Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Looks like Labour are determined to lose the Hartlepool by-election. Apparently HQ have announced a longlist of one (1) candidate

It's Paul Williams a former MP from a neighbouring constituency who lost his seat in 2019. People are saying he's doomed because he was strongly in favour of a second referendum (Hartlepool went 70% for Leave - it's probably in the top 20 Leave constituencies) but I'm not sure that'll be the main issue. People generally do not like stitch-ups or carpet baggers being imposed on them by party HQ. It also makes them feel like they're being taken for granted which is probably the last thing Labour need in a seat like this. If Labour had any sense they would have found a good candidate from the local party and tried to make it as local a race as possible.

If the Tories have any political sense/skills at all I'd expect them to win.

Edit: And in other news the Holyrood Committee have found on a 5-4 vote that Sturgeon misled them in her evidence. The SNP have dismissed it saying that the opposition parties had already madeup their mind from the start - but I'd note that the 5 votes for include a Scottish Green MSP who have broadly supported the SNP minority government.

[mongers]

So it is a minor tradition of the British press to do articles about "why I left London and why you should too/I regret it massively". This one from the Evening Standard is an instant classic in the genre - the mix of serious, trivial and possibly non-existent issues is simply outstanding:

Her stuggles with the haunted house reminds me of the local power company here last year when they were constructing a sub station or somesuch on a farmers' property which involved them tearing down an old barn. The farmer said there was an annoying ghost there and had been for years and requested that it be exorcised away first, otherwise it might start roaming around. The company promptly complied and the local parish priest duly showed up in full regalia to banish the troublesome ghost. Also there's an álagablettur on the land that was not to be disturbed in any way. There's a couple of elf mounds on my family property which require certain etiquette as well. I don't strictly believe, of course, but I scrupulously observe all the correct customs nontheless. It's almost like Shinto in that way.

Thanks for that Leggy, some nice local colour. 

[Josquius]

Looks like Labour are determined to lose the Hartlepool by-election. Apparently HQ have announced a longlist of one (1) candidate

It's Paul Williams a former MP from a neighbouring constituency who lost his seat in 2019. People are saying he's doomed because he was strongly in favour of a second referendum (Hartlepool went 70% for Leave - it's probably in the top 20 Leave constituencies) but I'm not sure that'll be the main issue. People generally do not like stitch-ups or carpet baggers being imposed on them by party HQ. It also makes them feel like they're being taken for granted which is probably the last thing Labour need in a seat like this. If Labour had any sense they would have found a good candidate from the local party and tried to make it as local a race as possible.

If the Tories have any political sense/skills at all I'd expect them to win.

Edit: And in other news the Holyrood Committee have found on a 5-4 vote that Sturgeon misled them in her evidence. The SNP have dismissed it saying that the opposition parties had already madeup their mind from the start - but I'd note that the 5 votes for include a Scottish Green MSP who have broadly supported the SNP minority government.

Who is the tory candidate?
They always bring in people with London addresses up here. Didn't stop them winning.
Though it could be a smart move for them to go hard for populism.

Given the strength of Hartlepool labour it is surprising they'd have a candidate from the next town. Though I do note he is a doctor. That could be an area where Labour score well-the tories complete bollocksing of corona and betrayal of the nhs.

Brexity stuff.... Not a huge deal for many I think. And it needs remembering a key reason for so many of labours losses is as well as actual tory vote gains, votes lost elsewhere.
The prospect of the lib dems becoming number 2,as far fetched and mad as it is, seems a big concern to Labour. The European election really rattled them.

[Jacob]

Her stuggles with the haunted house reminds me of the local power company here last year when they were constructing a sub station or somesuch on a farmers' property which involved them tearing down an old barn. The farmer said there was an annoying ghost there and had been for years and requested that it be exorcised away first, otherwise it might start roaming around. The company promptly complied and the local parish priest duly showed up in full regalia to banish the troublesome ghost. Also there's an álagablettur on the land that was not to be disturbed in any way. There's a couple of elf mounds on my family property which require certain etiquette as well. I don't strictly believe, of course, but I scrupulously observe all the correct customs nontheless. It's almost like Shinto in that way.

Fascinating. That's kind of how my wife and her family are with various Chinese practices as well.

I'm curious, what is the required etiquette?

[Zanza]

I think Raab was right in the sense that yes there is a border on the Irish Sea as far as trade concerned. But it was Britain who erected that border, not the EU.

Two parties agreed to the NIP. Both of them had redlines that required a special solution. The UK and EU were both political actors - you know, if the EU hadn't compromised on what is sort of strictly in the treaties then we wouldn't have the NIP at all.

I am sorry but with the UK leaving the single market - a British decision - there had to be a border either on the island or on the sea. The only choice the EU had was to compromise single market principles. Once they refused to do that to Britain's - a non-EU member - benefit and their own detriment, it was all up to the UK how to get around it.

The EU did massively compromise its single market principles by letting a third party guard its customs and regulatory border in Northern Ireland. They gave up control to say it in terms the British should understand. What we now see is that we gave up that control to a unreliable country not willing to implement its side of the deal, even going so far that their PM still denies that he ever entered that deal. Despite making it a manifesto headliner, winning an election on it and the voting it through with massive majority. But then disowning it.

[Tamas]

I think Raab was right in the sense that yes there is a border on the Irish Sea as far as trade concerned. But it was Britain who erected that border, not the EU.

Two parties agreed to the NIP. Both of them had redlines that required a special solution. The UK and EU were both political actors - you know, if the EU hadn't compromised on what is sort of strictly in the treaties then we wouldn't have the NIP at all.

I am sorry but with the UK leaving the single market - a British decision - there had to be a border either on the island or on the sea. The only choice the EU had was to compromise single market principles. Once they refused to do that to Britain's - a non-EU member - benefit and their own detriment, it was all up to the UK how to get around it.

The EU did massively compromise its single market principles by letting a third party guard its customs and regulatory border in Northern Ireland. They gave up control to say it in terms the British should understand. What we now see is that we gave up that control to a unreliable country not willing to implement its side of the deal, even going so far that their PM still denies that he ever entered that deal. Despite making it a manifesto headliner, winning an election on it and the voting it through with massive majority. But then disowning it.

Fair point. Although I wonder if the EU ever expected this deal to be upheld, I am pretty sure Johnson's intention was to fudge it, as we are now seeing.

[Sheilbh]

Fair point. Although I wonder if the EU ever expected this deal to be upheld, I am pretty sure Johnson's intention was to fudge it, as we are now seeing.

I agree with the Northern Irish journalist's comment - the UK is saying they don't want a border in the Irish Sea but are taking decisions that might make it work while the EU is saying they do want a border in the Irish Sea but are taking decisions that will likely see the NIP rejected.

And basically all the issues the EU, rightly, identified with a land border apply here too. I think the UK wasn't trying to get one over on the EU and set up a dodgy entrepot in Northern Ireland - I think they were raising genuine practical issues which we're now dealing with and need to address. The chief vet of Northern Ireland - who's an independent civil servant has testified that if the grace periods expire then Northern Ireland will have to conduct as many veterinary checks as the rest of the EU combined - at the minute they have 12 vets to do it.

[Tamas]

Fair point. Although I wonder if the EU ever expected this deal to be upheld, I am pretty sure Johnson's intention was to fudge it, as we are now seeing.

I agree with the Northern Irish journalist's comment - the UK is saying they don't want a border in the Irish Sea but are taking decisions that might make it work while the EU is saying they do want a border in the Irish Sea but are taking decisions that will likely see the NIP rejected.

And basically all the issues the EU, rightly, identified with a land border apply here too. I think the UK wasn't trying to get one over on the EU and set up a dodgy entrepot in Northern Ireland - I think they were raising genuine practical issues which we're now dealing with and need to address. The chief vet of Northern Ireland - who's an independent civil servant has testified that if the grace periods expire then Northern Ireland will have to conduct as many veterinary checks as the rest of the EU combined - at the minute they have 12 vets to do it.

But the treaty is in effect a border on the Irish Sea by the comments at the time this seemed clear. "Making it work" means diluting it to non-consequence to the UK, which means opening single market access via NI.

[Sheilbh]

But the treaty is in effect a border on the Irish Sea by the comments at the time this seemed clear. "Making it work" means diluting it to non-consequence to the UK, which means opening single market access via NI.

But again I come back to the purpose of the NIP which is to support the GFA and avoid a land border (which would have all of the same issues). If the strict implementation of the NIP undermines the GFA and results in a land border then it's not doing what it's supposed to do. And I don't think comes out well for negotiating and signing an agreement that is practically impossible to implement - for example the number of checks required once the grace periods end. It might make sense in theory from Westminster and Brussels but if it can't be implemented - as in there are physically not enough vets in Northern Ireland - it's useless.

And I don't think it really has particularly big consequences to the UK - I don't think it matters much to the UK economy because really the UK economy is overhwelmingly in GB. UK retailers have said that it will be cheaper for them to shut down their Northern Irish operations - because it's a tiny chunk of the economy. The consequences for vast majority of the UK's economy is felt in the new barriers exporting to the rest of Europe (including Ireland) not barriers to Northern Ireland. So the consequences are primarily felt by people in Northern Ireland, and because of their ideology/identity particularly by the unionist community. Business in Northern Ireland is broadly supportive of the NIP.

What I mean by make it work is what I said to Larch - I'd focus on retail supply chains, I'd focus on flashpoints for individuals like the energy efficiency flag, I'd look at doing checks in GB (where no-one cares v Larne where people get death threats). I think all of the rest - including the issues around agriculture etc - can work, but I don't think it's workable for retail which impacts individuals and inflames opinion. Again the consequences are really felt by the people of Northern Ireland - not the Brexit-voting people of GB or the retailers who have said it's cheaper for them to shut down their operations in Northern Ireland.

[Zanza]

Fair point. Although I wonder if the EU ever expected this deal to be upheld, I am pretty sure Johnson's intention was to fudge it, as we are now seeing.

I agree with the Northern Irish journalist's comment - the UK is saying they don't want a border in the Irish Sea but are taking decisions that might make it work while the EU is saying they do want a border in the Irish Sea but are taking decisions that will likely see the NIP rejected.

And basically all the issues the EU, rightly, identified with a land border apply here too. I think the UK wasn't trying to get one over on the EU and set up a dodgy entrepot in Northern Ireland - I think they were raising genuine practical issues which we're now dealing with and need to address. The chief vet of Northern Ireland - who's an independent civil servant has testified that if the grace periods expire then Northern Ireland will have to conduct as many veterinary checks as the rest of the EU combined - at the minute they have 12 vets to do it.

Seriously? Your government is led by charlatans who deliberately decided at every turn for the option that made solving the Northern Irish dilemma harder.

They rejected the EU, they rejected EEA and CU, they rejected May's frontstop with the Chequers common rulebook, they rejected all regulatory alignment, they rejected a SPS agreement, they rejected a longer transition period. All in the name of sovereignty. 

What are those supposed measures the British are taking that help the NIP? Unilaterally not implementing the measures of the agreement? Measures, which only became necessary because they had before rejected everything else?

[Zanza]

By the way, there is a land border on Ireland. Not for goods, but for services. Data equivalence was granted, but e.g. offering cross-border banking services, which was normal before, is no longer feasible. So British policy not just created issues East-West, but also North-South.

[HVC]

Her stuggles with the haunted house reminds me of the local power company here last year when they were constructing a sub station or somesuch on a farmers' property which involved them tearing down an old barn. The farmer said there was an annoying ghost there and had been for years and requested that it be exorcised away first, otherwise it might start roaming around. The company promptly complied and the local parish priest duly showed up in full regalia to banish the troublesome ghost. Also there's an álagablettur on the land that was not to be disturbed in any way. There's a couple of elf mounds on my family property which require certain etiquette as well. I don't strictly believe, of course, but I scrupulously observe all the correct customs nontheless. It's almost like Shinto in that way.

Fascinating. That's kind of how my wife and her family are with various Chinese practices as well.

I'm curious, what is the required etiquette?

Yeah, that's really interesting. i'd like to know too.

[Sheilbh]

Seriously? Your government is led by charlatans who deliberately decided at every turn for the option that made solving the Northern Irish dilemma harder.

They rejected the EU, they rejected EEA and CU, they rejected May's frontstop with the Chequers common rulebook, they rejected all regulatory alignment, they rejected a SPS agreement, they rejected a longer transition period. All in the name of sovereignty. 

The voters rejected the EU. They withdrew consent from that part of our constitutional framework. And there's nothing wrong with that. They were asked the question. And I might disagree with them just like I disagree with Scottish nationalists or Northern Irish unionists and think it's regrettable, but voters made a choice and it's up to politicians to implement that. The easy Northern Irish solution I'd like to see is a united Ireland - but we're not there yet.

On the rest I think almost all of that follows from the referendum. The big issue was freedom of movement so any solution that involved staying in the single market would need a lot of political support to go against the referendum (and in my view a second referendum). Despite the government not having a majority that support didn't coalesce. Once you're out of the single market then I think you have to reject regulatory alignment because you're getting none of the benefits, you're not shaping the rules so the only marginal gains you'll get will be from diverging (and those gains will, likely, be lower than the benefits of staying the single market - but again that decision was made in 2016 and re-affirmed in two elections). I don't think a longer transition period would really have added much.

I think it's really difficult - absent a second referendum or the government (who I agree are profoundly untrustworthy - and, in Johnson, an ego-driven charlatan) losing an election to not end up at this position. To me it's like the EU negotiating mandate - this is logically where you end up if you go down the decision tree without either a second referendum or a new government.

What are those supposed measures the British are taking that help the NIP? Unilaterally not implementing the measures of the agreement? Measures, which only became necessary because they had before rejected everything else?

Exactly that I posted the article a while ago but the essence is this section (again he's a political correspondent and I saw this being shared by unionists and nationalists):

A key element of the government's decision this week not to enforce parts of the new border relate to food crossing from GB to NI. Mr Lewis said that without urgent action, "there's a very real risk that actually what we've had in a few weeks would have been back to the issues of empty shelves...[and] we'd have seen a further lack of confidence and undermining of the protocol itself...the work we're doing is to ensure it doesn't get further undermined."

With a background in the food industry, Mr Lewis stressed that supermarkets work far in advance and the EU-UK negotiations were grinding along at a slow rate where one grace period expired a fortnight ago and a far greater hardening of the food border is due at the end of this month. Another last-minute deal would be of little help in those circumstances, he argued.

However, the EU and the Irish government were outraged, with Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney saying that the EU was now dealing with a country it couldn't trust.

Yet the Irish opposition to this move has been entirely procedural – they have for weeks accepted that the grace periods urgently need extended.

The European Commission's position is less clear. Over recent weeks Maroš Šefčovič has argued that the Irish Sea border checks needed to be expanded, and has berated the UK for not implementing the protocol more rigorously.

At a time where the protocol is causing major practical and economic difficulties, where most of unionism is dismayed at the scale of what is involved, and when potentially dangerous levels of anger are building within loyalism, the EU appears blind to how its dogmatic approach appears to those it claims the protocol exists to protect.

The EU can plausibly argue that the Irish Sea border is necessary to protect its single market. But rather than make that nakedly economic argument, it has claimed that what it is doing is to protect the Good Friday Agreement.

The fact that almost all of unionism – including David Trimble, the key unionist architect of that Agreement – say that the protocol itself undermines the 1998 accord is implicitly dismissed by the commission's actions.

Although the absence of an EU office in Belfast may partially explain the commission's apparent ignorance of how it is perceived here, and it may also have mistakenly believed that Mr Johnson was representing unionism's interests, it is remarkable that so long into the Brexit process the EU does not appear to understand some of the basic aspects of political division in a region whose peace it says has been central to its stance.

Even before the hardening of the Irish Sea border which is to come, its scale is becoming increasingly hard to justify. In staggering evidence to a Stormont committee on Thursday, Northern Ireland's chief vet said that when one of the grace periods – that on moving GB supermarket goods into Northern Ireland – expires, the number of agri-food checks required at the Irish Sea border will be close to the number currently processed by the EU as a whole.

With just 12 vets at his disposal, Robert Huey said that he had told the commission that he was simply unable to undertake that level of work.

Dr Huey's boss, Department of Agriculture permanent secretary Denis McMahon, told MLAs that food and plant safety checks currently only applied to 30% of the agri-food goods that will be potentially subject to the new processes when an exemption period for retail and supermarket goods expires.

Mr McMahon said that Northern Ireland was processing a greater volume of documentation "than all other entire countries across the European Union".

Some in the EU have privately lampooned Brandon Lewis's claim that there is no Irish Sea border and that comment showed the Secretary of State's questionable understanding of how his words are received in Northern Ireland.

But it should alarm Brussels that even Mr Lewis sounds genuinely concerned that the EU does not comprehend that with which it is dealing.

The EU is now demanding that the UK abandon its unilateral action, with the European Parliament postponing ratification of the EU-UK trade deal in protest and the commission preparing for legal action Yet if the UK acquiesces – as it may well do – that would arguably further undermine support for the protocol, showing again to Northern Ireland that both the EU and the UK are prepared to put their procedural debates ahead of what both of them accept are serious practical difficulties here.

While both sides claim to care passionately about peace in Northern Ireland, increasingly this region appears to be a proxy battleground far from the centres of power in two large blocs where they can express frustrations with each other without consequence for areas about which they care more deeply.

Edit: And I should say if the purpose of the NIP is to protect the single market - then fine, there should be strict implementation and consequences be damned. If the purpose is to support peace in Northern Ireland then it needs to be implemented in a way that gets support and buy in from both communities.

[Barrister]

The easy Northern Irish solution I'd like to see is a united Ireland - but we're not there yet.

Note of course that it isn't my preferred solution, but do you think it could ever happen in the near to medium term?  Is there a deal that could be offered to convince just enough Protestants to say "yes" to a unification vote?

I understand of course that has far more to do with identity than with specific policy concerns, but was just kind of wondering.

[Josquius]

I have heard mutterings that increasingly the young generation aren't getting so wrapped up in the radical loyalist nonsense much like young people in mainland GB have little interest in brexit et al.
It doesn't seem too far fetched that in a decade or two enough people from protestant families could vote for their rational self interest (even if that is Irish unification)