Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Brain]

Just install a normal land border between the UK and Ireland. Problem solved.

[The Brain]

Do people in the UK and Ireland realize that no one else gives a crap about Ireland? An island of Balkantards who dream of an ethnically pure Greater Ireland, stretching to its "natural borders", which may have existed in a half-mythical past. Is that supposed to impress Europeans, of all people? The moment the Irish (of all kinds) demonstrate that they are ready to grow up and be treated as adults everyone, including the Irish, will be better off. The whole thing is pathetic.

Edit: fixed first sentence...

[Valmy]

Does anyone outside the UK and Ireland realize that no one else gives a crap about Ireland? An island of Balkantards who dream of an ethnically pure Greater Ireland, stretching to its "natural borders", which may have existed in a half-mythical past. Is that supposed to impress Europeans, of all people? The moment the Irish (of all kinds) demonstrate that they are ready to grow up and be treated as adults everyone, including the Irish, will be better off. The whole thing is pathetic.

You mean how they insist we not call the island the British Isles and instead call it...um...nothing at all because not in thousands of years has there been a different name for those islands? Pretty pitiful. Talk about insecure.

[Zanza]

Sheilbh, the problem with the "at risk" status is that the EU by now considers the current British administration a rogue state, not to be trusted one bit. That's why everything is basically "at risk" as Britain does not even accept the core principles of the agreement. There are plenty of statements by the prime minister himself on not having checks at all. Which means it is a huge risk.

On the SPS, the EU does not necessarily want to reopen the agreement. It's just that with an SPS agreement a lot of the current checks become superfluous. That would help. But the alternative, Britain actually implementing its treaty obligations is also fine for the EU.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, the problem with the "at risk" status is that the EU by now considers the current British administration a rogue state, not to be trusted one bit. That's why everything is basically "at risk" as Britain does not even accept the core principles of the agreement. There are plenty of statements by the prime minister himself on not having checks at all. Which means it is a huge risk.

The facts are that most of the checks are operating in Northern Ireland - the EU doesn't have the level of access to IT systems which it should and that should be fixed ASAP. But they are in place. The evidence given by independent Northern Irish civil servants (who have taken their minister to court over this) is that there are already a huge number of checks happening on a daily basis.

Similarly the rest of the agreement has - so far as I'm aware - no serious accusations of the UK not meeting its obligations. The appropriate checks etc are happening on the EU side at all the ports, even if the UK is delaying their own checks (but that's a matter of domestic law not treaty obligation); about double the number of EU citizens expected will have their rights protected under the settlement scheme and there have been repeated advertising campaigns to try and reach all of them; the financial payments have been made etc. The only thing I can think of is the fishing dispute with Jersey which I don't know who's right on.

This has been my point before that Northern Ireland is the bit of the treaty that needs to be handled politically - everyone needs to be alive to the risks around it and focusing on de-escalating and getting buy-in from all communities and civil society and political groups in Northern Ireland. I think instead it is being treated as a test of the UK's sincerity - rather than the 95% of the treaty that is being implemented - which is a mistake. Similarly I think the UK government is also not doing anywhere near enough to try and de-escalate this - we shouldn't be talking about this as an issue of territorial integrity or sovereignty but as a fundamentally technical process. I think a big driver on this from what I have read is member states worrying that the Commission is being too lax and that Ireland is basically a fifth column - so they are pushing a desire to be particularly strong and aggressive on this, not unlike the anonymous briefings in Paris that an alternative would be to have checks on goods travelling from the island of Ireland (which the Commission pushed back against very hard).

On the SPS, the EU does not necessarily want to reopen the agreement. It's just that with an SPS agreement a lot of the current checks become superfluous. That would help. But the alternative, Britain actually implementing its treaty obligations is also fine for the EU.

But this is like the UK suggestion of a trusted trader scheme - it was discussed and explicitly rejected. I don't think the UK government's view is unreasonable that the EU presenting as the alternatives full implementation (not using any of the flexibility written into the NIP) or full dynamic alignment on SPS, is the EU using Northern Ireland as a vulnerable point and exerting its leverage. Again that's something I'd have no issue with in any other part of the treaty but not when it will put peace at stake.

You mean how they insist we not call the island the British Isles and instead call it...um...nothing at all because not in thousands of years has there been a different name for those islands? Pretty pitiful. Talk about insecure.

Sure but there is a British state, there has been a British empire, I have British citizenship etc. "British" does not just mean of these isles, it is not a purely a geographic descriptor any more it is now an adjective related to the UK/British state and has been for 300 years. Because it's no longer purely geographic it implies some form of ownership which is wrong when the second largest constituent is a nation that fought for its independence from the UK. It's a bit like a reverse of the irritation about Americans calling themselves Americans while the rest of the Americas look on.

And there are loads of alternatives. British-Irish government documents normally refer to "these isles" (which I like), or there's the Anglo-Celtic Isles, the British-Irish Isles, the Isles of the North Atlantic (or IONA which again I like because of the symbolism of Iona as a cross-roads within these isles), the Atlantic Archipelago etc.

It's a bit like with other labels - in this case a significant chunk that it's meant to apply to don't like it, so I think we need to change it because it's not helpful if you have to have this argument every time you use it.

[Sheilbh]

On other important British news:

Daniel Morgan murder: inquiry brands Met police 'institutionally corrupt'
Met chief censured for hampering corruption inquiry into investigation of 1987 death of private detective


Panel members Michael Kellett, Rodney Morgan, Nuala O'Loan, Silvia Casale and Samuel Pollock prepare to read out a statement following the publication of the Daniel Morgan independent panel report, at Church House in London. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters
Vikram Dodd and Dan Sabbagh
Tue 15 Jun 2021 16.26 BST
First published on Tue 15 Jun 2021 12.23 BST

The Metropolitan police have been described as "institutionally corrupt" and its commissioner, Cressida Dick, personally censured for obstruction by an independent inquiry set up to review the murder of the private detective Daniel Morgan.

The report of an independent panel inquiring into Morgan's killing in 1987 heavily criticised the Met.

The panel believes its finding, that Britain's biggest police force was endemically corrupt, is as seismic as the landmark finding of the Macpherson report in 1999 that institutional racism protected the killers of Stephen Lawrence.

The panel accused the force of placing concerns about its reputation above properly confronting corruption. It said the Met misled the public and Morgan's grieving family.

Asked if the commissioner should resign, Alastair Morgan, brother of Daniel, said: "Absolutely she should consider her position. Certainly we need better leadership than she has provided."

But despite the damning criticism of the force she leads and of her personal decisions, Dick appears to retain crucial high-level backing.

A source close to the home secretary said: "The home secretary has full confidence in the commissioner. We expect the whole leadership of the Met to respond positively and openly."

In a statement, the Metropolitan police said: "We deeply regret that no one has been convicted of Daniel's murder. We have not stopped pursuing justice.

"We accept corruption was a major factor in the failure of the 1987 investigation. This compounded the pain suffered by Daniel's family and for this we apologise.

"The report is extremely detailed covering 34 years and multiple police operations. We will respond in more detail later today."

Morgan, 37, was a private detective based in south London. Together with his business partner, Jonathan Rees, he ran an agency called Southern Investigations.

On 10 March 1987, Morgan was found murdered in the car park of the Golden Lion pub in Sydenham, south London, with an axe embedded in his head. Two sticky plaster strips had been wrapped around the axe handle to prevent fingerprint evidence from being left behind.

An inquiry was ordered by the government in 2013. The Met faced embarrassing questions about its past actions, but the accusations of hampering the panel make the case toxic for the current Met leadership.

The report said the Met delayed handing over vital documents, which then delayed the work of the panel, which was set up in 2013 but is only able to report now, eight years later.

It criticised police delays in giving access to a database, called "Holmes", and Dick, then an assistant commissioner, is named as one of those responsible. The report says: "The panel has never received any reasonable explanation for the refusal over seven years by [then] Assistant Commissioner Dick and her successors to provide access to the Holmes accounts to the Daniel Morgan independent panel."

This, the report says, "caused major delays and further unnecessary distress to the family of Daniel Morgan".

It added: "The Metropolitan police's lack of candour manifested itself in the hurdles placed in the path of the panel, such as AC Cressida Dick's initial refusal to recognise the necessity for the panel to have access to Holmes (the data system which provides safeguards for the integrity of investigations and also enables independent scrutiny to identify failures), as well as limiting access to the most sensitive information (which was not provided at the panel's secure premises and was only accessible at a location involving considerable travel time and precluding daily reference and crosschecking."

The panel chair, Lady O'Loan, said the Met owed the Morgan family and the public an apology for its decades of misleading statements and foot-dragging. She said: "By not acknowledging or confronting, over the 34 years since the murder, its systemic failings, or the failings of individual officers, by making incorrect assertions about the quality of investigations, and by its lack of candour ... we believe the Metropolitan police's first objective was to protect itself. In so doing it compounded the suffering and trauma of the family.

"The Metropolitan police were not honest in their dealings with Daniel Morgan's family, or the public. The family and the public are owed an apology."

The report said of the Met: "When failings in police investigations are combined with unjustified reassurances rather than candour on the part of the Metropolitan police, this may constitute institutional corruption.

"The Metropolitan police's culture of obfuscation and a lack of candour is unhealthy in any public service. Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation's public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit. In the panel's view, this constitutes a form of institutional corruption."

In the Commons, the home secretary, Priti Patel, said: "The report itself is deeply alarming and finds examples of corrupt behaviour – corrupt behaviour was not limited to the first investigation, that the Metropolitan police made a litany of mistakes and that this irreparably damaged the chances of successful prosecution of Daniel Morgan's murder."

Patel said she had written to Dick demanding the Met's response to the report, and has requested Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary look at the findings of the report and that a review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) would be brought forward.

The report criticised former Met police chiefs for their links to the former News of the World newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch, because the former Sunday tabloid was so closely linked to a private detective agency run by a suspect in the murder. The agency was called Southern Investigations and then Law & Commercial.

The judgment of former Met commissioner Lord Stevens, who left the Met and then wrote a column for the News of the World, was also questioned.

The report said: "It is clear that, at the very least, Lord Stevens failed to exercise due diligence about the News of the World, police and Law & Commercial connections before entering into a contract with the News of the World."

It continues: "However, a cursory check of intelligence records would have revealed the wealth of data held by the Metropolitan police about the linkages between the News of the World, Law & Commercial and illegally obtained police information and the role of corruption in those linkages."

It added:"It is appropriate for the panel to state that the demonstrated links between personnel at the highest levels of the Metropolitan police and people working for a news organisation linked to criminality associated with the murder of Daniel Morgan, are of serious and legitimate public concern."

The Metropolitan police has accepted the first murder investigation was blighted by corruption. To this day, no one has been convicted of Morgan's murder despite five investigations. The last attempt collapsed at the Old Bailey in 2011.

In 2017, four men targeted by the Met sued the force in the high court, alleging malicious prosecution. Among them were Rees and his brothers-in-law, Glenn and Garry Vian. They denied charges of murder. The three men lost their case against the Met but won a later appeal and were awarded £414,000 between them. The fourth man, Sid Fillery, accused of perverting the course of justice, won part of his claim. He left the Met in 1988, having served as a detective.

In 2013 the then home secretary, Theresa May, was concerned about the lingering claims of corruption and wrongdoing and set up the inquiry into Morgan's death.

Morgan's family has fought to get the killers convicted, and expose those who were allegedly corrupt and those who failed to stand up to corruption. His brother Alastair has claimed there was a cover-up.

Daniel Morgan was married and had two children at the time of his death.

I would add that it is hardly surprising that Cressida Dick - gold commander in the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes, which she then tried to cover up with others in the Met - was trying to cover-up again and protect the reputation of the Met rather than provide justice for the family.

I think it's a disgrace she's continued to be promoted since the de Menezes shooting and that she's now Commissioner. That should have ended her career - but here we are

[Zoupa]

Do people in the UK and Ireland realize that no one else gives a crap about Ireland? An island of Balkantards who dream of an ethnically pure Greater Ireland, stretching to its "natural borders", which may have existed in a half-mythical past. Is that supposed to impress Europeans, of all people? The moment the Irish (of all kinds) demonstrate that they are ready to grow up and be treated as adults everyone, including the Irish, will be better off. The whole thing is pathetic.

Edit: fixed first sentence...

I give a crap... Not sure what your point is. The GFA is important to safeguard. It's not like Eire is agitating to annex NI. A customs border in the Irish Sea is not equivalent to a united Ireland.

[Valmy]

Sure but there is a British state, there has been a British empire, I have British citizenship etc. "British" does not just mean of these isles, it is not a purely a geographic descriptor any more it is now an adjective related to the UK/British state and has been for 300 years. Because it's no longer purely geographic it implies some form of ownership which is wrong when the second largest constituent is a nation that fought for its independence from the UK. It's a bit like a reverse of the irritation about Americans calling themselves Americans while the rest of the Americas look on.

I can definitely see how that might irritate the rest of these two fine continents. Americans themselves took awhile to accept that our country would have such a technical sounding name, suggesting things like Columbia or Freedonia. But it stuck so there we are. But I can certainly imagine somebody in Argentina or Brazil or Canada being annoyed by it. But actually demanding we rename North and South America just because they fucking hate the United States so much? That would by psychotic and fucking insane.

And it is even more so for the Irish since while these two continents have only been generally called "North America and South America" universally for a few centuries, those have been called the British Isles back into ancient times.

And there are loads of alternatives.

Only in the sense there are many millions of different words one might make with the roman alphabet. They have to invent a new term because there are not any currently existing.

British-Irish government documents normally refer to "these isles" (which I like), or there's the Anglo-Celtic Isles, the British-Irish Isles, the Isles of the North Atlantic (or IONA which again I like because of the symbolism of Iona as a cross-roads within these isles), the Atlantic Archipelago etc.

It's a bit like with other labels - in this case a significant chunk that it's meant to apply to don't like it, so I think we need to change it because it's not helpful if you have to have this argument every time you use it.

And I am saying it reflects very badly on the Irish that they don't like it. It has been the term for thousands of years. I can certainly see you guys pandering to their insecurity and insanity but it doesn't mean I don't think they are assholes for making such a big nationalist stink. It just goes back to what The Brain was saying.

And let's not forget that the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" may soon cease to exist anyway so it may be they force us to change the name to satisfy their hatred for a country that may soon be called "The Kingdom of Scotland" and "The United Kingdom of England and Wales" or whatever. It might not even exist for them to be enraged by.

[Sheilbh]

I think names and symbols matter. I grew up in Scotland and was always annoyed when people (and Americans are bad at this) used "English" when they meant British. I've always had an issue with the English sports teams using God Save The Queen as their anthem - one because it's a dirge (see Billy Connelly on national anthems) and two because it should be British not English. I think similarly now British more often means to do with the UK and the British state than geogrpahy.

Ireland was conquered and parts of it colonised by the British - English and Scots together - it was ruled as part of the British Empire. It is not British and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to not refer to islands that include Ireland as British.

The fact that it's an old name is irrelevant. It's contemporary meaning is not primarily geographic and Ireland is not in any meaningful way "British" and it shouldn't be described as if it is.

I can definitely see how that might irritate the rest of these two fine continents. Americans themselves took awhile to accept that our country would have such a technical sounding name, suggesting things like Columbia or Freedonia. But it stuck so there we are. But I can certainly imagine somebody in Argentina or Brazil or Canada being annoyed by it. But actually demanding we rename North and South America just because they fucking hate the United States so much? That would by psychotic and fucking insane.

I think they'd be suggesting that maybe the US Americans take a different description rather than renaming the continent

And let's not forget that the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" may soon cease to exist anyway so it may be they force us to change the name to satisfy their hatred for a country that may soon be called "The Kingdom of Scotland" and "The United Kingdom of England and Wales" or whatever. It might not even exist for them to be enraged by.

It's a possibility - but I don't think the dissolution of a British state removes the historical context.

Having said that I think people are a little bit bearish on the survival of the union. Looking at the polling on independence in Scotland and the challenge of actually getting referendum - at this stage I wouldn't bet folding money on Scottish independence or the dissolution of the union just yet. As I say it feels to me a lot like Eurosceptics who think the EU is always on the point of collapse.

[Josquius]

It really seems it's a matter of when not if Scotland goes independent.
It only needs one vote to narrowly go that way then it's done. The anti independence side have to keep winning.

Whether it will happen this decade... Rather more 50-50 at the moment. Though that's when the union is in a best case situation. I can only see it leaning more in independenances favour as demographics shift and the state of being perpetually on hold via corona gives way.

[Sheilbh]

It really seems it's a matter of when not if Scotland goes independent.
It only needs one vote to narrowly go that way then it's done. The anti independence side have to keep winning.

Whether it will happen this decade... Rather more 50-50 at the moment. Though that's when the union is in a best case situation. I can only see it leaning more in independenances favour as demographics shift and the state of being perpetually on hold via corona gives way.

Yeah - I think it's touch and go. But the polls have moved consistently back to "no" after briefly being pro-indy earlier this year.

I think Brexit plays a really complex role here because on the one hand I think it presents the opportunity and the motive for independence - 60% of Scots voted for remain and this is a "material change". On the other hand it makes independence far more complex - because the SNP policy is to re-join the EU we're starting to see questions about the currency that were broadly ignored in 2014 and I think everyone can now see that Sturgeon's suggestion that Scotland could leave the UK, join the EU and there would be no border with England is not plausible.

But given the trend in polls at the minute (and the fact that "yes" has only ever been ahead for a few months in 2020) - I think we're more likely to be heading to a Catalan or Quebec situation where separatists consistently win enough votes to form a government, but not enough to win a referendum. Especially because I think if the union survives the first year or two of Brexit then that's kind of the point of maximum peril passed. And the really striking thing from the Scottish election was the extent to which, in Scotland, unionist voters are willing to vote tactically for a unionist candidate whether Tory, Labour or Lib Dem which I think is something the parties in England are studiously ignoring.

Plus I never buy demographics arguments - I think they're normally an excuse for political movements to not try and win because "time is on our side" which it might be, but everyone around them will change to win and suddenly the demographics don't matter. I can't think of one example where just waiting for demographic change has actually caused great victory for a political movement - normally you have to convince the voters you've got.

[Valmy]

I think they'd be suggesting that maybe the US Americans take a different description rather than renaming the continent

Which the Irish should do. They should demand Great Britain be named Anglo-Scotia.

[Duque de Bragança]

I think they'd be suggesting that maybe the US Americans take a different description rather than renaming the continent

Which the Irish should do. They should demand Great Britain be named Anglo-Scotia.

There is always Albion, just in case, with an adjective ready for use by other peoples. 

PS: What about New/Nea/Nova/Outer Saxonia? 
I stil see some use in French of les Îles Britanniques, but clearly as geographical concept only.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting tweet on the Morgan inquiry from one of Theresa May's special advisors when she was Home Secretary and then PM, May subsequently did appoint this inquiry. Again I'm not convinced our issues are limited to the elected politicians - especially with the Home Office:

Nick Timothy
@NJ_Timothy
·
11h
This is very concerning. When I was in the Home Office and I pressed for an inquiry into Daniel's murder, a senior official argued we could not have one because "who knew where it would end up" given historical corruption in the Met.

Edit: Oh and in Fine Gael politicians making really unhelpful remarks, here's Leo Varadkar saying he believes "in the unification of our island and I believe it can happen in my lifetime" and that "the views of unionists must be acknowledged, understood and respected but no one group can have a veto on Ireland's future". He did also talk about how it would need to be a re-founding of Ireland not an annexation and must include some measures to respect unionist opinion - but was a little vague just a new Senate, new languages legislation, some sort of arrangement with the UK (possibly rejoining the Commonwealth?) and mixing the best of both countries so the NHS from the North and the welfare and pensions of the south.

Obviously a core part of the GFA is that a unified Ireland only happens with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland which means at least some unionists have a veto and that Ireland removed its constitutional provisions stating that Northern Ireland was part of Ireland. It was sort parity of esteem - Ireland acknowledging unionists and their rights by no longer claiming Northern Ireland while the UK acknowledged nationalists and their rights by providing a mechanism in UK law for unification.

Within Irish politics it's a sea change as Fine Gael are traditionally the most "pro-British" party - and I slightly worry that Sinn Fein's rise is going to force the parties in Ireland to emphasise their nationalism. But I also wonder if the fact that Fianna Fail led during most of the key negotiations in the 90s means they just have more party grandees who can advise people like Martin on how to not unnecessarily inflame opinion in the north.

Again at the minute the best polling indicates there's more of a view in Northern Ireland that unification might happen - but it only has the support of 30% of the people.

Edit: As Padreig Reilly put it - Redmondism rides again.

[Josquius]

 No mention of the Batley and Spen by-election coming up.
Another down at heel northern constituency, just outside Leeds. This by-election is happening because its sitting MP has moved onto a higher job as mayor of West Yorkshire.
This place's main claim to fame is that it is the former seat of Jo Cox, Labour MP who was assassinated by a far right terrorist in the lead up to the Brexit referendum.
Interestingly the chosen candidate for Labour is Jo Cox's sister....

I can't help but wonder whether there might be some screaming that this is them being cynical and trying to cash in on the disaster. But all signs look good for the working class holding the line here.
I know absolutely zero of the town but at a glance it does feel far more linked into civilization than Hartlepool and is an example of the sort of working class town that hasn't fallen and greyed.