Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

We all know which of party and country the Tories favor when in doubt. So I would not hold my breath waiting for Tories to introduce PR or federalism.

I doubt that trade will become a relevant political issue in the UK. Parliament rubber stamped by far the most important trade deal Britain will ever conclude with like an hour scrutiny a day before it became effective.  Both government and main opposition voted in favor and there was zero comments on how poor a deal it is for Britain from the opposition leader. There is some grumbling in civil society and by the nationalist parties of the devolved administrations and in HoL committees, but that's it.

The debate with the Australian FTA is about tariff and quota free access for agriculture. There was very little debate that Britain made itself a competitor of the biggest agricultural exporter earlier in the year...

[Sheilbh]

We all know which of party and country the Tories favor when in doubt. So I would not hold my breath waiting for Tories to introduce PR or federalism.

Yeah the Tories and the SNP gain too much from FPTP to change it. Which also means that Labour won't be able to change it unless they win a majority - at which point they'll like FPTP again, just like when Blair flirted with electoral reform but then stopped once he had a landslide.

I think it is interesting that while the Tories are - to a large extent a more English party (though 25% in Scotland and Wales so I think that can be overstated) - they don't really claim to speak for England or the English.

John Denham (who has moved from Labour Minister to an academic focusing on Englishness and Southernness) has written really interestingly on how still no-one is speaking for England (https://www.theoptimisticpatriot.co.uk/post/651019392139837440/who-speaks-for-england) - they are as he puts it "Anglo-centric British unionists":

The 'Anglo-centric British unionists'

The largest and most hegemonic group is Anglo-centric British unionism. Its roots lie in England's historic view of the union as, in essence, the extension of English institutions and the expression of English interests. In the assertive form of most Leave leaders and personified by Boris Johnson it can properly be described as Anglo-centric British nationalism. It also dominates the outlook of the Labour Party in England, the Whitehall civil service machine, the London-based UK media, and England's cultural and arts establishment.

If the English have seen England at the heart of the union (and at the heart of empire) Scotland's claim on the union insisted on respect for its distinct national culture, legal and education system. The balance between those different views of the union has crumbled as the different parts of the union have taken different political directions. The Conservatives dominate England (but lose everywhere else). The SNP has displaced Labour in Scotland. Wales has its own distinct and currently Labour led politics. The old Ulster Unionist/Tory and SDLP/Labour alignments have broken down. British politics, in the sense of every part of Britain being contested by the same parties, no longer really exists and may not return.

The effect has been to make the Anglo-centric British nationalism of English Conservatism the all-powerful government of England and of the union.

So, for example, in its handling of the NI Protocol and the Internal Market Bill, the Anglo-centric British nationalist union government gave England's interest in Brexit priority over the interests of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland in membership of the union. It lies behind the desperate attempt to save the union with more flags and cheques with union jacks on the back.

But we shouldn't forget that the Remain campaign in England was also run by Anglo-centric British unionists. Remain campaigned as 'Wales Stronger in Europe', 'Scotland Stronger in Europe' and — only in England — 'Britain Stronger in Europe'. Attlee's Labour was a British nationalist and unionist government in which Labour could accommodate Scottish and Welsh views of the union. From the 1970s nationalist pressures led Scottish and Welsh Labour to define their national interests against the politics of England, a process accelerated by Thatcherism and the collapse of the post-war consensus. This delivered devolution but left Labour in England with a residual Anglo-centric British unionism. Labour in England calls itself UK Labour, never names England even when talking about England, opposes any national English democratic institutions, and asserts the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament and the union government. Its leaders use the union flag alone to represent national patriotism.

Whitehall is riddled with Anglo-centric assumptions about the union, either ignoring the devolved administrations or acting as though they do not (or should not) exist . When the pandemic started, the London based UK media struggled to understand let alone explain why the devolved administrations could make their own lockdown responses. It took complaints from Welsh MPs for Johnson and Hancock to start specifying which nation's pandemic response they were in charge of. Anglo-centric British unionist assumptions run so deep they are barely recognised let alone articulated.

All strands of Anglo-centric British unionism agree that England needs no democratic national institutions because the union itself provides for English interests. England not only has no Parliament, but no machinery to coordinate English policy and legislation. The inevitable consequence is the concentration of union power in London that makes England the most centralised nation in Europe. Anglo-centric unionism has helped to foster a largely unfocussed English regionalism that sporadically claims a fairer deal from the union government in London. By holding out the possibility of a special deal here or a bit more funding there, the unionist centre divides the localities and prevents them coming together as a coherent force for change.

Those who conflate Anglo-centric British nationalism with a genuine English nationalism should recognise that it has left England with no government, no national democracy, no fair distribution of funding and no serious devolution of power from the centre. It may deliver for some in England; it doesn't deliver for England as a whole.

I keep coming back to it but, as someone who grew up in Scotland, the point he makes about the pandemic response was mind-blowing. Just watching the number of serious British journalists from across the political spectrum be stunned that the devolved nations had powers over health and the way they repeatedly this was "confusing" for the public. The conflation of England and English politics with the union was something that I was aware of in theory but I'd never seen it out in such force.

There's no sense that the union is more than England which, as a corollary means there is no sense of England or Englishness outside of the union either. It might be inevitable when you have a union where 90% of the population live in one constituent part - which is the challenge for federalism. I don't really know what the answer is beyond electoral reform. It's a huge challenge - not least because if Scotland does go for independence, I'm not sure how much of an English identity there is - and there will need to be one.

I doubt that trade will become a relevant political issue in the UK.

If it impacts people it will - and they can vote on it. It might become salient it might not. I've seen more coverage of trade issues generally in the last few months than before.

Parliament rubber stamped by far the most important trade deal Britain will ever conclude with like an hour scrutiny a day before it became effective.  Both government and main opposition voted in favor and there was zero comments on how poor a deal it is for Britain from the opposition leader. There is some grumbling in civil society and by the nationalist parties of the devolved administrations and in HoL committees, but that's it.

The debate with the Australian FTA is about tariff and quota free access for agriculture. There was very little debate that Britain made itself a competitor of the biggest agricultural exporter earlier in the year...

But that's disingenuous - that hour of scrutiny or whatever came after 4 plus years of non-stop debate, two elections and a referendum. And the alternative to that poor deal - because of that referendum and those elections - was no deal.

I might not like the results but it's not like it was a surprise that was sprung on us or that it happened without any debate. It's just my side lost, unfortunately but legitimately.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally Hancock's time in the Commons is quite boring because the Speaker reminded everyone that they can't accuse Hancock of lying - at least until Cummings provides evidence (though they can refer to Cummings allegations).

Tories are rallying around him on "unprecedented" challenge of the pandemic and vaccines - clearly the lines have been circulated. Main focus of opposition and the DUP have been on moving the inquiry forward so it starts ASAP. But not much happening.

Edit: Although he hasn't directly answered the allegation that he said hospital patients were being tested before they were being moved into care homes when many weren't.

Edit: Actually I think this has now happened on all of the specific allegations - Hancock hasn't addressed any of them specifically, but has instead issued a general denial that he lied repeatedly to the public and in meetings.

[Sheilbh]

There was penultimate quarterly update on settled status applications today (it's a little out of date).

4.9 million people have made 5.3 million applications (6% are repeats possibly due to errors or moving from pre-settled to settled). 2.6 million have now got settled status and 2.2 million have pre-settled status. Obviously this is great and significantly higher than expected, but we don't know (and the government doesn't know) how many people are eligible or how many people are here and eligible but have not applied yet (I'm assuming there'll be a rush in the last month or two).

From everything I've read there has been a good effort at trying to communicate to as many people as possible and the number of applications is far higher than estimates by the ONS or Home Office of how many EU citizens were resident in the UK. But I worry that there's going to be people who miss the deadline, I also slightly worry that there may be people who would be eligible and would want it but have possibly left the UK for a bit due to covid (there's been a huge covid exodus from London for example) and may suddenly find they are locked out. I feel like there should probably be some form of extended post-covid deadline for people.

It won't happen of course

[Tamas]

The border force are ever vigilant to protect British jobs from any hint of danger:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/27/eu-tourists-condemn-uk-border-officials-humiliating-treatment

EU tourists coming to the UK have told of being fingerprinted, detained and treated like liars by border officials before trying to travel through the Channel tunnel or by ferry at Calais.

Sergio D'Alberti, a 51-year-old Italian hotel manager currently out of work due to the Covid pandemic, told the Guardian he was held for seven hours at the French port after UK Border Force officials concluded he would be a potential drain on the benefits system.

They said his €4,500 (£3,870) in funds was "not sufficient to cover all reasonable costs in relation to your being without working or accessing public funds" and that his lack of return ticket and job added to suspicion he was lying.

Notice of Refusal of Leave to Enter showing discretionary powers of Border Force
Notice of refusal of leave to enter showing discretionary powers of Border Force.
D'Alberti planned a road trip from his home in Côte d'Azur as a pleasant diversion during the pandemic on his way to Ireland to meet his wife's family in Kerry. Instead, he said, he was held for hours, fingerprinted and photographed "like I was a criminal" as he had not booked every hotel for his trip after quarantine and he did not have a return ticket.

Advertisement

"It was horrible. I'm disgusted the way I have been treated. I have never been so humiliated in my life. I will never ever ever go to the UK again. To me the UK no longer exists. It is not in my vocabulary. After Calais it is the north pole," he said.

His ordeal in Calais was matched by the experience of Angelina, a Danish pastry chef who had made a 10-hour trip from Jutland with her boyfriend. "I just went with him to visit his family. I have a job here in Denmark and was planning to stay three weeks."

Like D'Alberti, Angelina was turned away two weeks ago but decided to return home because Border Force agents at Calais had told her that if she turned around voluntarily then her encounter with them would not be registered. They issued her with an IS81 stamp on her passport indicating "a person had made an application to enter" but no decision on that could be made because they had subsequently withdrawn it.

When she made another attempt to enter the UK, arriving at Heathrow on Sunday night, she discovered the full impact of IS81, which flagged her previous attempt, and she spent the next five hours crying in an airport detention room.

Despite her return ticket for 16 June and insistence that she was exercising her right as an EU citizen to visit the UK without a visa, she feared Border Force officials planned to expel her and prevent her from seeing her boyfriend.

Quick Guide
Rules for EU citizens visiting the UK
Show
She was allowed out at 10.30pm, after what she described as a "horrific" experience. Border Force officials could not explain why it took them so long, or why she had been deprived of her freedom. They had also searched her bags and questioned her about her job in Denmark and her parents.

Angelina said she felt Border Force tried to push her into saying that she was coming to live permanently and illegally in Britain. "She asked me why I was entering the UK and I said to visit my boyfriend," she said. "She immediately said 'live with' your boyfriend, so I repeated 'visit'. Already she was putting words into my mouth."

D'Alberti, who is starting a new job in Bayonne, France, in July, claimed his unemployment status was twisted into a sinister motive for travel by officials and that his open-ended plans were treated with deep suspicion.

"They fingerprinted me. I asked them: is this normal, to fingerprint visitors? Do you do this to everyone at the border? They fingerprinted every finger. Then they took a picture of my face like I was a suspect."

A spokesperson for the Home Office said: "We expect Border Force to treat all arrivals with respect and consider each passenger's situation on an individual basis. The British public expect us to check that everyone entering the UK has the right to do so, and passengers may be asked questions to establish the basis on which they are seeking to enter the UK."

Under immigration rules, appendix V, 4.2, the onus is on the tourist to "satisfy the decision-maker they are a genuine visitor".

Guidelines for border officials on assessing the reasons for entry to the UK by a visitor
Guidelines for border officials on assessing the reasons for entry to the UK. Photograph: Home Office: Visit Guidance. Version 10.0 2021
This means the applicant must satisfy officials that they will leave the UK after their visit; they will not live in the UK or make the UK their home; they are genuinely seeking entry for a permitted purpose; and must have sufficient funds to cover everything in their trip including return journey and any costs incurred including that of any planned private medical treatment.

[The Brain]

Most splendid, this isolation!

[Richard Hakluyt]

I preferred the Icelandic border guards :

IBG : You mustn't work here in Iceland.

Me : alright then, I won't.

IBG : Welcome to Iceland

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I am suspicious of anyone who chooses to become a border guard. But I can well believe that the ones at Calais are particularly unpleasant and high on their powers

[The Larch]

It's nice to see how they seem to have the working assumption that EVERYONE!!!!!!11111 is out to illegally enter the UK and claim benefits.

[Sheilbh]

It's nice to see how they seem to have the working assumption that EVERYONE!!!!!!11111 is out to illegally enter the UK and claim benefits.

I've always thought there's a weird sort of contradiction in some conservative attitudes on this - that the UK is a wonderful country we should all be more patriotic about, and, simultaneously, such a desolate shithole of crime and suburban decay that the only reason someone might want to come here is because they're literally being paid.

I think there's probably something similar in reverse among more liberal attitudes.

[Zanza]

The British home secretary has a reputation for nastiness for the sake of it, so maybe that's all there is to it...

[The Brain]

The role of "home secretary" should be hotter than it is IMHO.

[celedhring]

Despite their reputation the DHS dudes at JFK/Newark were always pleasant.

[Josquius]

It's nice to see how they seem to have the working assumption that EVERYONE!!!!!!11111 is out to illegally enter the UK and claim benefits.

I recall seeing a documentary about an illegal immigrant from Pakistan who as a reason for coming was under the same impression that the British system was amazingly generous to people like him.
It obviously isn't.
The hard right create their own problem.

[Sheilbh]

The British home secretary has a reputation for nastiness for the sake of it, so maybe that's all there is to it...

No - don't think so.

Patel is awful, but I can't think of a non-nasty, non-authoritarian Home Secretary in my life time. You know I remember David Blunkett in the 2000s trying to make Home Office asylum decisions non-justiciable (which the courts rejectd), I think Patel's trying it again 20 years later. You might suspect it's because the Home Office lose 75% of cases when their decisions are appealed.

The department's dysfunctional and its operational wings (especially Border Force) I think have a history of failure and nastiness.

I think personnel is probably a little bit of an issue, but the whole department could do with being burned to the ground and built again.