UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Great Nepal]

Or it is more workable. Not sure that's a high bar however. As far as I am aware, May's approach is contradictorary.

Besides, how could they divide the government more, and what would that achieve?

A no deal with the blame placed on the UK?

That's already happening.

Besides, if the plan is so workable, where is it? The EU does have serious problems with transparency and accountability.

You mean the organisation that consistently published report, positions and forecasts in timely manner, or the organisation that was 'playing poker' and had to have information pulled from its throat?

And of course, the problem that faces May, (one of the many) what solution to NI did Corbin present that the EU and UK parliaments would accept?

Corbyn wants FTA, and said 'close alignment with EU regulations and institutions'. If you take later to mean EEA membership, that removes need for NI border. It'll probably get vote from all of the opposition, plus the tory remain wing.

[Dooom35796821595]

A no deal with the blame placed on the UK?

That's already happening.

Besides, if the plan is so workable, where is it? The EU does have serious problems with transparency and accountability.

You mean the organisation that consistently published report, positions and forecasts in timely manner, or the organisation that was 'playing poker' and had to have information pulled from its throat?

And of course, the problem that faces May, (one of the many) what solution to NI did Corbin present that the EU and UK parliaments would accept?

Corbyn wants FTA, and said 'close alignment with EU regulations and institutions'. If you take later to mean EEA membership, that removes need for NI border. It'll probably get vote from all of the opposition, plus the tory remain wing.

Wow, two points. And it only took him two years.

And why does it sound suspiciously like EU membership without representatives or input, the sort of thing that’s already been rejected by Parliament.

We’re a month from the deadline and no closer to a workable deal. And if either the EU or Corbin wanted a cross party agreement they’ll have to include the conservatives, you’re more likley to turn coal into gold then get that to happen.

[Souseiseki]

Is there a solution to the Irish border problem? I was under the impression there wasn't

there are plenty of solutions, but there is no solution that actually works and does not cause at least one vital party to throw a might bitchfit over it. so remain, EEA/EFTA+, backstop, sea border and magical girls are all out.

[The Blaatschapen]

Is there a solution to the Irish border problem? I was under the impression there wasn't

there are plenty of solutions, but there is no solution that actually works and does not cause at least one vital party to throw a might bitchfit over it. so remain, EEA/EFTA+, backstop, sea border and magical girls are all out.

Awwww, but I want magical girls

[Vassenor]

there are plenty of solutions, but there is no solution that actually works and does not cause at least one vital party to throw a might bitchfit over it. so remain, EEA/EFTA+, backstop, sea border and magical girls are all out.

Awwww, but I want magical girls

That can be arranged.

／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼

[The Archregimancy]

there are plenty of solutions, but there is no solution that actually works and does not cause at least one vital party to throw a might bitchfit over it. so remain, EEA/EFTA+, backstop, sea border and magical girls are all out.

Awwww, but I want magical girls

My solution involves smearing Manx butter along the frontier in order to create a frictionless border.

[The Blaatschapen]

Awwww, but I want magical girls

My solution involves smearing Manx butter along the frontier in order to create a frictionless border.

Wouldn't Womanx butter help more to get magical girls?

[The Archregimancy]

My solution involves smearing Manx butter along the frontier in order to create a frictionless border.

Wouldn't Womanx butter help more to get magical girls?

Only if they've never seen Last Tango in Paris.

[Great Nepal]

That's already happening.


You mean the organisation that consistently published report, positions and forecasts in timely manner, or the organisation that was 'playing poker' and had to have information pulled from its throat?


Corbyn wants FTA, and said 'close alignment with EU regulations and institutions'. If you take later to mean EEA membership, that removes need for NI border. It'll probably get vote from all of the opposition, plus the tory remain wing.

Wow, two points. And it only took him two years.

And why does it sound suspiciously like EU membership without representatives or input, the sort of thing that’s already been rejected by Parliament.

We’re a month from the deadline and no closer to a workable deal. And if either the EU or Corbin wanted a cross party agreement they’ll have to include the conservatives, you’re more likley to turn coal into gold then get that to happen.

Yeah, its almost like he actually wants to leave without any of the mess ending up on his hand, but has to come up with something to appease his party - surely can't be that.

I mean we were told we had no voice in the EU throughout the refendum so not much of a PR downside really. Parliament hasn't rejected that since it has never been presented with it. It'd probably pass though, remain leaning Tories would probably be onboard with it (enough to at least abstain) and that's really all you need if Corbyn was really behind this.

[Salandriagado]

Is there a solution to the Irish border problem? I was under the impression there wasn't

Sure. It's called "revoke Article 50". It's only in combination with leaving the EU that it becomes a total impossibility.

[Souseiseki]

hmm. an interesting brexit puzzle. will the end of "unskilled immigration" force the companies that are demanding 5 years experience and a bachelor's degree for entry-level positions to change their ways, or will there be economic contraction that will result in more competition for less jobs while simultaneously closing off the cushy "move to germany" options and find people getting reamed harder? all i know is that i absolutely cannot wait to find out!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The Situation, explained.

[Ifreann]

Is there a solution to the Irish border problem? I was under the impression there wasn't

There isn't, but if we all close our eyes and cover our ears, everything will be fine somehow.

[The Blaatschapen]

(Image)

The Situation, explained.

It would also make the DUP irrelevant in British politics.

So I call it a win

[Aellex]

(Image)

The Situation, explained.

26 + 6 = 1
Quik maff

[Dooom35796821595]

(Image)

The Situation, explained.

26 + 6 = 1
Quik maff

All for a one off payment of 1.2 billion pounds! (however much May bribed the DUP with.)

[Thanatttynia]

Is there a solution to the Irish border problem? I was under the impression there wasn't

Sure. It's called "revoke Article 50". It's only in combination with leaving the EU that it becomes a total impossibility.

This is the impression I've got. I'm generally Remain (and mostly just want the whole thing to be over) but how have we allowed ourselves to end up in a situation in which it is impossible for the British people to take this democratic decision without the threat of violence and social discord in this way?

Each day I'm more astounded at the shortsightedness and arrogance of the Blair premiership. Obv I'm not advocating for changing the Good Friday Agreement but it seems so hubristic and fatal (yet also perversely on-brand) to organise such a vital treaty to be so completely dependent on a very peculiar and very recent policy on the basis of your own very peculiar and very recent underlying philosophy

[Vassenor]

So it seems the Sunday Times is not so subtly attempting to push for Section 28 to be reinstated.

[Shrillland]

So it seems the Sunday Times is not so subtly attempting to push for Section 28 to be reinstated.

Can't happen, not with the Tories Scottish leader LGBT herself.

[Neu Leonstein]

Is there a solution to the Irish border problem? I was under the impression there wasn't

There isn't one yet. But to be honest, no one expected all of these issues to have solutions only two years after Article 50 was invoked. That's why both sides agreed to use the time to come up with a temporary interim plan on how to manage the period between Brexit and the moment that these solutions have been worked out.

That temporary interim plan is the withdrawal agreement, and it contains the Irish backstop. Which just says 'we'll preserve the status quo in Ireland until we've worked out the permanent plan".

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about this that should be particularly controversial. It is the obvious thing to go with if both sides want to minimise the risk of Brexit endangering the peace in Ireland. Two or three years ago, this wouldn't have merited any debate in Parliament or in public.

The problem is that Brexit has gone the way most revolutions have. After the initial status quo is overthrown, the opportunities that some people see are boundless. At the same time, a mild sense of panic sets in among the successful revolutionaries that they just got lucky and their achievements might be reversed. The combination of the two is a toxic mix, because now wilder and wilder promises are made, and at the same time those who disagree with them now look like defenders of the status quo and entirely too close to those who want to reverse the revolution. That's the process through which, step by step, a disagreement about the French king's power to fund the state turned into dozens of people getting guillotined a day in major French cities.

And, while we're hopefully nowhere near the guillotines just yet, that same striving for the most extreme purity of Brexit has turned the idea of temporary stability in Ireland into some sort of betrayal of the UK. To many in parliament (and especially those guardians of purity in the ERG), anything that doesn't end with Singapore-upon-Thames by next year is not good enough anymore. That's not what they campaigned for in 2016, obviously. It's not really what they wanted then. But now, anything less is treason.

It's crazy to watch it in real time. You get people trying to invoke the spirit of the London Blitz. Dumb analogy, obviously, but to at least apply it honestly, this time we get to watch what it might have been like if half the people sheltering in the tube station had voted for Hitler's bombing campaign.

[Thanatttynia]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about this that should be particularly controversial. It is the obvious thing to go with if both sides want to minimise the risk of Brexit endangering the peace in Ireland. Two or three years ago, this wouldn't have merited any debate in Parliament or in public.

Agree, though I think it would have still engendered debate. Diehard euroscepticism has been prevalent in Parliament, if not in the country at large, for a long time.

And, while we're hopefully nowhere near the guillotines just yet, that same striving for the most extreme purity of Brexit has turned the idea of temporary stability in Ireland into some sort of betrayal of the UK. To many in parliament (and especially those guardians of purity in the ERG), anything that doesn't end with Singapore-upon-Thames by next year is not good enough anymore. That's not what they campaigned for in 2016, obviously. It's not really what they wanted then. But now, anything less is treason.

I agree the backstop should be implemented, but I can understand where Leavers are coming from. It wouldn't be the first time in politics that a supposed temporary solution has become permanent; the risk of this happening is magnified even more by the fact that a hard border on Ireland is basically avoidable only through the pursuance of a very limited range of options for the future relationship, and by the fact the EU and Ireland itself have not shown any willingness to bend their rules (not that they have any obligation to do so.)

It's crazy to watch it in real time. You get people trying to invoke the spirit of the London Blitz. Dumb analogy, obviously, but to at least apply it honestly, this time we get to watch what it might have been like if half the people sheltering in the tube station had voted for Hitler's bombing campaign.

The Blitz analogies are reckless, yes. But they're understandable too since Brexit was clearly a cultural decision rather than an economic or political one. The economic and political benefits for staying in the EU are mostly clear (though there is much obfuscation of the truth from both sides and Brexit makes it theoretically possible for the UK's economy to become more equal, though as you point out under the grip of the ERG we are much more likely to end up like Singapore.) What's fuzzier is the cultural argument for staying in, especially for older people.

[Neu Leonstein]

Agree, though I think it would have still engendered debate. Diehard euroscepticism has been prevalent in Parliament, if not in the country at large, for a long time.

Sure, euroskepticism has. But the thing that keeps getting lost in the debate about the backstop is that preserving the status quo there was and is a UK government red line. It is also one of the EU, obviously. But that's beside the point. The UK government has said repeatedly that one of its goals in the negotiations is to keep the GFA from harm.

What differs in the positions between the UK and EU is that the latter is unwilling to fudge it on this point. If the UK has presented a workable plan to go from no border to a border that respects the GFA and allows the UK to leave the customs union by 29 March, then the EU would have agreed with it. But the UK has not been able to put one together. No one seriously pretends that it has.

What the UK presented were political commitments to come up with a plan. Which is great, but obviously not the same as a hard commitment to the red lines. The fact that this is not recognised by the commentary in the UK is not about euroskepticism. It's about a few particularly loud players revealing that they never cared all that much about this particular red line anyway. They're not willing to abandon their other near-term goals (and I cannot stress enough that all of this acrimony concerns a temporary agreement that is intended to be superseded within a decade). And that's what I meant by the UK having shifted to a more extremist position. Temporary preservation of the status quo was openly advocated by Leave leaders during the referendum campaign. Now the fact that the EU insist upon that on this point is considered a grave imposition.

I agree the backstop should be implemented, but I can understand where Leavers are coming from. It wouldn't be the first time in politics that a supposed temporary solution has become permanent; the risk of this happening is magnified even more by the fact that a hard border on Ireland is basically avoidable only through the pursuance of a very limited range of options for the future relationship, and by the fact the EU and Ireland itself have not shown any willingness to bend their rules (not that they have any obligation to do so.)

I think that even presenting it as an unwillingness to bend their rules is not being accurate. A customs union has customs borders. That's pretty much what defines it. Goods are checked for compliance with the customs rules. That's what a customs border is. None of those statements make any reference to EU rules. None of them are bendable.

The problem is that the UK doesn't want to be in the customs union anymore. So now the customs border shifts from somewhere in the Atlantic to the island of Ireland. That's not a statement about EU rules, it's a statement about the UK's preference for a Brexit that takes it out of the customs union.

What people refer to when they talk about the EU's intransigence on this is that they want there to be a customs border without any checks. But how can that possibly work? The whole point of Brexit is that some minority of people in the UK want rules and regulations to diverge from those in the EU. Let's say the Special Relationship gets revived and the UK goes and imports chlorine chicken from the US. That's cool, the EU doesn't mind.

But if the chlorine chicken is loaded onto a truck in Belfast, and they're trying to drive it to Dublin to sell there, what is the Irish government or the EU meant to do? Where is the intransigence in requiring a mechanism to stop that from happening? Ireland and the EU have the right to ban chlorine chicken imports as much as the UK has the right to allow them. The contradiction between those two stances necessitates some sort of dividing line between those two.

So yeah, it is a really hard question. And the Leavers' complaints are because the brighter one among them know that there's not going to be an easy answer. They've glimpsed the actual truth underneath all of this, which is that national sovereignty (i.e. the ability to make laws in a vacuum, completely independent from the rest of the world) is rapidly becoming a facade. They've glimpsed the reason the EU was created in the first place, at long last. But there is literally nothing the EU can do to make that go away, even if it somehow was in its interest.

The Blitz analogies are reckless, yes. But they're understandable too since Brexit was clearly a cultural decision rather than an economic or political one. The economic and political benefits for staying in the EU are mostly clear (though there is much obfuscation of the truth from both sides and Brexit makes it theoretically possible for the UK's economy to become more equal, though as you point out under the grip of the ERG we are much more likely to end up like Singapore.) What's fuzzier is the cultural argument for staying in, especially for older people.

The funny thing about the Singapore analogies is that we have literal decades of actually revealed preferences of the British electorate. Both Labour and Tories have been in power at times during the UK's membership of the EU, in governments with all sorts of varying professed priorities. And we have the data on how the UK has voted in the European Council and how its MPs have voted in the European Parliament.

And the fact of the matter is that the UK has voted with the majority most of the time. The UK is virtually never outvoted in the Council, because it virtually never wants something different from the other countries represented there. The rules and regulations that are decided upon and implemented at the EU level are overwhelmingly rules and regulations that UK voters get behind (or at least, UK governments think voters will get behind). That goes from high-profile cases about airline delay compensation and no more data roaming charges, to things like food safety standards like chlorine chicken and efficiency standards for vacuum cleaners. That's why I'm pretty sure the UK will both not change much after Brexit and continue these culture wars for years. Hardcore Brexiteers on both left and right see leaving the EU as a means to an end. But there's no democratic support for their end. The EU was never the binding constraint on creating Singapore-upon-Thames or bringing back Attlee's command-style economy.

So the cultural factor, then. I think that's part of it for some people. But the handful of 'everyday people' Brexit supporters I've had the chance to have longer conversations with (think taxi driver on a 90 min ride to Heathrow and secretarial and admin staff in an office in the City) didn't really make that point. They talked about two things: more money for the NHS and for services in general and, relatedly, worries that the services they use would deteriorate because migrants (read: population growth). I personally think this is far more representative of what people worry about when they're not the type to follow the news too closely. And notice how both of those are UK-specific policy issues. Underfunding of government functions was and is a policy choice of UK governments - and so is blaming the consequences of that underfunding on the EU and migration. Talking about cultural differences, or the differences between Anglo common law mentality and continental Roman law mentality (for the pseudo-intellectually inclined) mostly serves to hide the true cause of this. The conditions that led to the Brexit vote were UK government policy choices. There was and is nothing inevitable about this.

[Thanatttynia]

What the UK presented were political commitments to come up with a plan. Which is great, but obviously not the same as a hard commitment to the red lines. The fact that this is not recognised by the commentary in the UK is not about euroskepticism. It's about a few particularly loud players revealing that they never cared all that much about this particular red line anyway. They're not willing to abandon their other near-term goals (and I cannot stress enough that all of this acrimony concerns a temporary agreement that is intended to be superseded within a decade). And that's what I meant by the UK having shifted to a more extremist position. Temporary preservation of the status quo was openly advocated by Leave leaders during the referendum campaign. Now the fact that the EU insist upon that on this point is considered a grave imposition.

I'm not here trying to defend the actions of prominent Leavers, I agree they're irresponsible and harming the country.

I think that even presenting it as an unwillingness to bend their rules is not being accurate. A customs union has customs borders. That's pretty much what defines it. Goods are checked for compliance with the customs rules. That's what a customs border is. None of those statements make any reference to EU rules. None of them are bendable.

The problem is that the UK doesn't want to be in the customs union anymore. So now the customs border shifts from somewhere in the Atlantic to the island of Ireland. That's not a statement about EU rules, it's a statement about the UK's preference for a Brexit that takes it out of the customs union.

Yes, yes, yes. So then Leavers' fears of the backstop being ultimately a way to corral the UK into staying inside the customs union are well-founded (not through malice but by design of the current EU-Ireland-UK relationship.) And -- let's face it, a Brexit that involves staying in the customs union is not actually Brexit at all. I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying here, and I'll reiterate that I'm a Remainer, but see below for why it makes me angry.

What people refer to when they talk about the EU's intransigence on this is that they want there to be a customs border without any checks. But how can that possibly work? The whole point of Brexit is that some minority of people in the UK want rules and regulations to diverge from those in the EU. Let's say the Special Relationship gets revived and the UK goes and imports chlorine chicken from the US. That's cool, the EU doesn't mind.

But if the chlorine chicken is loaded onto a truck in Belfast, and they're trying to drive it to Dublin to sell there, what is the Irish government or the EU meant to do? Where is the intransigence in requiring a mechanism to stop that from happening? Ireland and the EU have the right to ban chlorine chicken imports as much as the UK has the right to allow them. The contradiction between those two stances necessitates some sort of dividing line between those two.

This is the point I'm trying to make. I'm mostly just registering anger at how astoundingly reckless and arrogant it is for a political class to be so certain of the final, complete and ultimate dominance of its political philosophy that it locks the UK into a situation like this and gambles the peace process on the population continuing to agree with their prescriptions. The principle of open borders between Ireland and the UK should have never been dependent on either state's independent membership of a supranational organisation; alternatively, the peace process should have never been dependent on the principle of open borders between Ireland and the UK (though I understand why it was and think it should be.)

So the cultural factor, then. I think that's part of it for some people. But the handful of 'everyday people' Brexit supporters I've had the chance to have longer conversations with (think taxi driver on a 90 min ride to Heathrow and secretarial and admin staff in an office in the City) didn't really make that point. They talked about two things: more money for the NHS and for services in general and, relatedly, worries that the services they use would deteriorate because migrants (read: population growth). I personally think this is far more representative of what people worry about when they're not the type to follow the news too closely. And notice how both of those are UK-specific policy issues. Underfunding of government functions was and is a policy choice of UK governments - and so is blaming the consequences of that underfunding on the EU and migration. Talking about cultural differences, or the differences between Anglo common law mentality and continental Roman law mentality (for the pseudo-intellectually inclined) mostly serves to hide the true cause of this. The conditions that led to the Brexit vote were UK government policy choices. There was and is nothing inevitable about this.

I guess it depends on what we include under 'culture,' 'economics' and 'politics.' I would very much like to believe that resistance to immigration in this country can be explained mostly by the economic choices of successive governments, but I'm not convinced it's that simple. I know a lot of Leave voters and for many of them there is a cultural dislike and distrust of immigration distinct from anger at the government for not properly funding public services. It's not personalised dislike or distrust of particular immigrants themselves, just a generalised feeling that the UK has enough immigrants already. I think it's important to note also that the Leave voters I know are working-class and live in a satellite town. Particularly for the older ones there may not be much contact with immigrants - though what's interesting is that, contrary to what I've been informed should be the case, this attitude doesn't seem to be that much less prevalent in my generation and is not at all exclusive to ethnically British people.

In this way what educated metropolitan people may regard as economic questions about austerity or political questions about sovereignty are, in my experience, much more cultural for non-educated non-metropolitan people than that former group would be willing to admit. You and I can agree that resentment towards immigrants has been increased by systemic underfunding of public services, but at the end of the day that resentment still exists (so we have to deal with its ramifications,) and I don't think it would disappear if public services were adequately funded.

I don't get any pleasure out of saying things like this as a person who supports immigration and I should of course note that immigration has not really been at the forefront of the national mood until relatively recently. But I think we should be careful about placing the blame for resistance to immigration on underfunding and concern over population growth whilst neglecting the importance of culture. If people feel that something they are attached to - no matter if it's real or not - is being threatened - no matter if the threat is real or not - they will of course grow resentful of those they - rightly or not - feel are responsible for that.

[Souseiseki]

So it seems the Sunday Times is not so subtly attempting to push for Section 28 to be reinstated.

Can't happen, not with the Tories Scottish leader LGBT herself.

i mean, if you were to ask me if a high ranking tory politician is the kind of person that would sell their own people out so they could brown nose the higher ups and play the inoffensive nonthreatening moderate model minority my answer would be "yes"

[Shrillland]

Can't happen, not with the Tories Scottish leader LGBT herself.

i mean, if you were to ask me if a high ranking tory politician is the kind of person that would sell their own people out so they could brown nose the higher ups and play the inoffensive nonthreatening moderate model minority my answer would be "yes"

Yeah, but she's not just high ranking, she's responsible for keeping the Conservatives in power as much as the DUP is. If it wasn't for Davidson's successes in electing MPs to Westminster, not even the DUP bribe could have kept May in by now, she'd have been in a hopeless albeit razor-thin minority.