Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

It was not a small part. It showed a deep distrust of three of the G7 towards one, probably on a similar scale as with Trump, but unlike the US, the UK is not indispensable.

Global Britain will not happen as long as Johnson/Frost enmity towards the EU is policy as France, Germany and Italy consider this an affront that poisons the relationship. And Global Britain against the EU will not be effective. Also Biden has a personal interest in Northern Ireland.

And fuck the Ulster unionists. There is zero reason to tie your national identity to trade regulations. Gibraltar shows the way.

The NIP is a painful compromise for all sides, but both Johnson/Frost and Poots are only destructive. This behavior has the potential to escalate into a full trade war. Over sausages.

[Tamas]

That's Great British Sausages for you! 

[Maladict]

That's Great British Sausages for you! 

Let's dump a few crates of them in Belfast harbour and see what happens. 

[Duque de Bragança]

The NIP is a painful compromise for all sides, but both Johnson/Frost and Poots are only destructive. This behavior has the potential to escalate into a full trade war. Over sausages.

Sausage war vs Germany, plus allies? Achtung!

[Zanza]

"Having checks between Britain and Northern Ireland is not the way forward," says Starmer. He adds that checks between NI and IE ar "really not the way".

https://mobile.twitter.com/goodclimate/status/1404357258042032128

Just like Johnson he fucking voted for those checks. And has  no alternative. Is there any accountability about the Brexit mess in Britain. The two pro-Brexit parties (Tories and Labour) won it, so they should own it. 

[Josquius]

There is an alternative. The best of both worlds. Being part of some sort of common area in which trade can flow freely.

[Sheilbh]

It was not a small part. It showed a deep distrust of three of the G7 towards one, probably on a similar scale as with Trump, but unlike the US, the UK is not indispensable.

Global Britain will not happen as long as Johnson/Frost enmity towards the EU is policy as France, Germany and Italy consider this an affront that poisons the relationship. And Global Britain against the EU will not be effective. Also Biden has a personal interest in Northern Ireland.

Biden has a personal interest and he will not tolerate the UK walking away from the NIP, but I would note that both Congress and the White House have already started reaching out to groups in Northern Ireland who generally blame both sides for this situation. Again, I don't think the US has the contacts they used to within unionism - but I think they'll be focused on the impact on people in Northern Ireland. Which is the right approach. I think Biden himself obviously is more sympathetic to the nationalists, but I think the focus of the US will end up being on protecting the GFA not protecting the single market.

There also isn't enmity to the EU (or France, Germany and Italy) on the vast majority of issues where they did work together.

And fuck the Ulster unionists. There is zero reason to tie your national identity to trade regulations. Gibraltar shows the way.

Sure - but Northern Ireland isn't Gibraltar. It's not East Germany with a lot of people waiting for the inevitable collapse of the UK and it's not the Basque country with a few separatist terrorists. It's closer to Bosnia or Lebanon where two peoples with different cultures, identities and radically different histories that share a tiny bit of land. It's why majority rule (which the NIP has) doesn't typically work in Northern Ireland.

The identitiy issue isn't tied to trade regulations, it's more that unionists see the NIP as creating an economic united Ireland and forcing them into it - I'd note that I think of the most important mis-steps in destroying unionist trust was Simon Coveney's remark that he'd like to see a united Ireland in his political lifetime. It had a huge impact in Northern Ireland - I think Michael Martin has been far, far better and Fianna Fail seem more aware of the sensitivities in their language which is why he's rightly talked about trying to de-escalate this to technical talks.

I also think the consent issue is real. All decisions in NI normally require majority support from both nationalists and unionists. The NIP just requires consent of a majority. At the minute nationalists and non-aligned parties have the votes to approve the NIP (though there is an election next year). But there were moderate unionists who said they were open minded about the protocol who have now moved into the anti camp because of its impact so far. If it passes the NIP consent lock in 2022 with only the votes of nationalists and non-aligned parties - I'm not sure that's sustainable in Northern Ireland any more than a policy only passed with unionist/NA votes but opposed by all nationalists would be.

So Gibraltar might show the way but it's a bit like looking at Bosnia and asking why they aren't like the Swiss already. I find their identity weird and crazy and having very little to do with the Britishness of GB as actually lived - I think most Brits do - but it exists and they still form a majority of Northern Ireland.

The NIP is a painful compromise for all sides, but both Johnson/Frost and Poots are only destructive. This behavior has the potential to escalate into a full trade war. Over sausages.

I don't care about a trade war. The NIP at the minute, without buy-in from all sides in Northern Ireland, is on course to produce unrest and possibly violence, which could spiral very easily. Exports and international trustworthiness matter less than lives.

I'd also add in the context of Northern Ireland it isn't a painful compromise on all sides - one side feels (and behaves) like they've won, the other feels like they've been stabbed in the back by London and are under siege.

Ultimately I think the EU and UK as the parties who negotiated it need to basically de-camp to Belfast and just work with the business groups, community groups, political groups in Northern Ireland who, arguably, should have been involved from the start. Working together to get the solution to medicines announced will help.

[Tamas]

There is an alternative. The best of both worlds. Being part of some sort of common area in which trade can flow freely.

I guess from the British perspective this whole thing will end up being that Family Guy episode where Peter adopts some drastic anarcho-capitalist views, proceeds to have the town descend into anarchy, and then figuring out and announcing the way out of it - introducing police and other state functions.   At least I think that was Family Guy. I think South Park did it with hippies.

[Sheilbh]

FFS - last restriction lifting is being delayed. And - from Ben Chu, economics editor of Newsnight, the Treasury is doing this again:

Ben Chu
@BenChu_
I gather the Treasury has decided NOT to introduce any additional financial support for hospitality firms alongside the extension of restrictions beyond 21 June.

- 10% employer furlough contribution to kick in from 1 July

- no extra grants/loans

Chances are as with every other lockdown level there will be a u-turn on this. But it's the same thing every time. Treasurybrain is one of the biggest problems in this country We're keeping parts of the economy on life support due to the risks of a pandemic and they'd rather see viable businesses fail and deal with the recessionary/unemployment impact than the risk of money going to someone who shouldn't have it

[Zanza]

There also isn't enmity to the EU (or France, Germany and Italy) on the vast majority of issues where they did work together.

Johnson and Frost are clearly hostile to "our organisation". It's a matter of ideology for them. They would like to see the EU disappear.

I also think the consent issue is real. All decisions in NI normally require majority support from both nationalists and unionists. The NIP just requires consent of a majority. At the minute nationalists and non-aligned parties have the votes to approve the NIP (though there is an election next year). But there were moderate unionists who said they were open minded about the protocol who have now moved into the anti camp because of its impact so far. If it passes the NIP consent lock in 2022 with only the votes of nationalists and non-aligned parties - I'm not sure that's sustainable in Northern Ireland any more than a policy only passed with unionist/NA votes but opposed by all nationalists would be.

There was no consent to leave the EU or the Single Market in Northern Ireland, yet English nationalists imposed that policy on Northern Ireland. Fully knowing the Irish "Trilemma" of land border, sea border or regulatory alignment. I agree that this policy of English nationalism is not sustainable for Northern Ireland, but the NIP is the policy the English nationalists chose to implement their ambition of purist sovereignty for the UK. Not sure why you even refer at all to the Northern Irish when they clearly have no voice in British politics. No matter if Unionist or Irish Nationalist, they are politically powerless and their destiny is decided by the English. Just like in the last 900 odd years. They should be used to that by that now.

I don't care about a trade war. The NIP Brexit at the minute, without buy-in from all sides in Northern Ireland, is on course to produce unrest and possibly violence, which could spiral very easily. Exports and international trustworthiness matter less than lives.

Here, fixed that for you. The NIP is just the symptom, not the cause.

Ultimately I think the EU and UK as the parties who negotiated it need to basically de-camp to Belfast and just work with the business groups, community groups, political groups in Northern Ireland who, arguably, should have been involved from the start. Working together to get the solution to medicines announced will help.

No. As Johnson said during the G7, the UK is a single country (not four!) and the biggest part of that country decided for the rest, ignoring their needs and wishes. Before the EU does anything, you first need to solve your domestic discrepancies and create a UK internal consensus that works for you. Whether that is the sea border, land border or regulatory alignment.

Either you sell the compromise of the sea border to the Unionists or risk Unionist violence.

Or you keep the current course of the British government, which  leads to a trade war, which necessitates enforcement of a land border, which will also likely lead to armed conflict and IRA bombs in London.

Or you leave the notion of purist sovereignty and go for regulatory alignment which makes most of the problematic points of the NIP go away, but will anger English Nationalists.

That's the choice Johnson and Frost make. As they are English Nationalists and that is their powerbase, they will likely pick violence. A tragedy.

But a British issue first and foremost, little the EU can do to help.

[Zanza]

https://mobile.twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1404095831238709250?s=21

Good statement by Macron.

[Josquius]

I've not seen any of this reporting myself but it seems macron saying northern Ireland isn't part of England has been mistranslated for the nutters as UK?

[The Larch]

I've not seen any of this reporting myself but it seems macron saying northern Ireland isn't part of England has been mistranslated for the nutters as UK?

IIRC it was Raab that seized on an apparently harmless remark from Macron about NI being in an island and made a mountain out of it implying that Macron was denying the UK's sovereignty on NI.

[Sheilbh]

Johnson and Frost are clearly hostile to "our organisation". It's a matter of ideology for them. They would like to see the EU disappear.

I don't know about Frost - but that's really not true about Johnson. It's an opinion held by Nigel Farage and a few Tory MPs - most Brexiters don't care about the EU now they're out.

There may be some who think it will disappear but I don't think that's necessarily a wish any more than I think Europeans want the UK to disintegrate.

There was no consent to leave the EU or the Single Market in Northern Ireland, yet English nationalists imposed that policy on Northern Ireland.

Sure - but I'd feel the same about imposing an Irish land border with a "consent" mechanism that is contradictory to every other vote in Northern Ireland. Either don't have a consent mechanism because we're acknowledging this is ultimately an undemocratic decision made by the EU-UK and imposed on Northern Ireland, or have a consent mechanism that works the way every other vote does in Northern Ireland.

Fully knowing the Irish "Trilemma" of land border, sea border or regulatory alignment. I agree that this policy of English nationalism is not sustainable for Northern Ireland, but the NIP is the policy the English nationalists chose to implement their ambition of purist sovereignty for the UK. Not sure why you even refer at all to the Northern Irish when they clearly have no voice in British politics. No matter if Unionist or Irish Nationalist, they are politically powerless and their destiny is decided by the English. Just like in the last 900 odd years. They should be used to that by that now.

Yeah - I mean I fully support a united Ireland but the votes aren't there and we shouldn't fool ourselves about that. At the moment there isn't, I don't think, enough of a common of plural identity in a possible united Ireland to comfortably include unionists and I think we'd probably be facing something like the Troubles in Northern Ireland again but aimed at the republic.

Here, fixed that for you. The NIP is just the symptom, not the cause.

Brexit's ultimately responsible for the challenge of Northern Ireland - and Northern Ireland was, with the union, the biggest reasons I voted remain. But I don't think it makes unrest or violence inevitable. That's up to the choices of politicians now.

I was furious at how little Northern Ireland mattered in people's votes, and I still think peace should be the priority of everyone. Not the integrity of the single market from an as yet unrealised risk from a geographically remote post-stamp sized corner of Europe, or the right to eventually at some point diverge (but not now).

No. As Johnson said during the G7, the UK is a single country (not four!) and the biggest part of that country decided for the rest, ignoring their needs and wishes. Before the EU does anything, you first need to solve your domestic discrepancies and create a UK internal consensus that works for you. Whether that is the sea border, land border or regulatory alignment.

Either you sell the compromise of the sea border to the Unionists or risk Unionist violence.

Or you keep the current course of the British government, which  leads to a trade war, which necessitates enforcement of a land border, which will also likely lead to armed conflict and IRA bombs in London.

Or you leave the notion of purist sovereignty and go for regulatory alignment which makes most of the problematic points of the NIP go away, but will anger English Nationalists.

That's the choice Johnson and Frost make. As they are English Nationalists and that is their powerbase, they will likely pick violence. A tragedy.

I think the trilemma is just factually wrong. We are seeing that with the technical talks on medicines - we've seen it on other technical issues where there has been agreement. There is a mechanism in the protocol for not collecting customs duties on goods that are not "at risk" of entering the union - I think the solution will ultimately be in applying that logic to certain other bits of the protocol. From what I've read it is being used in the talk on medicines because medication is prescribed so it can be reasonably identified as not "at risk". My suspicion - if the parties could talk is that the answer will be there.

Incidentally the point on alignment in the government's view is that it was debated at length during the negotiations, it was rejected and member states were disappointed that Barnier hadn't got SPS alignment. Their view is that the EU is using the NIP as leverage to try and renegotiate that bit of the wider agreement. I don't know if there's anything to that, but it seems plausible - my own doubt is I don't really see the difference between a temporary alignment and grace periods. They're both just delaying the ultimate choice so whatever the solution is I think it needs a degree of permanence - either permanent alignment or permanent waiving of certain checks or expanding the use of the "at risk" definition or some other solution.

I don't really see the UK purist sovereignty concerns as any different from the EU's purist single market concerns. They're both political cboices and I think the answer is in the middle. You can't go from peace in Northern Ireland is a core priority of our policy decisions on Brexit and if it goes wrong it's all the other guy's fault.

But a British issue first and foremost, little the EU can do to help.

The EU and the UK agreed as one of the first points on Brexit that one of their priorities was to preserve peace in Northern Ireland. I think the EU underestimated the extent to which this would drag them into the mire of Northern Irish politics, but I'm afraid they're in it now - either preserving peace is a priority in which case the EU and UK jointly own the protocol and a way to implement it in a way that delivers its objective. Or it isn't and it fails in its objective to preserve peace. And maybe the arguments that the British negotiators were making weren't in bad faith trying to have cake and eat it but pointing that the principles being talked about might not survive contact with reality in Northern Ireland.

Plus the thing that has changed from now and January 1 is the speed and extent of unionist opposition. We can't ignore the impact of the EU article 16 decision - even if it only lasted 3 hours - that the party that had pushed very hard for the NIP in broadly these terms was threatening to suspend it within a month over the supply of life and death vaccines had a huge impact on unionist opposition. The effect of that night can't be overstated - before then no mainstream unionist group had actually come out saying the NIP needed to be scrapped and most were trying to make it work and get the benefits. Literally the next day the DUP split started and within two days it was clear that the TUV (pull out of the NIP and the GFA) were on the rise. It may be that this reaction was inevitable - but I think there's the possibility that the trade/economic sinews of NI shift to Ireland and Europe reducing disruption or that businesses feel the benefit, but that would take time. And if nothing else that article 16 night was an enormous accelerator on the unionist side. There is a reason it caused as much opposition from Ireland and nationalists as it did, because it was a disaster.

And again I think Sam Lowe's points on this are really important because I think in the heat of this there is a perception that the UK is entirely ignoring the protocol - which is untrue - or that the two sides aren't capable of working together on it which are also untrue. In general the bits that already apply are working and are functioning and a lot of the initial issues have reduced - I still think it can be the solution but it needs work:

Sam Lowe
@SamuelMarcLowe
Some discussion on Protocol needs a little more nuance:
- UK is implementing most of it - requiring declarations on goods moving GB->NI etc; not trying to change this
- UK not trying to remove all controls; trying to reduce checks & restrictions on food products GB->NI
- EU preferred approach would remove SPS issue
- UK's wouldn't; would reduce burden [while leaving GB free to do what it wants]
- Compromise on medicines looks doable; would allow GB authorised medicines to be prescribed in hospitals, pharmacies etc [more important than sausages]

The sausages point is key - that's just something the press can glom onto. There is a tiny amount of GB sausages sold in Northern Ireland - which has a big agriculture sector and really very good sausages of their own.

[Sheilbh]

IIRC it was Raab that seized on an apparently harmless remark from Macron about NI being in an island and made a mountain out of it implying that Macron was denying the UK's sovereignty on NI.

I think it was Johnson - he went in very strong in an interview after the bilaterals saying that some in the EU needed to realise that the UK is a country with territorial integrity. And again - if we're trying to de-escalate - it is really, really important that no-one suggests Northern Ireland is not part of or different from the UK.

The briefing was then that Macron had implied that Northern Ireland wasn't part of the UK anyway. The Elyssee briefed that the point he was making was that Northern Ireland isn't geographically contiguous with the rest of the UK - so he was making an NI-GB point.

I think the French were possibly imprecise in their language in a way that wasn't alive to the sensitivities of NI or to playing into Johnson's narrative. I'm not sure if Johnson pounced on a non-English speaker fubbing things which is bad form, or if Macron's phrasing was genuinely unclear (I think this is possible having watched Macron's English interviews and addresses) in which case I think Johnson's response is another example of my theory that we've left Europe to become French.