Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Seems like an interesting and important article from Doug Beattie, leader of the Ulster Unionists - both recognising the protocol and also pleading with unionism to, to an extent, end its isolationism and maybe weirdness. Those two are probably linked.

The reference at the start is to the future First Minister saying that the IRA's violence was justified as there was no alternative, which also enraged the SDLP (and other non-violent nationalists), as their leader Colum Eastwood put it "there was an alternative to IRA violence. John Hume led that alternative & the Nationalist people backed it. The IRA murdered 1000s of its own people, destroyed businesses, ruined young people's lives by selling them a twisted ideology & put the cause of Irish unity back decades."

Doug Beattie – The only path for unionism is for it to come in from the cold...
Soapbox on August 8, 2022, 7:09 am405 Comments | Readers 4221
Ulster Unionist Party leader, Doug Beattie MC MLA

The stark reality about politics here in Northern Ireland was exposed by Michelle O'Neill`s comments last week that attempted to justify the IRA`s indefensible terrorist campaign. This is a slap in the face for victims, survivors and those who lived through those dark years. Selective condemnation and glorification of past atrocities really does stop Northern Ireland, and its people, from moving forward. In fact it fortifies the division that has blighted this place for so long.

As for the Ulster Unionist Party we haven`t shied away from our past and mistakes that were made. Lord David Trimble was clear in his Nobel Peace Prize speech when he said, "Ulster Unionists, fearful of being isolated on the island, built a solid house, but it was a cold house for Catholics. And northern nationalists, although they had a roof over their heads, seemed to us as if they meant to burn the house down. None of us are entirely innocent."

In saying this as the Ulster Unionist Party leader, he set about changing that dynamic and fix what had gone before. Regrettably Michelle O`Neill`s comments last week do the exact opposite.

As the present Ulster Unionist Party leader, David Trimble`s words and actions are not lost on me. He was right in his political analysis and vison for Northern Ireland. He knew that difficult decisions would have to be taken and appealed to all corners of society to work together – not just in power sharing but also responsibility sharing – in order to govern Northern Ireland for the betterment of all. His vision was the original 'Union of People' which is the path the Ulster Unionist Party are following again today.

Of course things have not gone smoothly and a positive, inclusive, pro-union, message promoted with confidence and energy, fell at the last hurdle just before the assembly election in May.

Yet looking back to May it is important that I, as the party leader, take responsibility for the party not reaching its full potential during the election. Lessons have been learned, but the pathway and direction were not wrong; the Union of People is the only direction unionism can take if it is going to survive and flourish. We must reach out to the whole of society in order to make the case for the Union and Northern Ireland`s place within it.

Many of the electorate do not currently buy into political unionism, but they will buy into a prosperous, forward looking Northern Ireland with a strong economy at its heart where respect and understanding are as important as identity and culture. Of course unionism can continue down the path of short term tactical thinking, by focusing on the negatives and alienating the very people we want and need to see this part of the United Kingdom work, but that would only be another strategic blunder by unionism which has had too many since the DUP became the largest unionist party.

Unionism must concentrate on giving the leadership which instils confidence in those who are pro-Union and reach out beyond the traditional base. As has been stated in the past, unionism needs to stop looking for lundies and start looking for converts. We need to actually start doing something about that rather than falling back into the destructive habits of the past where Lord Trimble and others are denounced as traitors by those who seek political advantage, but who later buy into their vision by working the very institutions they created. 

There are also those whose minds are made up and being part of the United Kingdom will never be for them, but we can still work together respecting alternative views.

As a unionist, I want Northern Ireland to work. I know that for this part of the United Kingdom to strengthen and grow then it must work for all its people. This is what frustrates me most about the approach much of unionism are taking where short-term victories will ultimately lead to long term defeat. Their tactics make Northern Ireland look unworkable, destabilised and unattractive. This may well give individuals something to shout about in order to achieve notoriety and short-term political advantage, but they damage Northern Ireland's long-term prospects.

Unionism can win the argument on the Protocol, but that will be through political guile and negotiation. Political sloganism won`t cut it. We must deal with the Protocol and it is incumbent on the United Kingdom Government and the EU to agree a negotiated way forward.

I know that as the Ulster Unionist Party leader many within unionism may not agree with my approach to protecting Northern Ireland. It's not the traditional path of protest, it's not about confrontation, it's not about pointing out the fine minutia of 'themuns' doing something wrong. Instead it is a more positive path where, using long term strategic thinking and respectful engagement even in the face of severe provocation, we strengthen Northern Ireland`s place within the United Kingdom.

In fighting to make unionism more acceptable to those who believe in the Union, but cannot bring themselves to vote for, or be associated with unionist parties, we advance our cause. I am in no doubt that those who can see beyond the ever decreasing core unionist vote that the only path for unionism is for it to come in from the cold, to end its isolationist positioning and accept that we share this place, we share responsibilities and we share a rich culture that should now be uniting us far more than it divides us.

[Gups]

Edit: And on British Twitter there's a clip doing the rounds of Nick Clegg in 2010 saying the reason nuclear power wasn't a solution is because it wouldn't come online until 2020-21 which is far too late to be helpful. The Lib Dems blocked it in the coalition - we built lots of renewables but not much else as a base power and we shut down gas storage.

(a) Whatever Clegg said, it's simply not true that the Lib Dems blocked nuclear in the coalition. Indeed, early in the coalition, the Lib Dem Secretary of State for Energy announced that eight sites had been selected for new nuclear power stations

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11564152

Mr Huhne said the country needed a diverse energy mix with contributions from all sectors but with more emphasis on renewables such as wind power.

"I'm fed up with the stand-off between advocates of renewables and of nuclear which means we have neither," he said.

"We urgently need investment in new and diverse energy sources to power the UK. We'll need renewables, new nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage and the cables to hook them all up to the National Grid as a large slice of our current generating capacity shuts down."

Many Lib Dem MPs have traditionally been opposed to further nuclear expansion but Mr Huhne told the BBC the issue was not a "toxic" one among his colleagues.

A majority of MPs in Parliament - including most Conservatives and Labour members - are in favour of building more nuclear plants and Mr Huhne said the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement had made it "very clear" nuclear would be included in the country's future energy mix.

"A deal is a deal. I am there to deliver it," he said.

(b) Clegg was being hopelessly optimistic. Of those 8, only Hinkley is under construction with a targeted completion date of 2027 (but I understand that is highly unlikely). Two reactors at Sizewell have just got consent (the Govt overruling its own inspectors) but will now be subject to judicial review given unresolved concerns as to how the project wll be able to source non-saline water.

It's simply not true that objections/consultations are the primary cause of delay for nuclear power stations. A licence was granted in 2012. In the interim the European Commission challenged the project on state aid grounds and EDF itself took 4 years to decide the project was viable, doing so in 2016. The Government granted consent later that year and construction started in 2017. They take a long time to build because they are extraordinarily complex, difficult and expensive projects utilising new technology.

Other projects - at Moorside (Toshiba) and Wylfa (Horizon) have been ditched. Not for planning reasons but because of the costs.

I've nothing against nuclear in principle (indeed I worked on the Moorside consent for over a year before it was ditched) but it's clearly a financially marginal approach to renewables a Notably construction by EDF of new stations using its European Pressure Reactor design has proved highly costly and problematic. The one in Finland has taken 17 years. Construction at Flamanville in France started in 2007 and it is not yet operational. The cost overrun is at least 400% (according to EDF, the Court of Audit puts it at more like 600%).

It's superficial and just plain wrong to blame objectors for the failure to build nuclear powers stations quickly and it's nothing to do with our consenting system either which takes no longer than it does in France.

[Sheilbh]

(a) Whatever Clegg said, it's simply not true that the Lib Dems blocked nuclear in the coalition. Indeed, early in the coalition, the Lib Dem Secretary of State for Energy announced that eight sites had been selected for new nuclear power stations

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11564152

They shifted from their election position of no new nuclear to supporting nuclear that was wholly funded by private money - which is practically saying no new nuclear. I think they were comfortable with a contract for difference because that's standard for energy. Given the capital cost of building a plant I don't think there is any nuclear power plant in the world that didn't require state guarantees or subsidies etc.

Labour supported some state involvement until 2010 and the Tories supported some state involvement after 2015. Those five years nuclear was possible as long as it was delivered in a way that no-one in the world has ever managed.

It's simply not true that objections/consultations are the primary cause of delay for nuclear power stations. A licence was granted in 2012. In the interim the European Commission challenged the project on state aid grounds and EDF itself took 4 years to decide the project was viable, doing so in 2016. The Government granted consent later that year and construction started in 2017. They take a long time to build because they are extraordinarily complex, difficult and expensive projects utilising new technology.

My understanding is the shift with EDF was around financing and key in that was the policy shift from fully privately funded to a role for the state after 2015. Trying to do something unique where EDF bears the vast majority of the risk is going to take a very long time for them to work out and negotiate - I think accepting a role for the state makes that easier rather than  fixed period that needs to take 4 year. I don't think it would've taken that time under Labour pre-2010 or Tories post-2015 - I think it's fair to say there's basically a five year gap during the coalition.

Simmilarly with the EU challenge that ended up going to the CJEU which ruled on it in 2020 - and it re-affirmed the really long standing position of the EU and Commission that has a fairly relaxed/broad approach to state aid in the context of nuclear. My understanding was that the CJEU affirmed the Commission's decision and that the challenge was from outside campaign groups to the Commission which required a formal investigation, but they didn't have an issue with it and they generally don't with some state aid for nuclear because it's necessary and neither did the CJEU. Building started while the challenge was still ongoing.

I've nothing against nuclear in principle (indeed I worked on the Moorside consent for over a year before it was ditched) but it's clearly a financially marginal approach to renewables a Notably construction by EDF of new stations using its European Pressure Reactor design has proved highly costly and problematic. The one in Finland has taken 17 years. Construction at Flamanville in France started in 2007 and it is not yet operational. The cost overrun is at least 400% (according to EDF, the Court of Audit puts it at more like 600%).

I agree I don't necessarily think that nuclear's the panacea. The UK built a lot of renewable capacity in that time - and Miliband, the Lib Dems and Tories deserve credit for that over the last 15 years or so. But that energy is still variable at this point - we don't have the battery capcity (or technology?) to effectively store it at scale. At the same time we've closed down a number of nuclear power plants and shut down our gas storage capacity. British people and political parties want net zero and they want the lights to stay on - but have consistently blocked all the policies that might actually help get us there.

I think you can shut down nuclear and keep or possibly expand gas storage for the medium term (though you'd be more exposed now), or you can really back nuclear and wind-down gas (I think given the world that's the better option). I don't think you can do both at the same time meaning you've got an energy system with very little capacity and just hope nothing goes wrong for a few years. Similarly with water supply or with public transport - and they'll always be big, long, costly projects (I think we can simplify it) I'm just not sure that should be used as an argument that it's pointless to build them anyway.

It's superficial and just plain wrong to blame objectors for the failure to build nuclear powers stations quickly and it's nothing to do with our consenting system either which takes no longer than it does in France.

But it's also superficial to say the problem with x big infrastructure is that we won't see the benefits for 10 years plus - that's part of it being a big infrastructure project. You can either build in lots of process and potential blocking points etc in which case it'll take a long time in which case I think you need an argument against that infrastructure or an alternative; or you can complain about the length of time they'll take and argue for reducing that process.

Especially if you're a politician, like Clegg, who made a big pitch of Labour and Tories not being able to take long-term decisions - and leading a party that nationally is very good on infrastructure (and all other sorts of building) but locally builds campaigns around opposing them.

[Valmy]

Edit: And on British Twitter there's a clip doing the rounds of Nick Clegg in 2010 saying the reason nuclear power wasn't a solution is because it wouldn't come online until 2020-21 which is far too late to be helpful.

Too late to be helpful? In what way was that not helpful? Was he under the impression the world was going to end on December 21, 2012?

[Syt]

I guess that's what happens when politicians are focused on 4-5 year election cycles rather than long term goals and targets.

[Gups]

But Shelf, your assertion, based on a Twitter clip was that Clegg and the Lib Dems, while in the coalition Goverment had "blocked" the construction of nuclear power stations whcih is simply not true given what the coalition government actually did do under a Lib Dem energy secretary in the very first year of that government.

You also said that delays were caused by objections which again isn't true and belies a misunderstainding of how these large infrastructure projects are consented. Objectors, no matter how strongly they feel, just don't have the power to stop what are called Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Projects. Even the Prime MInsiter couldn't stop the Heathrow expansion until Covid did it for him. The delay on the single project consented to date is
down to construction and finance issues and has been common in all European EDF EPR projects with EDF massively underestimating construction timetables and costs.

[Sheilbh]

But Shelf, your assertion, based on a Twitter clip was that Clegg and the Lib Dems, while in the coalition Goverment had "blocked" the construction of nuclear power stations whcih is simply not true given what the coalition government actually did do under a Lib Dem energy secretary in the very first year of that government.

But I think saying the only nuclear you'll support requires an unprecedented and unique financing solution is effectively blocking it. It's true they didn't say they were going to veto every project but if you set a hurdle that no-one's ever reached and it's not clear that it's possibly, then you're practically vetoing them surely?

It's a bit like Brown blocked Blair from trying to enter the Euro. In theory he was open to it and set five tests (to be judged by Gordon Brown), but in practice it was difficult to see the UK meeting them (as judged by Gordon Brown).

You also said that delays were caused by objections which again isn't true and belies a misunderstainding of how these large infrastructure projects are consented. Objectors, no matter how strongly they feel, just don't have the power to stop what are called Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Projects. Even the Prime MInsiter couldn't stop the Heathrow expansion until Covid did it for him. The delay on the single project consented to date is
down to construction and finance issues and has been common in all European EDF EPR projects with EDF massively underestimating construction timetables and costs.

I've no doubt it's true that I don't understand how they are consented and I'm probably wrong in sayinig the objections were an issue.

But they caused the EU investigation and surely everything that would go for judicial review requires objectors. It is just a perception but the issues with even doing large infrastructure projects are political - because no-one wants them near them (though most people want the benefits). But once they're approved/embarked on it feels like there are still lots of process/legal problems from points of consultation and points of challenge running alongside technical issues and my sense is we don't have the balance right between people having an opportunity to object and a bit of certainty over projects.

Although this is probably just a very bad example and me brushing all failures in this area with the same brush

[Gups]

I guess that's what happens when politicians are focused on 4-5 year election cycles rather than long term goals and targets.

I remember the good old days of 4-5 year electon cycles informing policies. Now we our future PM focussed solely on a 1-2 month election cycle with a 180,000 or so elctorate. 

[Gups]

I don't think the strike rate approach was wrong and indeed the alternative would have ended the propsects of any new nuclear power stations afer Hinkley. The budget's been raised 5 times in 6 years and by £8bn. The real problem is that EDF just haven't got a handle on the EPR design despite doing three of them now.

Objectors didn't create an EU investigation. The Commission approved the UK granting state aid to the project. Austria and Luxemberg challenged the Commission in the ECJ.

There was just one JR against Hinkley - by the National Trust of Ireland which won't have delayed the project at all (Greenpeace started one but dropped it). It takes a year or two to start commencing these kind of projects after getting consent - construction contracts, mobilsation etc. JRs are an annoyance but not much more.

[Legbiter]

The UK will be a low carbon superpower in just a few years by all accounts. 

Britain will have excess electricity supplies for more than half of the year by 2030 as a huge expansion of wind and solar power transforms the energy system, a new analysis suggests. Energy storage technologies, including batteries and electrolysers to make hydrogen, will need to be deployed at massive scale to prevent this surplus electricity going to waste, according to LCP, a consultancy.

The forecast, based on the government's new energy security strategy, raises questions over whether investors developing new renewable and nuclear plants can be sure of finding buyers for their output to enable them to generate as often as they would want to. If they are unable to, they may seek higher subsidies for times when they do operate.

The trend is also likely to encourage the deployment of smart "time of use" electricity tariffs that offer consumers cheaper power at times of oversupply, to encourage them to charge electric vehicles and use other energy-hungry devices when it's windy and sunny.
Supply and demand on Britain's electricity grid has to be kept in balance at all times to keep the system running securely and avoid blackouts.

At present the quantity of low-carbon wind, solar and nuclear power that is available to generate at any given time rarely exceeds Britain's power demand. LCP estimates this will happen for only about 6 per cent of the hours this year. It says that by 2030, under plans for a huge expansion of renewable power, oversupply could occur for 53 per cent of the time.

Wind and solar boom will bring energy surplus

Those giant high-tech wind turbines that will be built on Dogger Bank look very impressive. Should be able to export massive surplus energy via good interconnectors to the Continent.

[Jacob]

Apparently Steven Seagal is at Olenivka Prison camp (the one where Russia executed the prisoners from the Azov Steelworks with incendary devices) and is handling "proof" that it was really a Ukrainian HIMARS strike that killed them.

[Zanza]

The UK will be a low carbon superpower in just a few years by all accounts. 

Britain will have excess electricity supplies for more than half of the year by 2030 as a huge expansion of wind and solar power transforms the energy system, a new analysis suggests. Energy storage technologies, including batteries and electrolysers to make hydrogen, will need to be deployed at massive scale to prevent this surplus electricity going to waste, according to LCP, a consultancy.

The forecast, based on the government's new energy security strategy, raises questions over whether investors developing new renewable and nuclear plants can be sure of finding buyers for their output to enable them to generate as often as they would want to. If they are unable to, they may seek higher subsidies for times when they do operate.

The trend is also likely to encourage the deployment of smart "time of use" electricity tariffs that offer consumers cheaper power at times of oversupply, to encourage them to charge electric vehicles and use other energy-hungry devices when it's windy and sunny.
Supply and demand on Britain's electricity grid has to be kept in balance at all times to keep the system running securely and avoid blackouts.

At present the quantity of low-carbon wind, solar and nuclear power that is available to generate at any given time rarely exceeds Britain's power demand. LCP estimates this will happen for only about 6 per cent of the hours this year. It says that by 2030, under plans for a huge expansion of renewable power, oversupply could occur for 53 per cent of the time.

Wind and solar boom will bring energy surplus

Those giant high-tech wind turbines that will be built on Dogger Bank look very impressive. Should be able to export massive surplus energy via good interconnectors to the Continent.

And by 2030 at best a single new nuclear reactor has been built whole there is a massive growth in renewables. We should stop wasting money on a dead technology like nuclear and invest it into storage or hydrogen production. For storage, electric cars that can discharge energy into the network should play a role besides more centralized larger batteries etc.

[Zanza]

Apparently Steven Seagal is at Olenivka Prison camp (the one where Russia executed the prisoners from the Azov Steelworks with incendary devices) and is handling "proof" that it was really a Ukrainian HIMARS strike that killed them.

I think it is unfair to blame Brexit for Russian war crimes. 

[Sheilbh]

But even then there's 47% of the time when renewables aren't sufficient which is why I think you still need the base layer of power generation. I know the idea of needing a bridge solution is a bit disputed but nothing I've seen on why it's not necessary seems very persuasive.

My issue isn't nuclear or bust - it's that you shouldn't simultaneously wind down existing nuclear plants and gas storage while not building a replacement stable power source that you can control. In my view nuclear is the better option because it's cleaner and you're less exposed to the global gas market/geopolitics.

It's not that they should replace renewables but that we need something for the 47% of time when renewables are, presumably, still below demand for power - especially because demand for electricity is going to increase dramatically if we're doing the right things on vehicles, homes, industry etc.

As I say I think all parties can and should get credit for the moves on renewables over the last 15 years (though the Tories won't get any because it seems "un-Tory" ) but I'm just not convinced we can do without that bridge power. I think it needs to be something that we can build at scale now - which, for example, hydrogen isn't yet - because we'll need it in 2030. But we're already facing energy challenges because of policy failures in the past.

[Sheilbh]

I think it is unfair to blame Brexit for Russian war crimes. 

Or for Steven Seagal