Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

But isn't that exactly his point - that Northern Ireland shouldn't be the test of the Johnson government's "sincerity" or commitment to the deal.

I don't understand this part, do you mean that it should be acceptable that what has been agreed in relation to NI would not be done by Britain?

[Sheilbh]

I don't understand this part, do you mean that it should be acceptable that what has been agreed in relation to NI would not be done by Britain?

No - so I understood that point as being certain member states treating the protocol like the rest of the deal. So they want to put the Commission to proof and make sure London and Dublin (and the Commission) aren't being too soft and too flexible. The consequence of that in Calais-Dover is delays and higher costs; the consequence in Northern Ireland is a possible return to violence and a rejection of the NIP in four years time resulting in a north-south land border. Basically everything the NIP was agreed to try and avoid. What's the point of the NIP if its application ends up resulting in a land border because unionists reject it?

European legal texts are very vague and a lot depends on how you interpret them in practice. You can either read them in a very formalist strict way, or you can try and read them in a way to give effect to the European legislator's intent. The intent behind the NIP was to preserve the GFA, avoid a land border and preserve peace - it should be read and interpreted in that way. I think the intent and the formalist legal analysis of the rest of the deal more or less overlap and will be strict.

I think the letter by Irish MEPs (from all parties except for Fine Gael) had sensible proposals on this - including building links between the EU and poltical forces in Northern Ireland, building a step into EU processes to make sure something like the A16 issue doesn't happen again, extending the grace periods for certain parts of the NIP. And to be honest while the A16 issue wasn't really related to the NIP it's really escalated tensions and issues in NI - I don't think it's possible to over-estimate its impact on the debate in NI.

Until then it was minor issues like seeds and soil not being able to cross the Irish sea (so plant machinery needed to be steam cleaned etc). Since then it's now moved to unionists talking about "defiance" of the NIP and Stormont if necessary - there's also been reports that at ports there are now more police officers than customs and environmental inspectors because of the threats they've been receiving.

[Zanza]

But isn't that exactly his point - that Northern Ireland shouldn't be the test of the Johnson government's "sincerity" or commitment to the deal.

I don't think that's Peter Foster's point. He says that GB <> NI is sensible, special and needs care from all sides to work out.

But he seems to be with me in criticism of Johnson. Because Johnson is the stakeholder that publicly denies there even is anything to take care of. He still pretends the Irish Sea border does not exist.

That causes lots of damage to legitimacy of the deal and it's actual implementation and reduces EU willingness to engage valid British concerns.

That Gove and the civil service as well as EU commission try to make it work is hampered by that denial of Johnson.

Also he gives implicit support to Arlene Foster when she pretends doing away with the NIP is an option and thus also hampers the Unionist engagement with the implementation of the NIP.

Sincerity about the unsatisfactory and complex situation is needed and I don't read anything in Peter Foster's piece arguing otherwise. And that sincerity is missing at the very top of the British government. 

[Zanza]

I don't understand this part, do you mean that it should be acceptable that what has been agreed in relation to NI would not be done by Britain?

No - so I understood that point as being certain member states treating the protocol like the rest of the deal. So they want to put the Commission to proof and make sure London and Dublin (and the Commission) aren't being too soft and too flexible. The consequence of that in Calais-Dover is delays and higher costs; the consequence in Northern Ireland is a possible return to violence and a rejection of the NIP in four years time resulting in a north-south land border. Basically everything the NIP was agreed to try and avoid. What's the point of the NIP if its application ends up resulting in a land border because unionists reject it?

European legal texts are very vague and a lot depends on how you interpret them in practice. You can either read them in a very formalist strict way, or you can try and read them in a way to give effect to the European legislator's intent. The intent behind the NIP was to preserve the GFA, avoid a land border and preserve peace - it should be read and interpreted in that way. I think the intent and the formalist legal analysis of the rest of the deal more or less overlap and will be strict.

I think the letter by Irish MEPs (from all parties except for Fine Gael) had sensible proposals on this - including building links between the EU and poltical forces in Northern Ireland, building a step into EU processes to make sure something like the A16 issue doesn't happen again, extending the grace periods for certain parts of the NIP. And to be honest while the A16 issue wasn't really related to the NIP it's really escalated tensions and issues in NI - I don't think it's possible to over-estimate its impact on the debate in NI.

Until then it was minor issues like seeds and soil not being able to cross the Irish sea (so plant machinery needed to be steam cleaned etc). Since then it's now moved to unionists talking about "defiance" of the NIP and Stormont if necessary - there's also been reports that at ports there are now more police officers than customs and environmental inspectors because of the threats they've been receiving.

So that's all about the EU side. What in your opinion should the British side do? 

I think a good first step would be to even acknowledge the issue. Which has not happened yet.

[The Larch]

Not related to Brexit, but as this is the thread for British disfunctionalities, here it goes.  It's a collage of tweets, as the article itself is behind a paywall.

Exclusive: Universities face fines as part of 'twin assault' by Government ministers on cancel culture

* Ministers will fine student bodies which stifle freedom of speech and tell heritage groups "public funds must never be used for political purposes" in a major new bid to torpedo efforts at rewriting Britain's history, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

*The Government likely to announce on Tues a 'Free Speech Champion' based at the Office for Students will be given powers to defend free speech and academic freedom on campuses.

*Colleges or student bodies that cancel, dismiss or demote people over their views will be sanctioned.

* Culture secretary Oliver Dowden has also summoned 25 of the UK's biggest heritage bodies and charities to a summit on Feb 23 where they will be told "to defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down".

* The Government's twin assault on the so-called 'cancel culture' comes amid concern at senior levels in the Government over attempts to rewrite Britain's past.

One step closer? 

[Sheilbh]

Not related to Brexit, but as this is the thread for British disfunctionalities, here it goes.  It's a collage of tweets, as the article itself is behind a paywall.

It's such bullshit - and incoherent.

Department for Education: public funds must never be used for political purposes, we need to stop "cancel culture". Everyone must speak their mind.
Department for Culture: publicly funded heritage bodies must promote Whig history and cancel all plans to do otherwise. No-one must be made to feel guilty.

In the interests of saving money I don't know why they don't make the Free Speech Champion the same person responsible for writing the government-endorsed history.

It is also worth noting that the UK has quite a developed policy of monitoring student groups for extremism through the Prevent policies. It used to mainly affect university Islamic Societies - but given that the stats on Prevent recently have shown that about 30-40% of their work is now the far-right (and it's the main focus in some regions) - unclear how these policies interact, but if I had to guess cancel culture may still apply to Muslim students and "controversial" preachers.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that's Peter Foster's point. He says that GB <> NI is sensible, special and needs care from all sides to work out.

But he seems to be with me in criticism of Johnson. Because Johnson is the stakeholder that publicly denies there even is anything to take care of. He still pretends the Irish Sea border does not exist.

Yeah Johnson should fully support the NIP and make clear what that means. But I don't know how much of a difference that makes for unionist support given that, as I say, he betrayed them. He got his deal by agreeing to a sea border, he is now minimising the real issues as "teething problems" etc. He is careless with this bit of the union especially - I think whatever disagreements I have with May she made decisions with the interests of Northern Ireland at the core even if it "diluted" the Brexit deal. Johnson's clearly decided that Northern Ireland is a price he's willing to pay for freedom to diverge in GB.

Part of the motivation in unionists escalating issues is to force London to listen and to listen to unionists because I think the fear will be that the UK government is willing to betray them again. From my memory the only time Johnson has commented on the NIP since it's started to take effect was after the DUP issued their five point plan following the A16 issue. He only said anything when they escalated.

Also he gives implicit support to Arlene Foster when she pretends doing away with the NIP is an option and thus also hampers the Unionist engagement with the implementation of the NIP.

But it is an option because of the consent mechanism.

There's a requirement to seek democratic consent from the parties in Northern Ireland to the NIP in four years time. From my understanding it will be based on a simple majority (I think the expectation was that this would make it easier to win support for the NIP - the DUP initially complained about the consent mechanism because it was only based on a majority). If a simple majority rejects then most of the protocol will stop applying. There's a two year period and the joint committee makes recommendations on alternatives to avoid a hard border and comply with the GFA. Given the nature of the wider TCA it is likely that would result in some form of land border which has all the same issues we're talking about, we just move it from the Irish sea to the north-south border and instead of loyalist risks it'll be republican risks.

In the last election unionists didn't win a majority of seats in Stormont - but that's the first time that they haven't and was in the context of a few scandals. Part of the calculation for the DUP (as Robinson suggests) is whether coming out in full "defiance" of the NIP is more likely to win unionists a majority than trying to make it work. It'll depend on the Ulster Unionists who are typically the more moderate wing of unionism and they currently back the NIP - but they think it's in breach of the GFA and needs to be reformed or abolished.

So that's all about the EU side. What in your opinion should the British side do?

I think a good first step would be to even acknowledge the issue. Which has not happened yet.

Running through Sefcovic's recent letter:
1 - Border Control Posts or Entry Posts aren't operational; there's "very few" identitiy checks and a "very limited number of physical checks" (excecpt for live animals, fish, plants) etc.
If it involves infrastructure this should be put on hold until the temperature is lower, because in the current climate I'd be concerned that any actual infrastructure is just a target.

For the rest of this it's about the checks on derived prodcuts and it's a devolved matter. It's the Northern Irish Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs who are responsible and I genuinely don't know the UK government's powers on it. DAERA is responsible to the UK department (DEFRA) on this bit of the NIP because it's a devolved administration implementing a UK decision rather than their own policy. But I don't know how that works in practice. I also think this is why the DUP's decision to oppose all NIP measures in the Assembly could matter because that means they will probably fail (the DUP probably have enough votes to issue a "petition of concern" about any measure which means it requires cross-community support, and enough votes to then block them). Ironically I suspect compliance on this point would increase if the DUP boycott Stormont and it's up to London.

Given tensions I would be looking for UK government more support DAERA - more money, seconding staff from UK bodies - rather than trying to compel compliance.

2 and 3 - Access to IT systems and traders providing equivalent information for goods moving from NI to GB.
This should be fixed as a priority.

The other points on steel and meat products Sefcovic says they'll clarify or work together on to "find pragmatic solutions". So there's working together on those points.

The final issue is around pet travel between GB and NI and the movement of seed potatoes and other plants and plant products. This is the one that's attracting lots of news stories because, for example the need to remove plant products means tractors are getting steam cleaned before crossing from Scotland, plus the seed potato issues. People in NI can get a pet passport which will allow for travel to GB and back which is fine. I feel like there is a middle ground between non-compliance and behaving like the island of Ireland is like Australia, where these rules are applied but not as strictly as at the minute.

[The Larch]

Not related to Brexit, but as this is the thread for British disfunctionalities, here it goes.  It's a collage of tweets, as the article itself is behind a paywall.

In the interests of saving money I don't know why they don't make the Free Speech Champion the same person responsible for writing the government-endorsed history.

Is somebody really going to write a government-endorsed history of the UK?

[Sheilbh]

Is somebody really going to write a government-endorsed history of the UK?

Probably not but who can say. It's more how incoherent these agendas are.

[Syt]

Not related to Brexit, but as this is the thread for British disfunctionalities, here it goes.  It's a collage of tweets, as the article itself is behind a paywall.

In the interests of saving money I don't know why they don't make the Free Speech Champion the same person responsible for writing the government-endorsed history.

Is somebody really going to write a government-endorsed history of the UK?

Isn't that what the Penguin history books are for?

[Tamas]

"to defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down".

That's some Poland level shit right there.

[Sheilbh]

Lord Ashcroft's paid for his big polling and focus group after the election. Current release - what happened to the Labour Party which will cause no surprises to anyone here:



Something that should be alarming for Labour - 52% (cursed number) of defectors found it easier than normal to decide who to vote for. There wasn't a lot of soul-searching going on:


Comments from the focus group doesn't suggest that there'll be a few quick fixes:


Also interesting - huge incredulity about the free WiFi/free Broadband point. Basically it felt like a bribe and a waste of money that was made off the cuff - after that people said they didn't believe anything Labour was proposing. Similarly "woke" culture did cut through. Interestingly the thing people raise isn't to do with the issues themselves necessarily (except for some points on gender), but that there was a tension between people being liberal or "woke" but then perceived as being very intolerant and "vitriolic" against people such as conservative voters. Basically it's tough to call for people to be more sensitive and considerate if people think you're spitting fire at anyone who disagrees with your point of view.

But basically Labour was perceived as a party for students, the unemployed and comfortable middle-class radicals not "people like me". Labour were perceived as looking down on people who disagreed with them and not listening to either their traditional base or people who disagreed with them.

There's probably a lot in there to learn for Starmer (who gets decent reviews in the focus groups). But we'll see

[Josquius]

Considering the source and what is said I'll take this with a pinch of salt. Some fishy stuff there. Really have to look into methodologies and wording of questions.

I really don't trust this "middle class liberal elite looking down on the working class" angle on labour. I don't think it's organic at all. The far right have been cultivating that for a while.
The woke stuff too... Really don't think Corbyn was much for trans rights or anything. Again it's a manufactured battle from the right.
And brexit dominated the election? That's not what I heard at all. There was a minority against it, a smaller minority desperate for the harder the better (not understanding what that meant), and the majority just sick to death of it and wanting it to bog off. Corbyn being Satan was a much bigger issue I found.

[Sheilbh]

Considering the source and what is said I'll take this with a pinch of salt. Some fishy stuff there.

He's been doing these for 15 years about the party that lost the election. It's a poll of 10,000 voters plus 1,000 Labour members and "Eighteen focus groups of former Labour voters were held in January 2020 informer Labour constituencies won by the Conservatives in 2019:Bolsover, Bridgend, Burnley, Don Valley, Scunthorpe, Sedgefield, Stoke-on-Trent North, West Bromwich East and Wrexham.Participants had voted Labour in 2017 but stayed at home or voted for other parties in 2019, or had voted Labour in 2015 but for other parties in 2017 and 2019. Four focus groups of Labour Party members and members of Labour-supporting trade unions were held in London and Birmingham in January 2020."

I don't think there's anything in there that's a surprise.

I hope Labour don't just ignore it - though they haven't really picked up on the signs from voters in 2010, 2015 or 2017 so it is likely just hoping. The 2005 one was key in Cameron's "modernising" the Tories:
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/smell-the-coffee.pdf

[Josquius]

Methodology sounds alright. Given we know the influence far right social media has had on people's beliefs it could be the case that the internet has influenced people's views to the extent they've come to believe what was once fiction.
Nonetheless as said it does smell rather fishy.

Seems this all took place a year ago:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51457739
Notable that the 18 focus groups were concentrated on flipped seats. That would explain much, ignorance is rampant in such places.

Important thing to take away from all this is the well known, sadly false but nonetheless awesome, Henry Ford quote "If I asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses".
Way too many people taking this as proof Labour needs to become the BNP... because a group of people who've been hit by the fall of the working class say so.
I stand by my assessment that staying on course is the right thing to do. Labour needs to concentrate not purely on reclaiming seats for the sake of politics, but how it can reclaim areas for the working class.
The best plans in the world are useless without actually getting into power of course. But as I've been saying for quite some time even a carbon copy of the 2019 policies but with a more centrist, less rubbish figurehead, would have done well.
Fighting misinformation is key. This perception of the liberal metropolitan liberal elites who care more about trans rights than regular working people for instance. Utter bollocks. And it needs highlighting so without doing what the knuckle draggers want and throwing trans rights under the bus.