Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Brain]

Surely the Commons have plenty of fishy business?

[The Larch]

I'm not even sure who the DEFRA Secretary is

This one?

Fisheries minister did not read Brexit bill as she was busy at nativity
PM stands by Victoria Prentis over admission she was too 'busy' to read deal, as SNP calls for resignation

Downing Street has said Boris Johnson maintains confidence in the fisheries minister after she admitted not reading the post-Brexit trade deal with Brussels when it was agreed because she was busy organising a nativity trail.

Victoria Prentis faced calls for her to quit after the comments, but the prime minister is standing by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) minister.

Asked if her jaw had dropped when she saw the deal with the EU on Christmas Eve, Prentis told the Lords EU environment subcommittee: "No, the agreement came when we were all very busy on Christmas Eve, in my case organising the local nativity trail.

"We had been waiting and waiting, it looked like it was coming for probably four days before it actually arrived.

"I, for one, had gone through, as I'm sure members of this committee had, a gamut of emotions over those four days."

A No 10 spokesperson told the PA news agency that the prime minister had confidence in Prentis, 49.

But the Scottish National party took a dim view of the behaviour of Prentis, the MP for Banbury and North Oxfordshire, and insisted that she should stand down.

The comments came following delays to seafood exports after the Brexit transition period ended on New Year's Eve.

Companies trying to export fish and other Scottish seafood have encountered red tape since the new trading rules with the EU came into force.

The SNP's Brexit spokesperson, Philippa Whitford, said: "Due to Brexit-induced bureaucracy, Scotland's fishing communities are already experiencing severe disruption and cannot get their produce to their customers in the EU market on time.

"For the Tory government's fisheries minister to then admit that she did not even bother to read the details of the damaging deal because she was too busy is unbelievable and makes her position untenable."

[Sheilbh]

No - her boss

But I also hate that sort of line. I swear it always used to do the rounds on the right-wing blogosphere in the US about Reps voting on laws they hadn't read.

I can't imagine a situation where I think there'd be value in MPs or Ministers reading the detailed legal text of legislation or treaties (though she is a lawyer so she'd get more out of it than most). It would just be a waste of time not least because there's a difference between reading and understanding - especially when you're looking at legal drafting.

Also that whole story is just misleading because in the actual clip she said that about her jaw not dropping, but then went into the detail of the bits of the fisheries deal and basically said it was negotiation - some points we won, some points we lost and overall she's happy. She was, I thought quite good on the detail when asked about it by the Lords, but the SNP MP jumped on the throwaway line and made it into a story about her not reading the deal - so fair play to them

[Sheilbh]

Interesting review of biography of Billy Hutchison (a loyalist paramilitary who was important in the peace process and is now a Belfast councillor) by former Taoiseach John Bruton. It feels potentially weirdly relevant again to understand the motivations/loyalist movement:

John Bruton: Billy Hutchinson biography an insight into life within Loyalist paramilitarism
Understanding loyalism is more important than ever, says John Bruton as he surveys a biography of Billy Hutchinson, one of its most controversial figures


Progressive Unionist Party leader, Billy Hutchinson: Spent 15 years in prison, but encouraged loyalists away from violence. Picture: Peter Muhly/AFP via Getty Images
Sat, 16 Jan, 2021 - 12:30
    My Life in Loyalism
    Billy Hutchinson (with Gareth Mulvenna)
    Merrion Press €18.95

Billy Hutchinson is the leader of the small Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) and represents it on Belfast City Council. He was, for a time, a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

He played an important part, while in prison in the 1980's and later on, in encouraging the Loyalist paramilitaries towards political accommodation, instead of violence. As Brexit creates a new relationship between Loyalism and the rest of us on this island, understanding Loyalism is more important than ever. So this book is timely.

Hutchinson, as the leader of the UVF prisoners in Long Kesh, through contacts with Pat Thompson, his republican counterpart, helped get Catholic and Protestant clergy involved in exploring political ways forward.

The UVF was founded in 1965 and was a violent response to a perceived IRA threat in the late 1960's. The PUP was formed in 1975 and later became the vehicle the UVF used to move away from violence.

The UVF was one of a proliferation of Loyalist paramilitary groups. It was a rival of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). The UVF was the more disciplined terrorist organisation and operated through a cell structure, whereas the UDA tended to hold public parades, and act as an umbrella under which several groups could shelter.

Billy Hutchinson was born in 1955 as a proud native of the Shankill Road. His father was a NI Labour supporter, with numerous Catholic friends, but his mother was a more traditional unionist.

Billy was first drawn onto political activity through soccer.

He was a supporter of Linfield FC. To get to Linfield's ground at Windsor Park, Shankill supporters of the club had to cross the Falls Road and walk past the nationalist Unity Flats. This fortnightly procession of Linfield supporters, before and after home games, became an occasion for mutual provocations between the two communities.

This became especially acute when the sectarian temperature rose in the late 1960's. Hutchinson, then a tall teenager, older looking than his years, took a leading role in managing these confrontations. He saw himself as defending his locality. He also saw the Civil Rights movement as a front for the IRA, and the IRA as attempting to force unionists into a united Ireland.

As he admits, the crude view of the UVF was that, if they killed enough Catholics, the Catholic community would pressurise the IRA to disband.

This sort of thinking also had echoes in more "respectable" unionism. Former Home Affairs Minister, Bill Craig, told a Vanguard rally in 1972, to "build up the dossiers on the men and women who are a menace to this country, because if the politicians fail, it may be our job to liquidate the enemy".

Of course, the IRA was equally brutal and indiscriminate. For example, Protestant families were being forced to abandon their homes in the New Barnsley estate. Catholics were also forced out of their homes in other parts of the city.

Hutchinson and his friends felt, in the early 1970s, that the RUC and the British Army were not protecting the Loyalist community from IRA intimidation.


Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness (left), Progressive Unionist Party's Billy Hutchinson, and Ulster Unionist Ken Maginnis (right) in 1998. Picture: Brian Little/PA

Still a teenager, Hutchinson became an armed bodyguard for the UVF leader Gusty Spence. He also undertook offensive operations, and gave weapons training, while holding down a legitimate day job.

This book gives an insight into the life, and the infighting, within Loyalist paramilitarism. Many people were shot on the basis of suspicions, often unfounded. Hutchinson is a teetotaller, but much of the social life of Loyalism took place in pubs and clubhouses.

The reader is introduced to many unusual characters. One was a Catholic, Jimmy McKenna, whose brother Arthur had been killed by the IRA. Jimmy was determined to get revenge. So he offered his services to the UVF. After some hesitation they accepted him. He proved very useful because of his knowledge of republican areas Although there was much indiscriminate violence, there was also some political thinking taking place among Loyalists as early as the 1970's.

For example, in January 1974, the UVF gave cautious support of a proposal by Desmond Boal, a former Unionist and DUP MP, for a federal Ireland , with autonomy for Northern Ireland . Boal had worked on the idea with Sean McBride, a former Irish Minister for External Affairs.

At the time, Hutchinson did not dismiss it, but asked a reasonable question. How could concessions to republicans be considered, while the IRA was still in existence, and people were being killed?

Then, at only 19 years of age, in late 1974, the law caught up with Billy Hutchinson. He was convicted of the murder of two Catholics, Michael Loughran and Edward Morgan.

As he puts it; " Even though the evidence was pointing toward my involvement in the shooting, I tried to maintain an air of defiance," and disingenuously added "Loughran and Morgan had been identified as active republicans. How accurate the information was, I don't know".

This amoral detachment about the ending of two young lives is chilling. But this sort of amorality is intrinsic to all "armed struggle".

If one does not want that form of psychological and moral deformation to occur, one should not start armed struggles at all, especially if other potential remedies had not been exhausted. One should never retrospectively justify or glorify such killings. That applies equally to the events of 1916, 1919, and 1970. It applies as much to Kilmichael , as it does to Greysteel or Narrow Water.

Billy Hutchinson spent a long period in jail in Long Kesh for his crime, from 1975 until 1990.

He gives an interesting account of prison life.

Gusty Spence was the commander of the UVF prisoners and military discipline was maintained among them. A similar regime applied among the IRA prisoners.

Hutchinson maintained a high level of fitness while in prison, running 15 miles a day inside the perimeter of his compound.

He had left school at 14 years of age but, while in prison , he passed his O levels and A levels, and got a degree in town planning, a useful qualification for someone who is now a member of Belfast City Council!

After his release in 1990, he was involved with Gusty Spence and others, in the peace process which led to the announcement, in October 1994, by the Combined Loyalist Military Command (CLMC) , of a ceasefire. This acknowledged the hurt suffered by victims of Loyalist violence, something the IRA has yet to do fully.

One of the principles set out by the CLMC in this announcement was that "there must be no dilution of the democratic procedure through which the rights of self determination of the people of Northern Ireland are guaranteed".

This vital issue of democratic procedure will take on a new relevance after Brexit.

Under the Ireland Protocol of the Withdrawal Treaty, many of the laws to be applied the Northern Ireland will emanate from the EU, but without a democratic procedure involving elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland . That will call out for a remedy.

In his treatment of the peace process, Billy Hutchinson gives much praise to the late Irish American businessman, Bill Flynn, for his support for Loyalists on their journey.

On the other hand, he is dismissive of Ian Paisley, quoting his late father as saying that Paisley "would fight to the last drop of everyone else's blood".

Billy is self consciously a socialist in his political opinions, although this seems to signify as much a badge of identity as it does a precise political programme.

He may not have won a large number of votes in recent elections, but Hutchinson represents a strand of Unionism that is open to change.

The aftermath of Brexit will increase the importance of understanding the thinking of people like him.

While he acknowledges the help of Dr Mulvenna in preparing this autobiography, the text is very much his own, and will be of interest to future historians. So it is unfortunate that the book contains no index.

[Sheilbh]

I  couldn't think where else to put this - but really interesting article in the Guardian on new research about class in Britain:

Why do so many professional, middle-class Brits insist they're working class?
Sam Friedman

LSE's new study shows how our fetishisation of meritocracy makes privileged people frame their lives as an uphill struggle
Mon 18 Jan 2021 11.00 GMT

Coronavirus has brutally reinforced that it pays to be privileged. Yet despite the advantages enjoyed by those from middle-class backgrounds, it is precisely these individuals who believe most strongly that meritocracy is working; that "hard work" is the key to success.

One explanation for this is that many simply do not see themselves as privileged. Britain certainly has an unusual attachment to working-class identities. While in most western countries people tend to identify as middle class, Britain has long been an intriguing outlier. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, 47% of Britons in middle-class professional and managerial jobs identify as working class. Even more curiously, a quarter of people in such jobs who come from middle-class backgrounds – in the sense that their parents did professional work – also identify as working class.

How do we make sense of this? Our research published today addresses this question, drawing on 175 interviews with actors, architects, accountants and television professionals, 36 of whom were from middle-class backgrounds but identified as working class.

Our findings indicate that such misidentifications are built on particular origin stories that people reach for when asked about their backgrounds. These accounts tend to downplay people's own, fairly privileged upbringings and instead reach back into working-class extended family histories that incorporate grandparents and even great-grandparents. Here people find stories of the past – of working-class struggle, of upward social mobility, of meritocratic striving – that provide powerful frames for understanding their own experiences and identity.

But should we think of these as misidentifications? After all, these people correctly identify the socio-economic conditions of their working-class ancestors and simply argue it is the legacy of that history that scaffolds their identity. In some ways, they're right. Research shows that the class position of our grandparents does, on average, have an effect on our own destinations.

Yet we shouldn't overstate this. The "grandparent effect" on life outcomes is small in comparison with that of our parents. It is also telling that it was only those from privileged backgrounds who reached back in this way, and there was often a certain awkwardness, even defensiveness, when they did.

Take Ella, an actor who was conscious that her claim to a working-class identity might be undermined by her middle-class accent ("I consider my background to be a working-class one even though I don't sound like that"). She also tried to play down her private schooling ("one of the small ones, quite cheap"). Or Mike, a partner in an accountancy firm who gave a long family history when asked about his background, focusing less on his father's career as an architect ("he was a technician made good, really") and more on his grandmother, who had worked in a mill as a child.

In our report, we argue that these intergenerational understandings of class origin should be read as having a performative dimension; they deflect attention away from the structural privileges these individuals enjoy, both in their own eyes but also among those they communicate their origin stories to in everyday life. At the same time, by framing their lives as an upward struggle against the odds, these interviewees misrepresent their subsequent life outcomes as more worthy, more deserving and more meritorious.

It is also striking that such misidentification was higher among the actors and television professionals we spoke to. This is not coincidental; there is arguably a particular market for downplaying privilege in these professions. Not only are these arenas disproportionately dominated by the privileged, with class an increasingly fiercely debated topic, but the precarious nature of the work itself – often freelance, short-term, poorly paid, and reliant on informal networks – tilts decisively in favour of those insulated by the bank of mum and dad. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that people feel a particular pressure to tell a humble origin story.

But this research also tells us something broader. It shows us another worrying byproduct of our fetishisation of meritocracy. Michael Sandel has recently written about the meritocratic hubris of the successful, who increasingly feel they deserve the disproportionate rewards they receive.

What is less understood, though, is how this meritocratic hubris also impacts how the successful narrate their origins. Here, the privileged face competing pressures: they must on one hand ward off suspicions that their achievements have been accelerated by inherited advantage, and on the other answer to a policy agenda that presents the upwardly mobile as meritocracy's winners. Their answer, it seems, is to reach for extended family histories that allow them to tell an upwardly mobile story.

Whether this is intentional or not is hard to adjudicate;. This may be how people really make sense of their origins; equally, it might simply be how they choose to narrate it in public. Either way, it surely indicates that the "meritocratic ideal" not only acts as the yardstick by which we evaluate life outcomes, but also shapes how we appraise our own and others' starting points.

    Sam Friedman is a sociologist at the LSE, and a commissioner at the government's Social Mobility Commission

Full paper here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038520982225#articleShareContainer

And on British exceptionalism - 60% of Brits identify as working class, a figure which hasn't changed since 1983

[The Brain]

Does the UK actually have privileges for middle-class people? What are those?

[The Larch]

Kinda reminds me of all the self-proclaimed self made men (and women) who claim to have pulled themselves up from their bootstraps to become successful businessmen or entrepreneurs or whatever who once you scratch the surface turn out to come from rather well off families who funded their careers from the beginning.

[Sheilbh]

Kinda reminds me of all the self-proclaimed self made men (and women) who claim to have pulled themselves up from their bootstraps to become successful businessmen or entrepreneurs or whatever who once you scratch the surface turn out to come from rather well off families who funded their careers from the beginning.

Yes. Very similar and the overlapping signifiers of class (maybe especially in the UK). I do particularly love Ella justifying her working class identity despite going to private school because it was one of the small cheap ones

Edit: And obviously I'm not convinced that hard economic/material factors determine class. I think culture/consumption plays a big role too. But Ella is wrong regardless

[Tamas]

These things also nicely cover the emergence of the new class system of renters and rentiers, where previously accumulated i.e. inherited wealth especially in assets will determine how far you can get in your living standards. e.g. one of my landlords here was a teacher and I don't think the property I rented was the only one she had. The other landlord was a car salesperson.

No doubt this distinction always existed (I will struggle in the UK to get a non-terrible property of my own, but if I went back to Hungary I could rely on my families few existing properties to anchor myself in middle class), but with the insane asset inflation going on it will be more and more pronounced.

[Sheilbh]

And a large part of that is generational (so when boomers start dying we'll see how it's inherited) - plus the weird long standing British obsession with buying property/buy-to-let as an "investment". I think despite price rises it still underperforms shares but people tend not to invest. I don't know why that is - maybe that shares are seen as risky v property (literally "safe as houses") or, perhaps, that there's a class element You know, share trading are not for people like me it's for professionals with expertise etc.

[Josquius]

Brings an interesting idea to mind... If the government could do more to promote stock market investments amongst the nouveau rich this could really help with property prices....
... Though it would inflate the stock market.
More ideally we need new ways to invest that have more practical outcomes then swapping (digital) bits of paper back and forth.

What particularly annoys me about it is that many of these landlords aren't particularly rich. They've just got 4 mortgages on rental flats that their tenants are paying off for them.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting race to be new Scottish Labuor leader.

Anas Sarwar is most likely and a more centrist candidate, but also, crucially, a fairly mainstream unionist. His competition is Monica Lennon who is on the left of the party, abstained when the SNP introduced a bill for another independence referendum and said Labour needs to accept political reality and now support a new independence referendum. Two very different takes - it'll be interesting to see who wins - I think Sarwar is the favourite, but we'll see.

[Josquius]

I'm torn there.
As much as being in favour of allowing Scotland to decide its future no matter whether you're pro union or pro independence is the morally right choice, I just can't see how it can be sold politically.

[Sheilbh]

I'm torn there.
As much as being in favour of allowing Scotland to decide its future no matter whether you're pro union or pro independence is the morally right choice, I just can't see how it can be sold politically.

Yeah.

I think it's tough politically but Lennon's take, feels like it could end up like Labour on Brexit where they end up not trusted by nationalists (who'll just vote SNP) or unionists (who'll just vote Tory) and Labour ends up falling between the two camps.

[Sheilbh]

So it looks like the human rights and genocide amendments to the Trade Bill will be the first big post-Brexit shaping rebellion for the government. Very striking that Jeremy Hunt is apparently either going to abstain or vote for the amendment given that he's a former Foreign Secretary - in the House of Lords their amendment won the backing of a few old Tory Foreign Secretaries.

Rebels aim to insert genocide amendment in UK-China trade bill
UK court would determine whether China is committing genocide against Uighurs if measure passed
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Mon 18 Jan 2021 18.39 GMT

The government is struggling to contain a potential backbench rebellion over its China policy after the Conservative Muslim Forum, the International Bar Association (IBA), and the prime minister's former envoy on freedom of religious belief backed a move to give the UK courts a say in determining whether countries are committing genocide.

The measure is due in the Commons on Tuesday when the trade bill returns from the Lords where a genocide amendment has been inserted. The amendment has been devised specifically in relation to allegations that China is committing genocide against Uighur people in Xinjiang province, a charge Beijing has repeatedly denied.

It is understood that the former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt is planning not to back the government either by abstaining or voting against unless further concessions emerge.

Rehman Chishti, the prime minister's former envoy on freedom of religious belief, also said he would support the genocide amendment which won all-party support in the Lords.

A second amendment passed by the Lords would give parliament rights to reject a free-trade bill if it breached human rights or other norms.

The main controversy turns on the amendment to the trade bill passed in the Lords that proposes giving the UK high courts a role in determining if a genocide is under way. A government would then be required to refer to the court determination in making any free-trade agreement with the country accused of genocide.

The vote is on Tuesday and at present neither side is confident of the outcome. The amendment also has the influential backing of the British Board of Jewish Deputies.

The Foreign Office has a host of practical objections, but is at present opposed to making any concessions on giving the domestic courts a role, saying it is a matter for the international courts. Ministers however recognise pressure is building for a tougher approach on China, and parliament is seeking a greater say over trade agreements.

The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, in rejecting the so-called genocide amendment, is also claiming the UK government would never enter a trade agreement with a country well before its behaviour had reached the egregious level of genocide. It also claims the issue is best determined in the international courts.

The backing of the IBA for the amendment is significant as the Foreign Office has been citing legal pitfalls in giving the high court a role in determining genocide.

In a letter to the foreign secretary, the IBA write: "There is no requirement under the Genocide Convention 1948, or any principle of international law, that requires a State to seek a determination of an international court, or other body acting under the auspices of the United Nations, that genocide has or is being committed before that State's obligations under the Convention are engaged.

"There is a real concern that this position is used, or may be used, to justify inaction in the face of credible evidence that genocide is occurring."

The letter signed by Schona Jolly, the chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, adds: "Waiting for a judicial determination by an international court or body that genocide has been committed or is being committed, where it is not apparent that there is any likely or realistic route to such a determination, undermines the object and purpose of the obligation to prevent: to ensure, in so far as is possible, that genocide is never again committed."

Ministers have previously said the UK had no plans to secure a free-trade deal with China. The country is the UK's fourth-largest trading partner, sixth-largest export market and third-largest import market.

And there's been lots of pressure for these amendments from charities/pressure groups and particularly from faith groups including Jewish, Muslim, CofE and Catholic leaders. The Jewish press have run several front page splashes on it.

Greg Hands - a trade minister - has set out the government's reasoning against the amendment:

Greg Hands
@GregHands
Tomorrow (Tuesday), the Trade Bill returns to the Commons.

This is an important piece of legislation to ensure continuity of our existing trading arrangements.

Quite a lot of attention being given to the "Genocide Amendment" and the situation in Xinjiang....#GenocideAmendment
As I said in 2011: "Beijing is now embarking on a cultural collective offensive against the Uyghurs"

But, returning to the Trade Bill, the "Genocide Amendment" seeks to give the power to the U.K. High Court to automatically "revoke" bilateral trade agreements....
Which are international treaties, negotiated between governments, approved by Parliament).

There are a number of problems with this amendment...
First, we don't have a bilateral trade deal with China.

Nor are we negotiating one.

Nor is there a realistic prospect of one.

There would be no trade deal to revoke. Not a single person in Xinjiang would benefit from this policy.
Second, the amendment gives the power to the High Court to revoke trade treaties negotiated by the Government & approved by Parliament.

Do we want to hand over trade policy, until last month handled in Brussels, straight to the courts?
Third, this would automatically revoke these trade deals with countries, despite Parliament having scrutinised them?

There would be huge diplomatic, political & commercial consequences - and these matters should be for the Government and Parliament, not the High Court.
We are taking tougher action on China.

As @dominicraab announced last week, we are introducing financial penalties, reviewing our export controls to China and strengthening the Overseas Business Risk guidance.

This is the right course, and we could yet go further still.
But the "Genocide Amendment" in the name of former Liberal MP David Alton isn't the right way forward.

It cannot be right to hand powers to "revoke" international treaties to the courts when it should be elected representatives that decide these matters. 

ENDS.