Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

Well as ACD said earlier, they don't seem to have a plan or a vision for the UK. In the ordinary course of events, the party in charge says lets do X, the opposition says no don't do X because it will cause Y. If Y happens, then the opposition party can legitimately say "if we had been in charge, we would have done Y" and so they prove their ability to make the correct calls.

If the party in charge says lets do X and the opposition says "yah, no, maybe" and then make a vague, unrelated comment about the party in charge had made mistakes before, without any indication as to what they would have done, had they been in power, they are showing an inability to make decisions.

So lets say there is a scale of how well an opposition party demonstrates how they are capable of running a country:

1) Correctly assessing problems, offering plausible solutions, then criticising the government when they make mistakes, but also being able to support the government when it is the right thing to do;

2) Correctly assessing problems, offering plausible solutions but otherwise ignoring the government of the day;

3) Sometimes correctly assessing problems and offering plausible solutions, but sometimes getting it wrong;

4) Correctly assessing problems, offering implausible, but ideologically pure solutions, and blaming the government of the day for their past mistakes, while knowing that even if in power their solutions will never really be implemented;

5) Offering no commentary on what the government is doing, but criticising them in an ex post facto manner if they make a mistake;

6) Sitting there doing nothing, clapping like a seal whenever someone says your name.

7) Complaining that because you are not in power, you don't have an opportunity to make the correct decisions, while refusing to offer any commentary from the opposition bench. The corollary of this is a sitting government saying "well, we had to make a decision" even when that decision was patently wrong.

Labour are somewhere between 5) and 6) above, and are not demonstrating that, if they were in power, they would be capable of effectively wielding it. The idea that because they are not in power we don't know if they are capable of running the UK or not isn't some Schrodinger's competent government - they are demonstrating that by not being able to hold the government to account, they could never actually run the UK themselves.

Patser

Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere looking more and more unsustainable, with brexit playing a large part due to battery requirements if they want to switch to electric vehicle production.

So Owners looking for UK Govt to either rapidly support large scale battery production, or cancel petrol/diesel ban from 2030 or company goes bust

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56190072

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

But those are domestic UK matters. The suggestion above is not that the EU punishes the UK (here we go again ... :rolleyes: ) but that there is likely no good reason for the EU to be nice to the UK if the EU's actions are constantly portrayed as hostile, even when they are nothing more than the application of existing rules that the UK helped draft.

Arising from a strict application of the rules - because the UK continues to play "silly buggers" - the economic effect can be more easily highlighted and correctly attributed to Brexit in the regions with a more diverse political representation, i.e. Scotland and Wales.

So I would think it'd be entirely plausible to see two different scenarios playing out simultaneously: Tory-England blustering and whinging about Bully-boy Brussels while continuing their rob-from-the-poor policies of the last decade and more; and an increasing Anglophobic sentiment pushing both Scotland and Wales towards a political point of no return.

yagan

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

.

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.

What you're overlooking is that the Tory's number one priority is reelection, and Boris won a stomping English majority to get Brexit done by dumping the DUP.

The Loyalists can get as hardnosed as they want but the shrillest cries and loud protests of soviets couldn't stop the USSR from collapsing. The Tory's won't care if the UK falls apart as long as they deliver for their English voter base.

Boris Yeltsin actually withdrew Russia from the USSR which meant it simply dissolved, and while history doesn't repeat itself it does rhyme, especially with a Boris at the helm.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In terms of Scotland, first of all they have to get a referendum.

They may choose to declare independence only after a referendum, but they don't have to. We didn't.

If the SNP get a thumping majority, that's a mandate, just as Sinn Fein's was in 1918.

Capt'n Midnight

Patser wrote: »

Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere looking more and more unsustainable, with brexit playing a large part due to battery requirements if they want to switch to electric vehicle production.

So Owners looking for UK Govt to either rapidly support large scale battery production, or cancel petrol/diesel ban from 2030 or company goes bust

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56190072

Vauxhall: Crunch talks to save Ellesmere Port plant continue

A board meeting of Vauxhall's parent company ended without agreement on its fate, although an announcement is expected within 48 hours.

20silkcut

CelticRambler wrote: »

But those are domestic UK matters. The suggestion above is not that the EU punishes the UK (here we go again ... :rolleyes: ) but that there is likely no good reason for the EU to be nice to the UK if the EU's actions are constantly portrayed as hostile, even when they are nothing more than the application of existing rules that the UK helped draft.

Arising from a strict application of the rules - because the UK continues to play "silly buggers" - the economic effect can be more easily highlighted and correctly attributed to Brexit in the regions with a more diverse political representation, i.e. Scotland and Wales.

So I would think it'd be entirely plausible to see two different scenarios playing out simultaneously: Tory-England blustering and whinging about Bully-boy Brussels while continuing their rob-from-the-poor policies of the last decade and more; and an increasing Anglophobic sentiment pushing both Scotland and Wales towards a political point of no return.

Why aren’t the EU getting the message out there that these are existing rules that are being implemented and not new rules invented on the spot to punish the U.K.
I mean the EU is a huge organisation surely getting this message out there is not a massive task.
I know the U.K. is left the EU and public opinion in the U.K. is irrelevant but surely counteracting bull**** is important.
A few ad campaigns or media articles calmly demonstrating that these laws were crafted with the full blessing of the U.K. as an EU member would surely cut through the bluster.

View

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.

It isn’t in Ireland’s interests for the EU to go around capitulating to Brexiters whims.

There is an FTA. FTAs almost never get altered and, if they do, the timetable for this is measured in decades.

There is no need for “on-going negotiations” about anything now. The U.K. has had four and a half years of dragged out negotiations and if they didn’t figure out what they wanted and negotiate for it in that time, that’s too bad.

Strazdas

20silkcut wrote: »

Why aren’t the EU getting the message out there that these are existing rules that are being implemented and not new rules invented on the spot to punish the U.K.
I mean the EU is a huge organisation surely getting this message out there is not a massive task.
I know the U.K. is left the EU and public opinion in the U.K. is irrelevant but surely counteracting bull**** is important.
A few ad campaigns or media articles calmly demonstrating that these laws were crafted with the full blessing of the U.K. as an EU member would surely cut through the bluster.

If the UK wants to run itself like an authoritarian dictatorship and lie to its public a hundred times a day, there's not much the EU can do about it. British public opinion is not their responsibility....even if it's the EU that's being lied about.

But these lies are not going unnoticed. They are probably doing immeasurable harm to the UK-EU relationship and making Britain seem even less trustworthy (if that were possible).

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They may choose to declare independence only after a referendum, but they don't have to. We didn't.

If the SNP get a thumping majority, that's a mandate, just as Sinn Fein's was in 1918.

A thumping majority is a mandate for declaring-independence-without-a-referendum only if that's the mandate the SNP seeks. Right now, it's not the mandate they are seeking.

They can't unilaterally decide after the election that what the people have voted for is independence-without-a-referendum. Only Brexiters are allowed to make decisions like that.

fash

20silkcut wrote: »

Why aren’t the EU getting the message out there that these are existing rules that are being implemented and not new rules invented on the spot to punish the U.K.
I mean the EU is a huge organisation surely getting this message out there is not a massive task.
I know the U.K. is left the EU and publBBCic opinion in the U.K. is irrelevant but surely counteracting bull**** is important.
A few ad campaigns or media articles calmly demonstrating that these laws were crafted with the full blessing of the U.K. as an EU member would surely cut through the bluster.

It wouldn't really though - the Tories and their fellow brexiters control much of the media and the BBC - it's all one brexity machine. How does one get a word in- and not have that drowned out?

Regarding the posts about Labour etc., it feels like the UK is engaging in hypernormalisation out of sheer necessity. Brexit and Covid-19 are too complex and the effects so widespread, it's easier to deal with and present a fake and more simple version of reality.

CelticRambler

20silkcut wrote: »

Why aren’t the EU getting the message out there that these are existing rules that are being implemented and not new rules invented on the spot to punish the U.K.

Because Brexit is done, the UK has "left the building" and the EU is not trying to negotiate a new trade deal. From now on, if the UK wants access to the Single Market for any or all of its goods and services, it needs to come cap-in-hand to the EU and ask what are the terms and conditions; and the EU will say "them's the rules, mate" - same as for any other third country. Do you hear of the EU running PR campaigns in Belarus or Morocco?

20silkcut

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because Brexit is done, the UK has "left the building" and the EU is not trying to negotiate a new trade deal. From now on, if the UK wants access to the Single Market for any or all of its goods and services, it needs to come cap-in-hand to the EU and ask what are the terms and conditions; and the EU will say "them's the rules, mate" - same as for any other third country. Do you hear of the EU running PR campaigns in Belarus or Morocco?

In fairness Belarus and Morocco are currently insignificant in comparison to the U.K.
The relationship between the EU and U.K. is becoming increasingly belligerent and a highly damaging economic war is very much on the cards . A subtle PR campaign aimed at the British public would be no harm at all in my opinion. Just letting them know the truth.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

In fairness Belarus and Morocco are insignificant in comparison to the U.K.
The relationship between the EU and U.K. is becoming increasingly belligerent and a highly damaging economic war is very much on the cards . A subtle PR campaign aimed at the British public would be no harm at all in my opinion.

You weren't talking about anything subtle earlier on; you were talking about "ad campaigns or media articles calmly demonstrating that these laws were crafted with the full blessing of the U.K. as an EU member".

Seriously, you can imagine how that would be played — EU attempting to influence UK politics; EU interfering; EU still seeking to control UK; EU won't accept that we've left; jackbooted empire; Goebbels-like propaganda; etc, etc. It would be massively, massively counterproductive. And trying it it would look extremely insecure.

The EU has known all along that (a) Brexit will be painful for the UK; and (b) those responsible for that will blame the EU. That's inevitable, and there's nothing to be done about it; there never was. But don't stress about the things you cannot change. The EU is big enough to ride this out, easily.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

They can't unilaterally decide after the election that what the people have voted for is independence-without-a-referendum. Only Brexiters are allowed to make decisions like that.

In a representative democracy, we elect people to represent us. They are not bound to do only and exactly what was in their last manifesto, they are charged with reacting to changing conditions.

So if, for example, the SNP dominate the next election with a mandate to hold a referendum, and the Tories say no, never, no more referendums, they might feel justified in declaring independence without a referendum.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

There is no need for “on-going negotiations” about anything now.

On the contrary, the agreement set up loads of committees and working groups to talk about all sorts of stuff forever, because unlike a normal FTA, this was a botch done in a rush after the UK faffed about for four years.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

You weren't talking about anything subtle earlier on; you were talking about "ad campaigns or media articles calmly demonstrating that these laws were crafted with the full blessing of the U.K. as an EU member".

Seriously, you can imagine how that would be played — EU attempting to influence UK politics; EU interfering; EU still seeking to control UK; EU won't accept that we've left; jackbooted empire; Goebbels-like propaganda; etc, etc. It would be massively, massively counterproductive. And trying it it would look extremely insecure.

The EU has known all along that (a) Brexit will be painful for the UK; and (b) those responsible for that will blame the EU. That's inevitable, and there's nothing to be done about it; there never was. But don't stress about the things you cannot change. The EU is big enough to ride this out, easily.

I don’t think an ad or an article in a newspaper stating that the rules in regard to the importation of shellfish to the EU has been in place long before brexit was ever contemplated is aggressive or goebbels level stuff or in anyway demonstrates insecurity.
Getting the message out there that the only thing that has changed is brexit is not an aggressive line or coming from a place of insecurity in my opinion. Something along the lines of that Dutch customs official calmly saying I’m sorry welcome to brexit.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

I don’t think an ad or an article in a newspaper stating that the rules in regard to the importation of shellfish to the EU has been in place long before brexit was ever contemplated is aggressive or goebbels level stuff or in anyway demonstrates insecurity.

There have been article in the UK newspapers pointing this out already. Those articles don't become any more authoritative or persuasive if they are perceived to be, basically, ads paid for by the EU.

20silkcut wrote: »

Getting the message out there that the only thing that has changed is brexit is not an aggressive line or coming from a place of insecurity in my opinion. Something along the lines of that Dutch customs official calmly saying I’m sorry welcome to brexit.

Why would the EU be paying out EU taxpayers money to influence the opinions of people in the UK, who are not EU citizens? Feeling the need to seek the good opinion of people to whom you are not accountable or responsible would look very insecure, I think. I can't think that many national governments would do such a thing indivdiually, and I don't see that they should do it collectively through a supranational organisation either.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In a representative democracy, we elect people to represent us. They are not bound to do only and exactly what was in their last manifesto, they are charged with reacting to changing conditions.

So if, for example, the SNP dominate the next election with a mandate to hold a referendum, and the Tories say no, never, no more referendums, they might feel justified in declaring independence without a referendum.

Mmm. I take your point. Still, it looks odd to demand a referendum so that the people can decide and then, if you don't get a a referendum, to say "bugger whether the people want it, we're doing it anyway!" Especially as the people have, not that long ago, voted not to seek independence.

I think at a minimum the SNP would need to win an election with a manifisto commitment to (1) hold a referendum, but (2) if Westminster prevents that, declare independence without one.

But that would need careful thought. SFAIK the SNP has never up to now campaigned for UDI, which is what option (2) would be, or for the achievement of independence by unconstititutional means, which again would be option (2). So they'd want to think carefully about the political pros and cons of going down that road. How might their opponents capitalise on such a radical move, for one thing? Might some of their own voters be dismayed by it? And how would it play out? Westminster would hardly throw up its hands and concede.

They'd also want to think carefully about whether they should tie their own hands in this way in the event of Westminster refusing a referendum. They might prefer, for example, to have the option of doing other things to pressure Westminster.

Zubeneschamali

I think what the SNP are more likely to do in practice if blocked is hold a referendum without Westminsters permission.

But a unilateral declaration of independence is not unprecedented, in fact I think it is a perfectly normal way for countries to gain independence.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the contrary, the agreement set up loads of committees and working groups to talk about all sorts of stuff forever, because unlike a normal FTA, this was a botch done in a rush after the UK faffed about for four years.

Committees clarifying rules in sub-areas of a broad agreement, that has already been decided upon, is fundamentally different from on going negotiations aimed at altering what the agreement covers (ie the “architecture” of the agreement).

If the U.K. spent four years faffing about during the negotiations, that’s their problem.

The EU has a queue of countries who want to negotiate with it, and who are capable of making up their minds and negotiate in a professional manner, and they, not the U.K., have to be the EU’s priority now.

“Brexit means Brexit” and that means the U.K. is gone, not in a position to turn up in Brussels every week as though it is still a member state about to pop in to the latest meeting of the Council of Ministers.

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think at a minimum the SNP would need to win an election with a manifisto commitment to (1) hold a referendum, but (2) if Westminster prevents that, declare independence without one.

There is a third way: make a pledge to hold a referendum within a certain time, with or without the approval of Westminster. That would give them a mandate to seek to define the Will of the People on that one particular point, without falling into the trap of extrapolating election results to mean something not on the ballot paper.

Mr.Wemmick

20silkcut wrote: »

Why aren’t the EU getting the message out there that these are existing rules that are being implemented and not new rules invented on the spot to punish the U.K.
I mean the EU is a huge organisation surely getting this message out there is not a massive task.
I know the U.K. is left the EU and public opinion in the U.K. is irrelevant but surely counteracting bull**** is important.
A few ad campaigns or media articles calmly demonstrating that these laws were crafted with the full blessing of the U.K. as an EU member would surely cut through the bluster.

Murdoch is the King of false media attacks and he hates the EU. The EU doesn't have a media arm in the same way HMG does.. the EU works within the EU and does not converse with the public in the same way UK populism milks it.
Right now Murdoch and the far-right tory rabble are singing loudly from the same hymn sheet. Funny that Corbyn was hounded in a similar way as he threatened the establishment.. note Starmer is left mostly alone as he is threatens no one.

I'm beginning to think the EU no longer cares - quite happy to sit back and watch the UK swallow itself whole.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

There is a third way: make a pledge to hold a referendum within a certain time, with or without the approval of Westminster. That would give them a mandate to seek to define the Will of the People on that one particular point, without falling into the trap of extrapolating election results to mean something not on the ballot paper.

I like this. But the problem there is that there is currently a case before the Scottish courts seeking a ruling on whether the Scottish government can, legally, hold a referendum in defiance of Westminster. Until there is a final decision in that case — and there is unlikely to be by 6 May, since the case will presumably go all the way to the UK Supreme Court — the SNP would want to think very carefully before committing to what might be an illegal action (which raises the concerns I mentioned earlier, in a slightly different form).

SNP strong preference is for a referendum with Westminister consent. And I can see why - virtually impossible for Westminster to deny the legitimacy or authority of a referendum to which it has consented. As long as there is any possibilty of Westminster consent, they will be reluctant to close off that possibility by proceeding without consent. Even if you think there will be no Westminster consent while the Tories remain in office, you might still think your best hope is to aim for a referendum after the next Westminster election, rather than force the issue by acting unconstitutionally.

It's hard to see a safe, assured path from unconstititional action (UDI or an unauthorised referendum) to actual independence. So you would think long and hard before going down that very uncertain road. It hasn't worked out well for Catalonia, after all.

rock22

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

....

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. E...

Are you serious?
Of course we must take advantage of any and every opportunity to further our own economic interests. Do you think Irish farmers should hold their stock back because it might hurt UK farmers?

Don't forget that UK took the path of Brexit , at least in part, because they were promised an better economic outlook free of all the EU rules and bureaucracy .
Do you honestly believe that we must continue to doff out caps to out English 'betters' and remain in relative poverty so we are not seeing to compete with them?

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that the idea of a United Ireland anytime soon isn't really a runner. If anything, Unionist opinion is hardening.

That's how it looks now, but if Scottish independence picks up momentum, Tory misrule continues and Brexit economic numbers continue to get worse, the less committed voters in NI may start to see that the grass is greener back in the EU.

Hardliners Unionism will never change their minds, but that doesn't matter.

Professor Moriarty

rock22 wrote: »

Are you serious?
Of course we must take advantage of any and every opportunity to further our own economic interests. Do you think Irish farmers should hold their stock back because it might hurt UK farmers?

Don't forget that UK took the path of Brexit , at least in part, because they were promised an better economic outlook free of all the EU rules and bureaucracy .
Do you honestly believe that we must continue to doff out caps to out English 'betters' and remain in relative poverty so we are not seeing to compete with them?

Perhaps you missed the word "obvious"? In the context of the earlier conversation, my point was that we/theEU should not abandon our relationship with the UK, such as it is, and blatantly target every single job in the UK. Not least for Irish economic reasons and peace on this island. As I said, better to let them twist in the wind and the jobs will migrate by themselves. It is a time for diplomacy and nuance.

As for doffing our caps to our English betters, I don't see them as our betters. And we are not in relative poverty. In fact, people in the UK are relatively poorer.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's how it looks now, but if Scottish independence picks up momentum, Tory misrule continues and Brexit economic numbers continue to get worse, the less committed voters in NI may start to see that the grass is greener back in the EU.

Hardliners Unionism will never change their minds, but that doesn't matter.

Agreed, except hardline Unionism does matter. The reality is that Loyalism will not go gently into a United Ireland. That has serious implications for Ireland.

Professor Moriarty

View wrote: »

It isn’t in Ireland’s interests for the EU to go around capitulating to Brexiters whims.

There is an FTA. FTAs almost never get altered and, if they do, the timetable for this is measured in decades.

There is no need for “on-going negotiations” about anything now. The U.K. has had four and a half years of dragged out negotiations and if they didn’t figure out what they wanted and negotiate for it in that time, that’s too bad.

I never mentioned "on-going negotiations"? Nor did I suggest capitulation to Brexiteer whims. Instead, an assertive and respectful stance by the EU rather than an aggressive and belligerent stance is much more in Ireland's interests. To borrow a phrase, rather than be reactive, the EU should keep calm and carry on.