that they are introducing the Internal Markets Bill and admitted, perhaps unwisely, that it breached international law. However, a breach of international law, while very serious diplomatically does not in itself undermine the rule of law.

The fact that there is a conflict between domestic legislation and an international agreement does not mean that a country does not respect the rule of law. It means that a country is perhaps untrustworthy to sign other international treaties (which, in a sense, could be worse for them), but it doesn't mean that they are attacking the rule of law.

Similar suggestions include the invective towards Supreme Court Judges. This is indeed very unfortunate and gutter press at its worst. However, a society that believes in free speech can allow criticism of Judicial Decisions and the Judiciary. Such a society can also criminalise acts such as scandalising the court or acting in contempt of the Court. The UK has a balance between these things. While the daily mail calling them traitors is certainly poor taste, perhaps defamatory, and popultist, I don't think it undermines the rule of law.

A lot of other instances may include measures which other countries didn't take or vice versa (e.g. covid), and this has arguably led to disasterous effects in the UK. But again, the fact that they are incompetently governed or that the government's decisions are inadequate does not mean that the rule of law has been eroded.

Fascism is hard to define and encapsulate. You can always point to something a Fascist regime did that another regime is not doing to deny that the other regime is Fascist. But the ways in which the regime is adopting characteristically Fascist positions are probably more important.

Indeed. And it is something that has been thrown about such much that it's somewhat meaningless. It's far better to criticise the UK for precisely what they are doing wrong e.g. going back on their word regarding the Northern Ireland backstop, rather than trying to make it into more than it is. It is within their competence to go back on any deal whenever they want, with the consequences that they are considered to be untrustworthy, that they get sued and they look rather foolish etc.

Johnnyskeleton denies that the UK is moving towards fascism because of a lack of "military expansionism".

I didn't say that the absence of same disproves that they are moving towards fascism, I said that the three key ingredients of fascism, one of which is military expanisionism (and we can disagree on whether this is a key component of fascism or not), are not there. I include the other two elements which there doesn't appear to be any disagreement between us on - political and economic control of the country.

The UK certainly isn't there yet, but it can be seen to be moving in that direction in at least some respects. Parliament is being tamed and sidelined in ways strikingly similar to the marginalisation of the Reichstag between 1933 and 1935 in Germany.

So there are two ways that it could be said that parliament is being tamed or sidelined - legally or politically. Legally being e.g. a law is passed which bypasses parliamentary scrutiny, and Politically being e.g. strong enforcement of the whip system or shaming or denigrating backbench MPs for not agreeing with the government.

In terms of the Legal taming or sidelining of parliament, I'm not sure what you mean. There were some attempts to bypass parliamentary procedure, starting with May trying to use crown perrogative to trigger Art 50, and continuing with Johnson trying to prorogue parliament in order to aritifically prevent legislation being passed. However, both attempts failed.

If you could, with some legitimacy, say that Tory leaders are trying to tame and sideline their parliament, you could with equal legitimacy say that the parliament has fought back, sometimes through the Courts, and has resoundingly rejected such attempts. None of these attempts come anywhere close to the Enabling Act or the like, so it's a tempting but inaccurate comparison to the Reichstag.

What does this mean? Maybe Tory leaders are trying to bypass or downplay parliament, but parliament is still king, so to say.

In terms of the political aspects, this is undoubtedly true. But lets be honest, most parliaments, including our own, have issues along those lines. TDs losing the whip for voting as their constitutents would want rather than along party lines, the contemptuous description of SF TDs by FG and FF etc. It's all here just as much as they have it there, if perhaps somewhat more polite and on a lower scale.

In fact, something we don't have in Ireland but the UK does quite well, is that their backbench MPs fight back, forming subgroups and crossing the floor etc etc. If pressed, I could probably name more non-government MPs from the UK than I could non-government TDs, which shows how robust their parliament is politically, vs ours.

So I don't accept that it could fairly be said that Parliament is being tamed or sidelined. Certainly attempts were made, but Parliament has fought back against such measures whenever parliamentarians feel threatened.

A supposedly conservative government is embracing populist political intervention in the economy in ways that are a striking departure from its own tradition and values, but that look a lot like Fascist responses to the Great Depression.

What is different in the contemporary Tory party vs it's recent past, is that they seem to be anti-business and bizzarely fixated on having autonomy without a clear idea of how they want to use it. They are no more economically interventionist than other Tory governments of the post war period. And they are, if anything, a lot closer to the one nation Tories of the 19th century, when the Conservatives offered more to the ordinary person than the Liberal party, who were seen as the party of the capitalist, bourgeoisies and middle class.

Are they different to Maggie Thatcher? Absolutely. Are they closer to fascits than the mean Conversative government over the last 200 years? Absolutely not.

And, as mentioned, attacks on political and societal institutions which might act as a check on or a critic of government - the courts, the universities, the legal profession, critical media - are being normalised.

They are increasing in frequency, but they are not being normalised. If anything, even the slightest change to parliamentary procedure is being identified, scrutinised and analysed in the media for any ulterior motives etc. You might seek the Johnson proroguing fiasco as an attempt to curtail parliament, I see it as a failed attempt to curtail parliament, and a vindication of the parliamentary process. And while there are more people attacking the institutions now than ever before, those institutions are reasserting themselves and have done a valiant effort at it.

I could point out that as much of the criticism of the universities, media etc comes from anti-brexit labour supporters as it does from pro-brexit conservatives, but that's a different story.

Is the UK a Fascist state? No.

Agreed.

But should it worry about this? Yes, I'm afraid it should.

Strongly disagree. It's good to see the checks and balances in action.

johnnyskeleton

MBSnr wrote: »

Read today that Toyota and Nissan are asking the UK to basically pay the tariffs if there is no FTA deal.

https://twitter.com/pernilleru/status/1313051137877192704

Was it a term of the UK-Japan deal that the UK not do anything to disrupt existing trading arrangments? If so, the deal that they championed just a few weeks ago could be the very stick used to hit them with over the imposition of tarrifs!

ambro25

MBSnr wrote: »

You might be right. I'm wondering that if a major company informs the media that it's going solely due to Brexit, will that then start other companies indicating the same? However negative PR might be a factor to stop them. But a public notice for a dose of reality is required for the UK 52%...

Banks have started some processes for EU customers which I think was mentioned earlier in the thread. Barclaycard asking customers to register a UK address or other banks just closing accounts. I got an email from Revolut who are changing their licence held for EU customers from UK to Lithuania. Means the IBAN changes to LT and then changes again to IE, once they get their Irish license authorised later in 2021.

Fear/mitigation of negative PR goes a long way to explain the lack of visibility (generally, in the media) of business Brexodus over the past 4 years.

But we're nearing the end game for good now, and probably getting to the stage wherein the opportunity cost/benefit of avoiding negative PR, is getting lost in the noise of balance sheets plumbed by Covid loss of activity and various FTA/no FTA Brexit outcomes actualised by domestic UK politics such as the IMB.

Stacks of chips are getting pushed on the green felt, and the game is getting a bit rich for ever more players.

Leroy42

Johnny, the IM bill allows the minister to ignore domestic law as well. It isn't just international law, although of course that is the only thing that the EU are concerned about.

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

Johnny, the IM bill allows the minister to ignore domestic law as well. It isn't just international law, although of course that is the only thing that the EU are concerned about.

In terms of the legislation passed by devolved parliaments? Again that's a conflict of laws issue rather than a dismissal of the rule of law. It would be akin to, for example, removing certain powers from local authorities in Ireland.

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In terms of the legislation passed by devolved parliaments? Again that's a conflict of laws issue rather than a dismissal of the rule of law. It would be akin to, for example, removing certain powers from local authorities in Ireland.

It most certainly is not akin to removing certain powers in county councils. Your equivocation does not stand up to scrutiny in fairness. These are internationally recognised 'countries' maybe in a union but thats not the same as a local authority.

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

It most certainly is not akin to removing certain powers in county councils. Your equivocation does not stand up to scrutiny in fairness. These are internationally recognised 'countries' maybe in a union but thats not the same as a local authority.

Who recognises Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland as countries? It would be a bit like the recognition of Catalonia, where only Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognise them, and do so purely in the hope of getting recognition for their own unrecognized countries.

It's different to to say the USA or Germany or even Spain as above, which are Federal States with constitutionally demarcated powers for the Federal Government and for the States. The devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales exist solely by act of parliament. The NI assembly also exists by reason of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, albeit that same was brought about by reason of the international Good Friday Agreement.

Also equivocating means being ambiguous or vacillating between two positions. Did you mean my analogy?

moon2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In terms of the legislation passed by devolved parliaments? Again that's a conflict of laws issue rather than a dismissal of the rule of law. It would be akin to, for example, removing certain powers from local authorities in Ireland.

You're walking a very very fine line with this argument.

You choose to describe things as a mere "conflict of laws", and pay little heed to the circumstances under which this "conflict" came into place.

It's possible for a country to accidentally pass laws which are incompatible. Usually these issues are resolved in a mutually agreeable way. Unfortunately I can't come up with examples of this occurring in Ireland or the UK. I'd agree if you wanted to call this scenario a conflict of law.

It is rare for a country to take an explicit decision to pass legislation which conflicts with existing laws. This is the scenario we see unfolding in the UK at the moment. If someone *intentionally* passes laws which break existing legislation, or international agreements, this is a dismissal of the rule of law. I could not agree with calling this a mere "conflict" as there is intentionality to "break" existing law.

If they wanted to abide by the rule of law, they would do a simultaneous amendment of existing legislation and introduction of new legislation.

johnnyskeleton

moon2 wrote: »

If they wanted to abide by the rule of law, they would do a simultaneous amendment of existing legislation and introduction of new legislation.

This is the point. They have the power to amend legislation. That is part of the rule of law. The rule of law requires a system for the passing of laws, and that system is the Westminster parliament to pass legislation.

An example of the breach of the rule of law would be if, for example, the government was directing the police to arrest people on suspicion of crimes that are not legislated against. Or if, in the case of a constitutional democracy, the parliament passed laws that exceeded the constitutional provisions or civil rights of the people and maintained that it was the law notwithstanding Court pronouncements to the contrary.

That is not what the UK are doing. They are promoting and potentially passing laws in accordance with their own parliamentary system. If there comes a time when two separate pieces of legislation come into conflict, that is when the Courts can clarify the position. But equally, as you say, they can amend whichever piece of legislation they do not wish to continue with.

I am not justifying the Internal Markets Bill. I think it is causing damage to the UK's reputation. But saying that it is a breach of the rule of law is misidentifying the problem it causes and leads to illogical conclusions.