Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Correct, and there is no acknowledgment in the amateur mainstream media about this.

Essentially, these people styling themselves as “Irish nationalists” and British nationalists.

They are six degrees away from the British army and loyalist terrorists, but as it does not involve Sinn Féin, RTÉ, IT, etc as usual, ignore it - instead they focus on “Irish were immigrants once sh1te” rather than call them out.

A Sinn Féin victory would be interesting if only to see how they deal with Rowan Croft et al, a Brit soldier claiming he and his squaddies knows what best for Ireland

Really?

Yesterday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/12/04/spicebag-welcome-to-the-new-ireland-warts-anger-and-all-the-choices-we-make-now-will-determine-our-future/

Saturday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2023/12/02/building-for-a-long-time-how-the-global-far-right-jumped-on-dublins-anti-immigration-riots/

Last September:

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2023/09/21/who-are-the-oireachtas-protesters-and-what-were-they-protesting-against/

True, but due to the fact they are constantly in the headlines and coupled with the absurdity of the whole thing, I still think it is quite minimal coverage.

Where is the prime time special, where is the Garda surveillance - they are subversives

Poppy seller/Royal British legionnaire Kenneth Geary of Santry - another combat wearing Walter Mitty

Elliott has been a Brexit supporter since forever. By his standards this column is pretty weak, and is notable for what it doesn't say rather than what it does.

His "Brexit is not a disaster" line is not offered as a defence or vindication of Brexit. His point is just that the UK won't be rejoining any time soon, because Brexit would have to be an utter disaster for that to happen. He's probably right; the British public don't want to revisit Brexit if they can possibly avoid it, and it would have to be a disaster before they would accept that they couldn't avoid it.

Secondly, he doesn't pretend that Brexit has achieved very much. In fact he complains that "Brexit opportunities" have yet to be exploited.

He then glides into how the US has performed much better than the EU. I think we're supposed to infer that the UK, having cut its ties with the EU, has the Brexit opportunity of emulating the US but he doesn't actually say that, and he certainly doesn't discuss what that would entail. He complains about the EU having a "one size fits all" single currency but this doesn't make a lot of sense; after all, the US also has a "one size fits all" single currency. He complains about the EU's "neoliberal ideas" about controls on budget deficits; has he not noticed the US's recent sovereign debt crises arising out of legislated caps on government borrowing?

It's all a bit odd. In terms of economic policy Elliott is generally a man of the left. I doubt that he would advocate the UK economy being organised and run on US-style lines, so what exactly does he advocate the UK should do with its Brexit freedoms? He doesn't say, and his references to the US as a comparator don't make a lot of sense.

Finally, he points to the rise of "narrow nationalism" in the EU, and claims that the UK has not witnessed this, which he attributes to Brexit. That's obvious nonsense; the rise of narrow nationalism in the UK, and the degree of influence it has secured at the highest level of government, is one of the most striking features of recent UK political history. Elliott is an economic correspondent rather than a political correspondent but, seriously, it's hard to believe that he hasn't noticed this.

All in all, this is a weak and unconvincing endorsement of Brexit. I'm not sure that Elliott's heart is in it.

3rd level education isn't the issue when discussing Westminster. Anyone can go to university.

The problem is how many of the cabinet and parliament went to the likes of Eton. A child these days actually has more ability to choose their gender than choose to go to one of these king maker secondary schools.

@ancapailldorcha "Poor form to just dump a link here with a snappy comment."

I don't know what you problem is with my post. This isn't the first time I have gotten a similar comment from you. I noticed you had no problem discussing the post and its' content with others.

Don't worry , I won't be posting here again. I know not to cross the moderators.

Even parachuted-in candidates have to get through the local constituency party.

It works like this:

• To seek nomination for the Tory party in any seat you must first be pre-approved by Conservative Central Office. They look at your "skills and attributes", and supposedly also do due diligence checks, although as we know these are not infallible.
• You can then present yourself to one (or more) local parties to seek nomination.
• A local party committee draws up a longlist of (up to 8) potential candidates from among those seeking nomination. But they travel to national headquarters do do this, and they do it with the, um, support of national party officials. It's at this point that the national party can use its influence to ensure that a favoured candidate gets onto the longlist for a safe seat. They also ensure that only one favoured candidates is on the longlist for each safe seat - they don't want favoured candidates knocking each other out.
• The longlisted candidates are then interviewed by the local party executive, who narrow it down to a shortlist, usually of 2 or 3. There's no formal mechanism by which the national party can intervene to ensure the favoured candidate is on the shortlist, but no doubt there are informal channels through which persuasion can be exerted, if necessary.
• The local party then holds a special general meeting, at which any party member can attend and vote. The meeting chooses one of the shortlisted individuals to be the candidate.

This full process only operates in a constituency that doesn't have sitting Tory MP or in which the sitting Tory MP is standing down. If there's a sitting Tory MP who wants to stand again, the local party executive can simply readopt them as the candidate without any long- or shortlisting of alternative candidates, and it is rare for this not to happen.

The Labour process is slightly different. There is no pre-approval of potential candidates; any party member of more than 12 months standing, and who is a member of a trade union, can seek a nomination. But the longlist for each constituency is not drawn up by the local party, but by the national party, so they can always put a favoured candidate on the longlist for a safe seat. The longlist is narrowed down to a shortlist by a local party committee, and a hustings is held at which rank-and-file members of the local party vote to choose a candidate.

In both cases, the national party can ensure you're on the longlist, and can exert some indirect influence to try to ensure that you make it to the shortlist. But you still have to face the local party members, who will have the choice of at least one other nominee.

Nearly smashed my phone against a wall a few years ago listening to Eamonn McCann on a podcast talking absolute waffle about "Lexit".

"Useful idiot" does not even begin to describe anyone thick enough to fall for that whopper.

Did it ever occur to any of them to ponder why the UK was always trying to opt out of EU social legislation and worker protection?

Sure, the spectre and vocality of them but no proper thorough investigation - at least from ‘official Ireland’

similar, in fact, to Dublin City centre crime and lack of policing

Nonsense from beginning to end.

For starters the Bundestag does not control the ECB.

Disgusting that you would describe modern-day Ireland as a colony, when it actually used to be one and this directly led to the suffering and death of millions of Irish people.

Especially as the main reason we joined the EU in the first place was because the UK did. And for quite a period after, had the UK left we would have left before. It is why Dev felt the need to make a show of neutrality at Hitler's death because he knew we were not independent. We had to take whatever rules the British implemented for themselves or suffer. Now we have a say in those rules and get to discuss them.

And if we don't like it enough we can also leave and just suffer the financial consequences. I would not advocate such a position for obvious reasons but it should be stressed we have the freedom to not enter financial agreements that benefit us or to leave them.

Problem is "Ireland is controlled by the verfasungsgericht" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Oh look, same auld brexity "zee Germans" tropes.

Imagine the Yanks questioning your labour standards.

The UK has clothing sweat shops, their labour standards are that poor.

I doubt it's out of any concern for poor downtrodden UK workers. More just to protect the competitiveness of equivalent US workers/jobs/industry.

You can accept cheap foreign imports ignoring local working conditions (as the USA and Europe has done for decades) or set terms that protect your own industries but means the product isn't as cheap when it reaches the consumer (previously tariffs have been the main weapon to ensure this, but working conditions is a valid way as well).

Ultimately the stronger partner can set such terms in any negotiation, and the weaker partner is always free to walk away.

But surely the UK, by dint of being in the EU for so long, has good labour laws? Holidays, sick pay, redundancy, health and safety etc.

Agreeing to minimum labour law levels shouldn't be any reason to hold up a trade deal.

Lots of other reasons no doubt, but labour laws seems an odd one.