Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK is a democracy.

So the fixed term parliament act can be overridden by a simple vote, as was done a while back.

If the Tories think they could win then they might try.
Unless they are expecting truck loads of good news in 2024.

Not a "simple vote". It requires either (a) a vote of no confidence in the government, or (b) a vote for an early election carried by a two-thirds majority of the total membership.

On the assumption that governments are reluctant to whip in support of a no-confidence motion in themselves, a government wanting an early election is dependent on the opposition voting for one. While oppositions generally do want elections — how else are they to have any prospect of entering government? — they are not so keen on the idea that the government of the day should get to control the timing of elections to their own advantage.

So, the reasons why Johnson might be tempted to seek an early election are the same reasons why Starmer might be tempted not to allow one.

What the government could do is repeal or amend the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, so that they wouldn't need to get a two-thirds majority in order to hold an early election. (This is what Johnson did in 2019, on a one-off basis.) Doing that doesn't itself require a two-thirds majority, but it does require legislation, which would be controversial and time-consuming, and has to go through the Lords as well as the Commons.

murphaph

Labour are almost predictably stupid when it comes to this stuff though. I would be amazed if Labour didn't vote for an election in those circumstances.

The markets really really want to believe in the UK. A lot of people are presumably invested in the country and don't want to see their investments wiped out. The slightest bit of hope and the pound strengthens but the markets are not the economy. The markets cannot eliminate red tape choking businesses out of existence.

Either the UK reinvents itself somehow or they will continue to bleed jobs and get steadily poorer.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Labour are almost predictably stupid when it comes to this stuff though. I would be amazed if Labour didn't vote for an election in those circumstances.

Even under Corbyn, Labour twice refused to support a government motion for an early election. The third time round they did support the Bill for an early election, and the result was disastrous for them which, you know, they have noticed. Starmer knows that the reason he is leader of the party today is directly traceable to Corbyn's mistake in facilitating the 2019 election. The lesson will not be lost on him.

So I would be astonished if Labour supported an attempt to call an early election so the Tories could capitalise on a spike in support consequent on the success of the vaccine roll-out.

murphaph wrote: »

The markets really really want to believe in the UK. A lot of people are presumably invested in the country and don't want to see their investments wiped out. The slightest bit of hope and the pound strengthens but the markets are not the economy. The markets cannot eliminate red tape choking businesses out of existence.

Either the UK reinvents itself somehow or they will continue to bleed jobs and get steadily poorer.

Yup. This is a reason why Johnson would rather an election sooner than later - go early, and capitalise on the vaccine successes, or go later, and suffer from the prolonged drag of a continuing hard Brexit. It's a no-brainer for the Tories (other than the certified loon wing who genuinely think that Brexit will be economically beneficial).

But it's also the reason why Starmer would not want an election.

There's a famous exchange in Australian politics, when John Hewson, the leader of the Liberal party (equivalent of the Tories) wanted an early election and asked Paul Keating, the leader of the Labour party why he didn't. Keating's reply:

The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly. There has to be a bit of sport in this for all of us. In the psychological battle stakes, we are stripped down and ready to go. I want to see those ashen-faced performances; I want more of them. I want to be encouraged. I want to see you squirm out of this load of rubbish over a number of months. There will be no easy execution for you. You have perpetrated one of the great mischiefs on the Australian public with this thing, trying to rip away our social wage, trying to rip away the Australian values which we built in our society for over a century.

Somebody should be showing this to Kier Starmer. There's a few lines in there that he could usefully adapt to the British context.

(The strategy worked for Keating. Parliament ran for its full term, and at the ensuing general election, contrary to expectations, the Labour Party won, and with both an increased vote share and more seat.)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the government could do is repeal or amend the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, so that they wouldn't need to get a two-thirds majority in order to hold an early election. (This is what Johnson did in 2019, on a one-off basis.) Doing that doesn't itself require a two-thirds majority, but it does require legislation, which would be controversial and time-consuming, and has to go through the Lords as well as the Commons.

They can get legislation through pretty fast when they want to, unless the Lords block it.

I can easily see Johnson with his majority and the press at his command announcing that the Fixed Term Parliament act is in his way and has to go.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They can get legislation through pretty fast when they want to, unless the Lords block it.

I can easily see Johnson with his majority and the press at his command announcing that the Fixed Term Parliament act is in his way and has to go.

You point to the problem as though pointing it out makes it go away. It doesn't. It's very likely the Lords would block it. It's constitutionally significant legislation for which Johnson has not sought or obtained an electoral mandate.

They didn't block the one-off bill for an election in 2019 because (a) it was a one-off bill; (b) it had cross-party support in the Commons and (c) there was an arguable need for it; the government had lost its majority and no rival government could command a majority, so this created a pressing need for a general election to resolve the impasse. An attempt by a government to force an election less than half-way through its term without the assent of the opposition at a time when the government had an extremely comfortable working majority would be a completely different kettle of fish.

Seth Brundle

So much for the DUP's plans to get the NI Protocol repealed...

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1364524075784294405

Lemming

J Mysterio wrote: »

Next general election is May 24, so no panic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's May 2024, not May 24th!

Some local elections are penciled for 6th May 2020; so plenty of time to panic and start looking over your shoulder regards the next national election depending on the outcome; which I suspect will most certainly not be pretty in some of those Brexit-stalwart bastions around the coast, or amongst the farming community where local elections are held. Considering that the 2021 elections are a postponement that means there should be a larger number of electoral areas and/or votes than otherwise might be the case too as the postponed elections are rolled up with scheduled elections that were due to occur anyway.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Some local elections are penciled for 6th May 2020; so plenty of time to panic and start looking over your shoulder regards the next national election depending on the outcome; which I suspect will most certainly not be pretty in some of those Brexit-stalwart bastions around the coast, or amongst the farming community where local elections are held. Considering that the 2021 elections are a postponement that means there should be a larger number of electoral areas and/or votes than otherwise might be the case too as the postponed elections are rolled up with scheduled elections that were due to occur anyway.

I suspect that many voters will be eyeing up the ending of the COVID restrictions as opposed to Brexit issues when they go to vote. Brexit is in the rear view mirror for much of the general population.

Leroy42

This is the level of reality that the EU are dealing with. The UK are lying about the Shellfish, refusing to accept that it is their oversight, and even if they had known that they were willing to cede anything in order to obtain concessions.

https://twitter.com/ukiswitheu/status/1364304375074738178

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

Labour are almost predictably stupid when it comes to this stuff though. I would be amazed if Labour didn't vote for an election in those circumstances.

The markets really really want to believe in the UK. A lot of people are presumably invested in the country and don't want to see their investments wiped out. The slightest bit of hope and the pound strengthens but the markets are not the economy. The markets cannot eliminate red tape choking businesses out of existence.

Either the UK reinvents itself somehow or they will continue to bleed jobs and get steadily poorer.

Labour's problem is the complete lack of any sort of national vision for Britain. Johnson can easily navigate this as he did in 2019 with a focus on the culture war/levelling up and that'll win him enough support to form a government as younger, liberal voters aren't winnable for him anyway.

The last I heard of Starmer he was blathering on about savings or bonds or something. We're in the middle of a pandemic. I doubt many people are prioritising the interest rate on their ISA.

The best realistic hope is that Johnson shrinks his majority at an election. Starmer can't possibly perform as badly as his predecessor but unless he can figure out some compelling arguments soon we'll just see a rerun of the previous three elections.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit is in the rear view mirror for much of the general population.

Until it's not.

At that point they can reacquaint themselves with Mr. Reality as he comes crashing through the door a la Jack Nicholson saying "heeeeerrrrs BREXIT!!"

In any case, plenty of time between now and the start of May for the effects of Brexit to snowball further than they already have between Jan & Feb and consequently for an ever widening count of Joe Soap public to start feeling it.

Enzokk

It really doesn't matter what Starmer or Labour does. We have to face the possibility that the UK public has been gaslighted by the media into believing that Labour is evil and not worth voting for, even if the evidence of the last 11 years has been clear that the Tories is not the answer to solve people's problems.

Look at this,

https://twitter.com/ChrChristensen/status/1364473960008736769?s=20

Story is about a 60-year old that claimed she wanted to visit her father, so according to the rules she is a child looking to visit her parent during Covid. The Daily Mail spins it their own way. This has been happening for years and I believe it has corrupted the voting public. The got 52% to vote for Brexit, getting the 40% that you need for a majority to vote for you is easy in comparison.

What else could explain the polling numbers we are seeing and the faith in government and the general apathy towards the corrupt and deception that is in plain sight?

Leroy42

Lemming wrote: »

Until it's not.

At that point they can reacquaint themselves with Mr. Reality as he comes crashing through the door a la Jack Nicholson saying "heeeeerrrrs BREXIT!!"

I think. it is pretty clear how the UK intend to deal with it going forward.

Anything, and everything, that goes wrong from now on is because of the intransigence of some evil plot by the EU.

It is not Brexit, or even the deal, that is to blame. It is the EU and their rules, which they have completely changed just to get at the UK.

And the best part is that argument can then be used to claim that anything that does go wrong is more proof that they were right to leave the EU in the 1st place!

Lemming

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think. it is pretty clear how the UK intend to deal with it going forward.

Anything, and everything, that goes wrong from now on is because of the intransigence of some evil plot by the EU.

It is not Brexit, or even the deal, that is to blame. It is the EU and their rules, which they have completely changed just to get at the UK.

And the best part is that argument can then be used to claim that anything that does go wrong is more proof that they were right to leave the EU in the 1st place!

I don't disagree - they're already at it - but there is only so much road that they can put out on this before it comes back to them. At some point the public are going to want meaningful solutions that make their lives better; pointing a finger doesn't do that and if the proverbial man in charge does nothing but finger pointing he eventually shows himself for what he really is - weak & powerless in the face of reality, possibly incompetent, possibly all of the above. They can try to spin or gaslight but that just buys a bit more road until reality dawns, and as the expression goes; "Money talks, bullsh1t walks".

I honestly think that the local elections will see a strong protest vote against the incumbents if nothing else, which would be enough to make a lot of Tory backbenchers start to get jittery. Don't forget that there's a lot of unhappy people regards Covid lockdowns, how the government have behaved, etc. The Tories have been getting a free pass thus far on account of the "rally around the flag in times of war" mentality. Combine that with the ever growing list of "benefits" coming out of Brexit and whilst it wont be some landslide, it may well be enough to start turning areas away from "Blue" or at least make for uncomfortable reading in supposedly safe seat Tory areas.

yagan

Enzokk wrote: »

What else could explain the polling numbers we are seeing and the faith in government and the general apathy towards the corrupt and deception that is in plain sight?

The delusion floats on a cloud of nationalist supremacy engrained over centuries of ruling other nations. All the rags are doing are leaning into it.

John of Guant's speech from Shakespeare's Richard II is often cited as the epitome of English jingoism

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

Normally that's where people's familiarity ends but it is merely a preamble for this complaint....

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

The Shakespearean age was the age of Buccaneering England and its nascent empire, but Brexit isn't renewal but more a cargo culture to its past. Britain has more in common with post USSR Russia than it has with us in the EU.

Leroy42

Lemming wrote: »

I don't disagree - they're already at it - but there is only so much road that they can put out on this before it comes back to them. At some point the public are going to want meaningful solutions that make their lives better; pointing a finger doesn't do that and if the proverbial man in charge does nothing but finger pointing he eventually shows himself for what he really is - weak & powerless in the face of reality, possibly incompetent, possibly all of the above. They can try to spin or gaslight but that just buys a bit more road until reality dawns, and as the expression goes; "Money talks, bullsh1t walks".

I honestly think that the local elections will see a strong protest vote against the incumbents if nothing else, which would be enough to make a lot of Tory backbenchers start to get jittery. Don't forget that there's a lot of unhappy people regards Covid lockdowns, how the government have behaved, etc. The Tories have been getting a free pass thus far on account of the "rally around the flag in times of war" mentality. Combine that with the ever growing list of "benefits" coming out of Brexit and whilst it wont be some landslide, it may well be enough to start turning areas away from "Blue" or at least make for uncomfortable reading in supposedly safe seat Tory areas.

All sounds perfectly reasonable, except that who else do they vote for? Nobody is offering them any alternative. They were offered the alternative to the previous situation was Brexit, because everything is the EU's fault. 5 years after the vote they are still getting plenty of mileage out of it.

And anyone that offers to actually do something about it, lets take NI for example, is going to called out for basically looking to rejoin by the back door by signing up to rules and co-operation. Which starts eh whole 'falg waving' nonsense all over again and the actual real issues are buried under calls for belief and patriotism.

I also think their strategy to deal with any negatives is simply to focus on negatives in the EU. 'Sure out fishermen are wiped out, but the french fishermen are striking. Hate to be them'.

Nody

And once again the brain trust in UK gets shocked when EU does exactly what it said it would do; how dare they?!

he Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, has accused the European Union of trying to poach business from the City of London in the wake of Brexit, labelling the bloc’s recent activity a “very serious escalation”.

Mr Bailey told the Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday the EU now seems more interested in taking euro-denominated derivatives clearing business out of London and into the EU than making sure the UK’s regulations are “equivalent” to the bloc’s for financial stability reasons.

The governor said it looked like the EU was preparing to exert regulatory pressure on EU financial firms to shift their activity out of London and into the EU.

A document from a European Commission working group was reported by Reuters this week to show Europe’s largest banks are being asked justify why they should not clear derivatives in the EU.

“I have to say to you that would be highly controversial – and that would be something that we would have to, and want to, resist very firmly.”

We (as in people posting in this thread) predicted this well before the Brexit deal was signed as an obvious change coming but I guess it's to much to ask that the bank of England governor would be able to foresee something like this coming... I mean how dare EU take control of their own banking system and move it out from UK control?! Outrageous I tell you, outrageous...

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

All sounds perfectly reasonable, except that who else do they vote for? Nobody is offering them any alternative.

That's where the finger-pointing laziness risks tipping the Tories into the realm of unintended consequences: two of the constituent nations of the Kingdom are in a position to offer their electorates reasonable alternatives. It just so happens that these are two regions that are very visibly suffering the inevitable negative consequences of Brexit, with no immediate prospect of a return to "business as usual" no matter where the Tories think they can lay the blame.

Scotland has an established pro-European party that is perfectly positioned now to offer a genuine, workable solution: EU membership on the back of independence. If (quite a big if, still, but if) the SNP mop up an overwhelming number of dissatisfied voters and earn themselves a massive majority, that will set a clear example for Wales to follow, and - observing from afar - the English will, in time, perhaps begin to look for something better.

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

And once again the brain trust in UK gets shocked when EU does exactly what it said it would do; how dare they?!

We (as in people posting in this thread) predicted this well before the Brexit deal was signed as an obvious change coming but I guess it's to much to ask that the bank of England governor would be able to foresee something like this coming... I mean how dare EU take control of their own banking system and move it out from UK control?! Outrageous I tell you, outrageous...

Perhaps more pointedly, there are increasingly-insistent and increasingly-frequent noises coming out of Brussels (via T.Connelly and other respected political journalists/commentators with quality sources), that moderate EU member states are fast losing ground to the hardliners, translating the fact that many (-who matter) in the EU have now just about had it with the UK's nationalist EU-blaming nonsense and are getting ready to write it off for good and take the gloves off.

About 2 months after getting the TCA signed, with about 4 months until full-fat customs controls get going.

I suppose that, pragmatically, if the EU is going to continue getting blamed no matter what and the relationship is a write-off over the medium term...then the EU might as well take the profit (go full-on Brussels on England and snag every last job, investment, etc, opportunity going) and 'deserve' that blame.

If you ask me...popcorn is looking a mighty fine investment, chaps and chapettes

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

Perhaps more pointedly, there are increasingly-insistent and increasingly-frequent noises coming out of Brussels (via T.Connelly and other respected political journalists/commentators with quality sources), that moderate EU member states are fast losing ground to the hardliners, translating the fact that many (-who matter) in the EU have now just about had it with the UK's nationalist EU-blaming nonsense and are getting ready to write it off for good and take the gloves off.

About 2 months after getting the TCA signed, with about 4 months until full-fat customs controls get going.

I suppose that, pragmatically, if the EU is going to continue getting blamed no matter what and the relationship is a write-off over the medium term...then the EU might as well take the profit (go full-on Brussels on England and snag every last job, investment, etc, opportunity going) and 'deserve' that blame.

If you ask me...popcorn is looking a mighty fine investment, chaps and chapettes

From an Irish perspective, we might do well to stock up on more than popcorn if that scenario comes to pass. Such an attitude to Britain would not serve Ireland's economic and security interests well.

eire4

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From an Irish perspective, we might do well to stock up on more than popcorn if that scenario comes to pass. Such an attitude to Britain would not serve Ireland's economic and security interests well.

I would think from an Irish perspective that the next few years are going to be difficult and challenging to say the least. But hopefully bit by bit we are able to decouple ourselves economically from the UK to a large extent. For example with the gradual ending for the most part of the land bridge and the increase in sailings and expansion of our ports to go directly into the continental EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not a "simple vote". It requires either (a) a vote of no confidence in the government, or (b) a vote for an early election carried by a two-thirds majority of the total membership.

I would not put it past them to vote against themselves in a no confidence vote and then use the Privy Council or whatever to get the Queen to agree that an alternative govt couldn't be formed because of their majority.

What the government could do is repeal or amend the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, so that they wouldn't need to get a two-thirds majority in order to hold an early election. (This is what Johnson did in 2019, on a one-off basis.) Doing that doesn't itself require a two-thirds majority, but it does require legislation, which would be controversial and time-consuming, and has to go through the Lords as well as the Commons.

The PM can simply appoint a few hundred new lords and railroad it through the upper house.

There is nothing in the UK constitution to prevent abuses of power because it's got loopholes everywhere. A one-off basis just means the precedent has now been set.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From an Irish perspective, we might do well to stock up on more than popcorn if that scenario comes to pass. Such an attitude to Britain would not serve Ireland's economic and security interests well.

That is fair.

But if the premise of Gavin Esler's recent book How Britain Ends manifests as soon as he (and a good number of us 'Brexit pundits') expects, then this situation may not be as uncomfortable as you suggest for long. For the record I'm putting as much in that book, as I did in Fintan O'Toole's Heroic Failure (-whose conclusions several years ago, in terms of the Brexiteers' cult of victimhood, many only seem to be waking up to now).

There's a non-trivial debate about how much competition could an independent Scotland give Ireland, still larger a debate about the opportunity cost of a hypothetical-eventual Irish reunification, with both events forecast in the medium term...but these would go a long way towards mitigating the risks for Ireland that you raise, IMHO.

After all, the UK is already belligerent, to all intents and purposes. Sure it's not Russia; but for the EU27, it might as well be. So a loss of territorial integrity and population would only mitigate the situation. And speaking of Russia, I think many on here will have noted how the EU recently started to find and flex its geopolitical backbone.

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

That is fair.

But if the premise of Gavin Esler's recent book How Britain Ends manifests as soon as he (and a good number of us 'Brexit pundits') expects, then this situation may not be as uncomfortable as you suggest for long. For the record I'm putting as much in that book, as I did in Fintan O'Toole's Heroic Failure (-whose conclusions several years ago, in terms of the Brexiteers' cult of victimhood, many only seem to be waking up to now).

There's a non-trivial debate about how much competition could an independent Scotland give Ireland, still larger a debate about the opportunity cost of a hypothetical-eventual Irish reunification, with both events forecast in the medium term...but these would go a long way towards mitigating the risks for Ireland that you raise, IMHO.

After all, the UK is already belligerent, to all intents and purposes. Sure it's not Russia; but for the EU27, it might as well be. So a loss of territorial integrity and population would only mitigate the situation. And speaking of Russia, I think many on here will have noted how the EU recently started to find and flex its geopolitical backbone.

In terms of Scotland, first of all they have to get a referendum. But more importantly, what has yet to be discussed is the economic cost of independence. Polling is showing a preference for independence but when the economic facts are laid out (the LSE estimates at least £11 billion pa) many will swing back the other way rather than have years of mayhem especially after the hit of a pandemic.

I think that the idea of a United Ireland anytime soon isn't really a runner. If anything, Unionist opinion is hardening. In that context, the EU sticking it to Britain will mean that Britain will retaliate. We've already seen how populist and reactive this Tory party is. They have no choice, it's we the Tory party are at fault or the EU is attacking us so we must defend ourselves. They will then use NI to teach Ireland/EU a 'lesson' while simultaneously squeezing our exports.

Such is their nationalistic hubris, they are quite prepared to inflict severe self-harm if it damages the EU and teaches the treacherous Paddies a lesson. This will be cheered on by the Brexiteer voters - the ones who elected them in the first place. If this is instigated by the EU this year, we can expect trouble in NI and further severe damage to our economy (an economy that will be limping out of a pandemic). Both of these damaging consequences will last for years.

Leroy42

Yes but if the EU will get the blame no matter what happens, and the recent Art 16 episode shows the willingness of the UK to use anything to their advantage, then there surely comes a point where continued attempt to pacify them leads only to further complaints and demands.

Take the latest demands to extend the transition periods. UK were repeatedly pleaded to extend the actual transition but refused, and now complaining that the EU are not being pragmatic by not agreeing to amend the deadlines.

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

It really doesn't matter what Starmer or Labour does. We have to face the possibility that the UK public has been gaslighted by the media into believing that Labour is evil and not worth voting for, even if the evidence of the last 11 years has been clear that the Tories is not the answer to solve people's problems.

Have you considered the possibility that both major UK parties are awfu?

I mean if Labour are deliberately refusing to hold the Tories to account, how are they any better? I don't think the media have portrayed Labour as "evil" but they have portrayed them as ineffective, incompetent, and incapable of governing the country. Looking at their performance over the last 5 years or so, can you really say that that view is wrong?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Anything, and everything, that goes wrong from now on is because of the intransigence of some evil plot by the EU.

It is not Brexit, or even the deal, that is to blame. It is the EU and their rules, which they have completely changed just to get at the UK.

And the best part is that argument can then be used to claim that anything that does go wrong is more proof that they were right to leave the EU in the 1st place!

The problem is that the only anti-Brexit parties are smaller parties (SNP, LD, Greens). The two major parties, who hold a virtual duopoly, are either in favour of Brexit, or vaguely neutral. So there is no one that the British (or more specifically English) public believes in who is holding them to account and saying "actually no, this isn't the EU being mean, its a natural consequence of Brexit".

The two parties, Conservative and Labour, can sustain their stranglehold over the country indefinitely, so long as none of them ever breaks script from the Brexit issue. And they can allow the UK wallow in the background. Leaving aside all Brexit and Covid issues, where are Labour with calls for increased public spending etc?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes but if the EU will get the blame no matter what happens, and the recent Art 16 episode shows the willingness of the UK to use anything to their advantage, then there surely comes a point where continued attempt to pacify them leads only to further complaints and demands.

Take the latest demands to extend the transition periods. UK were repeatedly pleaded to extend the actual transition but refused, and now complaining that the EU are not being pragmatic by not agreeing to amend the deadlines.

There was always going to be discord. It is in our interests that the EU continues to behave in a respectful way towards Britain. It's going to be hard on Britain's economy and the EU must not be seen to take obvious advantage of that. Exacerbating pre-existing tensions to the point where there is nationalistic economic warfare and a re-introductions of the likes of the Internal Markets Bill is most definitely not in Ireland's interests. Rather than take a belligerent and antagonistic approach, it would be better to politely let them twist in the wind as the impacts of Brexit slowly manifest themselves.

johnnyskeleton

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From an Irish perspective, we might do well to stock up on more than popcorn if that scenario comes to pass. Such an attitude to Britain would not serve Ireland's economic and security interests well.

Would it not?

Economically, the big risks were that we wouldn't be able to sell our goods into the UK without tarrifs, thus losing out e.g. beef competition to South America; that there would be disruption to our freight imports and exports (there has been, but it hasn't been as bad as it could have been, thanks to Irish preparedness with the other ferries etc) and the other risk is that Britain could cut its taxes so low that we would lose all the MNCs based here (thankfully, the UK budget deficit is too large for them to realistically start cutting corporation tax now).

Eocnomically the big opportunities are that we can better market our products within the EU to replace UK exports e.g. cheese, beef, lamb etc; that we might take a slice out of UK financial services and tech and that we might offer a more stable common law system for intentaional investors.

These were the risks, and there were counterparty risks for the UK too, but they chose how they left and so overall we didn't do too badly on the Brexit front, and there is no reason why we shouldn't press our economic advantage in the areas which we have it.

Regarding security, it has long been a somewhat unspoken rule that Ireland would not have a large armed forces and in exchange the UK would provide air patrol and sea dominance. This situation suits both parties - it's cheaper (if a little humiliating) for Ireland as a sovereign independent nation, and it means that the UK don't have to worry about a large, modern and hostile army being based in the closest Island to them.

(There is also the security co-operation regarding crime etc, but it would seem that the UK are still willing to engage on that front, and that isn't really a big ticket issue).

There may well come a time when the current security arrangements no longer suit the British. I could well imagine a situation where if the Express or Daily Mail decided to run with it, there would be a lot of "Why are we paying to protect the Paddys" type commentary. But the reality is that from a geo strategic point of view, it would be a disaster for the UK if Ireland had a large army capable of hitting targets in the UK at short notice etc. It would be even worse if we had common EU forces stationed here regularly if such a thing were ever to occur.

The UK are trying to drive a wedge between the US and the other European NATO members. This isn't helped by the relations between the EU and US still being somewhat cool after Trump. But the reality is that the UK can't afford to break security ties with the EU. Even if there isn't an actual war scenario (which is highly unlikely), the cost of having to prepare, build and maintain defences, both physical and cyber, in the event of a theoretical war with the EU would either mean a massive increase in UK military spending or else they would have to cancel a lot of their further afield activities e.g. defense of Crown Dependencies etc.

But yeah, if Ireland had to spend a NATO equivalent on defence e.g. 2% of GDP, it would be very difficult on our budget and there would have to be cutbacks elsewhere. But it might be a necessary minimum cost that all modern Western nations must pay for their own security. That isn't of itself a bad thing.

Mr.Wemmick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that both major UK parties are awfu?

I mean if Labour are deliberately refusing to hold the Tories to account, how are they any better? I don't think the media have portrayed Labour as "evil" but they have portrayed them as ineffective, incompetent, and incapable of governing the country. Looking at their performance over the last 5 years or so, can you really say that that view is wrong?



The problem is that the only anti-Brexit parties are smaller parties (SNP, LD, Greens). The two major parties, who hold a virtual duopoly, are either in favour of Brexit, or vaguely neutral. So there is no one that the British (or more specifically English) public believes in who is holding them to account and saying "actually no, this isn't the EU being mean, its a natural consequence of Brexit".

The two parties, Conservative and Labour, can sustain their stranglehold over the country indefinitely, so long as none of them ever breaks script from the Brexit issue. And they can allow the UK wallow in the background. Leaving aside all Brexit and Covid issues, where are Labour with calls for increased public spending etc?

Living in the UK since 2014 and this post nails it.

Labour is becoming weaker by the day.. feels like the party is being dismantled from the inside out by Starmer. The join-up between Labour and Tories is often presented as a covid necessity, but in truth it's to keep a lid on the brexit fall out and steer criticism away from Johnson. As a result, Starmer makes Johnson look stronger.. it's almost becoming like a staged dramatic production of sorts to keep the domestic audience distracted.. and the UK media plays along to keep the falseness real.

From where I am sitting, 'tis very worrying.

Enzokk

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that both major UK parties are awfu?

I mean if Labour are deliberately refusing to hold the Tories to account, how are they any better? I don't think the media have portrayed Labour as "evil" but they have portrayed them as ineffective, incompetent, and incapable of governing the country. Looking at their performance over the last 5 years or so, can you really say that that view is wrong?

So maybe my phrasing of evil was a bit extreme, but your post says they are being portrayed as incompetent and incapable. That, in political terms, isn't far off from what I posted.

But I don't see how I am supposed to refute that they are incapable of running the country based off their performance of the last 5 years. They haven't been in charge since 2010 so I don't know how anyone can say they will be terrible at running the country with any certainty, especially when the cohort that was in charge the last 5 years isn't there any longer.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Living in the UK since 2014 and this post nails it.

Labour is becoming weaker by the day.. feels like the party is being dismantled from the inside out by Starmer. The join-up between Labour and Tories is often presented as a covid necessity, but in truth it's to keep a lid on the brexit fall out and steer criticism away from Johnson. As a result, Starmer makes Johnson look stronger.. it's almost becoming like a staged dramatic production of sorts to keep the domestic audience distracted.. and the UK media plays along to keep the falseness real.

From where I am sitting, 'tis very worrying.

I think we are seeing an interesting dynamic in the UK, they have been beaten by Brexit for years and then the pandemic hit. They are dealing with this absolutely awfully, even with a well run vaccination rollout, so I think the country is looking to latch onto something, anything, positive. It so happens that the vaccinations have come at the right time. So that is one of the reasons why we are seeing strong support for Johnson.

Add into this what is discussed above, media in the country that is either incapable or not interested to hold Johnson to account for Brexit, which is where you expect him to be hammered, and the result is what we are seeing. I have posted it before, but Starmer could do everything right for the next 4 years and still face a massive loss, just because everything is stacked against Labour.

Add in the stupid infighting within the party and, well you get what we are seeing now.