Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I saw it mentioned somewhere, that the British identity is much more identifiable for immigrants, as in itself it means a community of nationalities (even leaving the Commonwealth out of it). Whereas "English" is a much more specific and restrictive national identity.

I am quite certain this would not be the case if there never was a "British" identity, i.e. if the immigrants have always lived in an "England" then they would have no trouble identifying with that (well, not more than with British), but it does ring true to me, to an extent.

I think it's more because the far-right has tended to be very English in the symbols they use and their approach. The issue is around Englishness more than anything.

So Ireland which is a nationalist country has Taoiseach whose father was born in India. Similar a leading candidate for the next SNP leader is Humza Yousaf and he will definitely identify himself as Scottish.

This is one of the issues with "British" identity, which is what Tyr says. If "Britishness" is just the identity of English people who are uncomfortable with Englishness, it isn't a really British identity because it says nothing to Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. I recognise I am part of the problem here.

I think if the UK did dissolve English identity would probably emerge and change to be far more civic - like Scottishness and Irishness. Not least because people like me and Tyr would actually be and have to be English.

If you think the leaving of the EU is sufficient reason for a 2nd referendum, and indeed you'd support Scottish independence, then it means you are gunning for border checks between Scotland and England, since that's the scenario (a hard Brexit) where Scotland's independence would make a practical difference in regards to their (eventual) access to the EU.

Yeah I mean I think that's fine. It'd be a border like the rest of Europe and depend on the negotiation. The issue with Ireland is that border is part of a conflict that arguably hasn't ended.

There's no issue like that around England and Scotland it would just be difficult, but it doesn't affect a frozen conflict.

[Sheilbh]

Thanks. The previous ones never got this far?

Didn't even get to the first reading

May always lost the meaningful vote. Johnson had a tantrum after he lost the Letwin amendent and cancelled the meaningful vote to go straight to the Bill.

Meanwhile Johnson cancelled his third re-scheduled appearance before the Liaison Committee. This was a Blair innovation, but basically the idea was more substance than PMQs. So it's the PM in front of the chairs of all the Select Committees (who are of all parties) for two hours. Johnson appears to be avoiding it for some reason

Also Johnson wants election very soon. Given that it needs at least five weeks we are very close to a December election which I think will be bad for everyone. I cannot imagine a better way to piss off the entire country

Edit: Also isn't the rule since 1974 that elections have to be late spring/early summer or the British people enter the polling booth with only revenge on their mind?

I don't think I've ever seen an election not in May/June

[Josquius]

The big concern is where it leaves us with university timings.
Get it on the Xmas holidays and you have a scattered to irrelevance student vote and working people with kids not voting as they're off on holiday.
All good news for the tories.

[Tamas]

I saw it mentioned somewhere, that the British identity is much more identifiable for immigrants, as in itself it means a community of nationalities (even leaving the Commonwealth out of it). Whereas "English" is a much more specific and restrictive national identity.

I am quite certain this would not be the case if there never was a "British" identity, i.e. if the immigrants have always lived in an "England" then they would have no trouble identifying with that (well, not more than with British), but it does ring true to me, to an extent.

I think it's more because the far-right has tended to be very English in the symbols they use and their approach. The issue is around Englishness more than anything.

So Ireland which is a nationalist country has Taoiseach whose father was born in India. Similar a leading candidate for the next SNP leader is Humza Yousaf and he will definitely identify himself as Scottish.

This is one of the issues with "British" identity, which is what Tyr says. If "Britishness" is just the identity of English people who are uncomfortable with Englishness, it isn't a really British identity because it says nothing to Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. I recognise I am part of the problem here.

I think if the UK did dissolve English identity would probably emerge and change to be far more civic - like Scottishness and Irishness. Not least because people like me and Tyr would actually be and have to be English.

If you think the leaving of the EU is sufficient reason for a 2nd referendum, and indeed you'd support Scottish independence, then it means you are gunning for border checks between Scotland and England, since that's the scenario (a hard Brexit) where Scotland's independence would make a practical difference in regards to their (eventual) access to the EU.

Yeah I mean I think that's fine. It'd be a border like the rest of Europe and depend on the negotiation. The issue with Ireland is that border is part of a conflict that arguably hasn't ended.

There's no issue like that around England and Scotland it would just be difficult, but it doesn't affect a frozen conflict.

Makes sense. Especially the bit about English identity quickly shifting to be what British is now, once Britain itself cease to exist in the next decade.

I don't think separating a 400 years old union will be as smooth as you make it out to be, but I guess we'll see soon enough.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The tragedy is that the dissolution of the union would be so much easier as a member of the EU. The principal casualty in that case would probably be the end of the UK as a substantial military power; maybe not a good idea given the way the world is moving.

[Josquius]

Frankly I don't trust the UK with weapons anymore.
With the way the world is going we are set to be very much on the side that must lose if it comes down to it.

[Tamas]

Frankly I don't trust the UK with weapons anymore.
With the way the world is going we are set to be very much on the side that must lose if it comes down to it.

I am not even sure where to start with this.

I guess I'll start with the silly notion that NATO will lose the next war. Why?

[Richard Hakluyt]

...and there was I thinking that downgrading our armed forces is a bad idea when they may be needed to help the Baltics. We can't assume the USA would do the job any more; after all the Baltics were not there at D-Day 

[ulmont]

I guess I'll start with the silly notion that NATO will lose the next war. Why?

Because the next war will be the rest of NATO versus the US and Russia, the way things are going.

[Josquius]

Frankly I don't trust the UK with weapons anymore.
With the way the world is going we are set to be very much on the side that must lose if it comes down to it.

I am not even sure where to start with this.

I guess I'll start with the silly notion that NATO will lose the next war. Why?

Huh?

[Tamas]

Not trusting with the UK with an army? Nonesense, not having an armed force to defend your country is the only guaranteed way of having some aggression against you.

And Britain is in the unique situation that as long as they have a decent navy and the nuclear subs, they can feel perfectly safe.

[The Brain]

Not trusting with the UK with an army? Nonesense, not having an armed force to defend your country is the only guaranteed way of having some aggression against you.

And Britain is in the unique situation that as long as they have a decent navy and the nuclear subs, they can feel perfectly safe.

With nuclear missiles maintained by the US. The UK hasn't had an independent nuclear arm in years.

[Josquius]

Not trusting with the UK with an army? Nonesense, not having an armed force to defend your country is the only guaranteed way of having some aggression against you.

And Britain is in the unique situation that as long as they have a decent navy and the nuclear subs, they can feel perfectly safe.

The point was the UK looks increasingly likely to be the aggressor rather than the victim.

[Tamas]

Not trusting with the UK with an army? Nonesense, not having an armed force to defend your country is the only guaranteed way of having some aggression against you.

And Britain is in the unique situation that as long as they have a decent navy and the nuclear subs, they can feel perfectly safe.

The point was the UK looks increasingly likely to be the aggressor rather than the victim.

Increasingly? After the Iraq debacle and how it utterly destroyed Blair? What makes you think that?

[The Minsky Moment]

I guess I'll start with the silly notion that NATO will lose the next war. Why?

Because the next war will be the rest of NATO versus the US and Russia, the way things are going.

That war is already happening.  We lost a few big early battles but it's not over yet.