Westministenders Continues. The one where are being grateful for having a Boris rather than a Trump and UKIP show Labour how it’s done.

[RedToothBrush]

THE BREXIT FALLOUT CONTINUES - THREAD TWELVE

The calm of the eye of the storm is upon us. The signs are there that more trouble is ahead. What now for Brexit, the blank cheque for our future?

May’s honeymoon can only last the Summer, until she has to do some proper graft. Her Cabinet have all gone on holiday and to swat up on their new specialised subject, and by god have they got some homework to do.

Well, all of them apart from Liam Fox, who has bugger all to do for some time.

Johnson needs to… well we all know what Boris needs to do. Bend over and take it like a good boy.

Davies needs to learn the entire structure and workings of the EU and its variations of trade agreements and relationships with other nations. Juncker has the FUKD in his little black book of people who have crossed him (yes, he actually has one of these) and has put Brit Hating Barnier in charge of the EU Brexit team. Davies must somehow hold his own against this experienced EU hardnut. In French. Oh and find a permanent office.

What do the others need to learn? Hammond - how to perform a bloody miracle. Patel - it is illegal to use foreign aid as a leverage for trade deals. Leadsom – er everything? Rudd – how to do bigger assault on liberty and human rights than her mentor. Fallon – how we will afford to defend ourselves with pitch forks, especially if we can’t use Trident for some reason and it becomes necessary. Our enemy; Russia? North Korea? Turkey? Isis? Na. Trump if he wins.

Brexit is now officially in the hands Whitehall’s unbelievers. Those overstretched officials who are already saying there is a gap in their capacity to deliver what Parliament wants without additional the burden of Brexit. These discredited experts are left wondering if their challenge is, in reality, Mission Impossible, and this is made worse by the pressure that just about every senior Brexiteer seems to say is ‘easy’ despite all the mounting evidence to the contrary. Which is cold comfort to everyone who voted – Remain or Leave alike.

We still don’t even know what Brexit is. It is still something which has no coherent ideology and no clear set of prescriptions for what ailes us as a society. It is a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposes. Whatever the problem, Brexit can fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, Brexit can vanquish it, and it is unnecessary for Brexiteers to explain how.

May’s plan? Some say that she is the Dear Leader, some say she is an evil genius with Larry the Cat on her lap waiting for the Brexiteer Boys to fuck it up so we can Remain, some say she is blessed by the Ghost of Thatcher but we know her as The PM. –Sorry I’ve been itching to make the May/Hammond Top Gear gag for several weeks— The truth is, we just don't know yet.

Plus anything Brexit related about the Labour and UKIP leadership and the rest of the world thrown in to boot.

This is the quest for the answers that everyone wants and trying to keep an eye on those politicians and accountability (both here and abroad in the era of post-fact politics in the trail of Brexit). There maybe no single ‘truth’ but there sure as hell is a lot of bullshit to wade through. Get your wellies out, and plough on through with us.

No experience necessary. Sense of humour required.

-------------------------

Brexit Fall Out Timetable
Labour Hustings Nottinghamshire: Wednesday 17th August
Labour Hustings Birmingham: Thursday 18th August.
Labour Hustings Glasgow: Thursday 25th August.
Labour Hustings London: Thursday 1st September
UKIP Leadership Result: 15th September
Labour Leadership Result: Saturday 24th September
The Department for Exiting the European Union first question sessions in Parliament: Thursday 20th October
High Court hearing on a50: due 'no earlier than the third week in October'
US Presidential Election: 8th November
French Presidential Election 1st Round: 23 April 2017
French Presidential Election 2nd Round: 7th May 2017
German Federal Election: Between 27 August and 22 October 2017

Last thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2690632-Westminstenders-Continues-Boris-is-having-a-bad-week-Corbyn-resists-Its-gonna-be-a-long-summer?pg=1

Perhaps we could have an Oxford and environs city state too?

Still, it doesn't hurt to have ideas. We need people with vision not just people whose only vision is turning the clock back 60 to 100 years.

Ohhh I hadn't realised the New European is now carrying a few articles on line:

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/articles/martin_mcguinness_on_why_brexit_is_an_affront_to_democracy_1_4664598
Martin McGuinness on why Brexit is an affront to democracy.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/articles/susie_boniface_aka_the_fleet_street_fox_on_why_the_complexities_of_leaving_the_eu_means_little_will_actually_change_1_4663471
Some of the complexities of Brexit

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/articles/nick_clegg_on_the_period_of_phoney_peace_1_4648928
And a Cleggy article I've not seen previously.

I'm listening to a documentary called How We Voted Brexit on Radio 4. Politicians from the Leave campaign are talking cheerfully how they won through the £350M statement and having "vision" without any thought about truth or responsibility is giving me the fucking rage. Gisela Stuart makes an appearance smugly talking about the effectiveness of the tactics.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07pgw3k

I daren't listen to the Radio programme - it would make my blood boil. I have never seen such a sorry set of winners though!

Now you didn't get the Olympic athletes pulling such long faces when they got their medals (the Dutch Women's hockey team aside, since their medal was the wrong colour.)

www.ft.com/content/68890936-6879-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f
I got paywalled on the UKIP Ft article earlier but got through on this link through twitter so it might work for others.

Ms James, who is supported by one of Ukip’s leading donors, Arron Banks, has warned that the party should expect a general election as early as May 2017. The good news for Ukip is that Labour might be in an even more divided state.

What's the significance of this? Why is Arron Banks making this warning?

Is this a comment about May's confidence to trigger a General Election right when the Labour Party are in complete disarray, or is it a comment that he thinks the government is in danger of a no confidence vote from within the Tory Party?

As to the UKIP danger at a general election?

Ukip optimists argue that the party could yet become a force at Westminster. More than 17m people voted for Brexit, four times the number of people who voted for Ukip in the last general election. The party finished second in 120 constituencies in 2015, many of them Labour seats in the north of England. Overall, two-thirds of Labour constituencies voted Out, and only a handful are represented by pro-Brexit MPs.

Pessimists, however, note that Ukip is no longer the only party committed to Brexit. Moreover, its electoral prospects under the current Westminster system may be more limited than they first appear: in only 20 seats last year did Ukip finish second within 10,000 votes of the winner. In opinion polls, the party’s support has fallen by one-third since June — to about 11 per cent.

Banks will not want an election in May next year. UKIP won't benefit. And there is no chance of setting up a new alternative party by then.

The test must be what is good for Britain, not what is good for Conservative Party management. Country, not party, must come first.

Cleggie has stolen a sentence from my last letter to my MP!

Banks will not want an election in May next year

God, this still makes me mad - that a) I live in a country where what a twat like Banks wants is newsworthy and b) the population aren't livid about that.

I was going to save this for the start of the next thread (and probably will just repeat this post perhaps with amendments so don't be too disappointed) but I think this is now how things are shaping up and worth posting now.

There is no plan.

Or is there?

Certainly Douglas Carswell seems to think there is, and that its being ignored by people. Which got me thinking...

Robert Peston, has apparently been reliably told that May’s Brexit means Brexit equals:

1. discretionary control over immigration policy;
2. discretionary control over lawmaking;
3. no compulsory contributions to the EU budget.

It would mean we could not be a member of the EU’s single market or the EEA like Norway. Nor could we have a Swiss type deal because of the requirements of free movement of people and contributions to the EU. This means we are headed to ‘Hard Brexit’ and a model closer to the yet to be concluded Canadian free trade deal.

He and others then went on to dismiss the idea based on other legalities, the time taken to get agreement and the fact it doesn’t include services.
The way in which trade deals are current done with the EU is that they are agreed by majority consensus unless they don’t fall within the current parameters of negotiation scope, which including services would do, and would therefore require the unanimous agreement of all 27 remaining members.

Not including services such as banking, lawyers and architects would leave us close to bust.

The solution?

Well possibly the Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan or ‘Unilateral Continuity’ which apparently the Tory Right are getting all excited about as its being seriously considered.

It would effectively see us trigger a50 and then declare we were keeping everything the same. Minus paying into Brussels and Free Movement of People and EU law. It is actually currently the only option that fits with Peston’s report of May’s Three Pillars.

It would assume that we could assume our WTO status and this would be accepted without dispute by all 164 WTO members. Or at least with minimum renegotiations needed.

We would then declare our current trade agreements would stay the same in a ‘take it or leave it situation’ and taking the belief that law is on our side, meaning no one is likely to challenge it leaving us to just carry on trading as we are.

The problem with this is plan is not law but politics.

The plan would make us terribly popular as a nation (both with the EU and the rest of the WTO members) and ultimately could lead to the failure of the plan or bankrupt/destroy us in the process.

And Brussels insiders have already dismissed the plan, insisting it is illegal and would take it to court.

There’s the rub. It might well be the case that the law is on our side in all respects. The truth is the EU really have no option but to challenge it. To not do so, would be crazy in terms of the continuation of the EU. What would be the point in making contributions to it, if you could get all the benefits without the apparent drawbacks? Surely it would at some point inevitably lead to the end of the EU?

What would happen in the meantime is the big question. We could get stuck in a battle where all trade to the EU was disrupted by a legal dispute. It would cause massive uncertainty for all concerned. And for how long?

What else could the rest of the EU do? They are entering the land of Shit Creek just as much as us.

Of course the threat of doing this, probably is our Big Bargaining Chip. Threaten the very existence of the EU and test the rest of Europe’s real commitment to it. The trouble is that of course the EU can’t be seen to give us a deal that good willingly so maybe it is the only option that the UK has to achieve May’s pillars.

Interestingly this previously mentioned article directly refers to Unilateral Continuity as option b.
www.politico.eu/article/tory-dream-of-a-short-sharp-brexit-theresa-may-conservative/

I do think this back up the idea that this is the leverage idea to give us a hand to bargain with as in theory it means that the EU would be forced into a scenario where they either have to:

1. Accept the deal of unilateral continuity or propose one just as favourable to the UK which potentially might threaten the EU and undermines their own national interest (most likely reached through an EU Treaty of some description to avoid a50 and the hazards it raises for all parties) or
2. Allow the UK to go ahead with unilateral continuity and then challenge it in the courts – or force us to challenge a trade blockade - in the hope it would destroy the UK but might save the EU, however they might lose anyway getting burned in the process themselves by undermining their own national interest, and the EU might still be at risk of collapse.

It is a high stakes gamble. All or nothing. Quite literally. It’s very much British Imperialism returned. Irony of ironies.

The trouble is, looking at a50 we don’t have much room to do much else but grab the gun in the hands of the EU and wrestle them for it. Who, of the two of us, will end up being the death of when they get shot?

I note here, it means that we possibly don’t need as many negotiators as suggested nor possibly senior civil servants. It would mean 2 years or slightly longer is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Of course, we wouldn’t be THAT CRAZY? So say all the people who said we wouldn’t be that crazy to vote for Brexit in the first place forgetting we now live in the land of the crazy.

The only ray of light? The EU commission, France and Germany realise that creating a legal precedent is a worse option than making the case that the UK is somehow a ‘special case’ and they should therefore give us all our sweets and unicorns afterall. Thus proving that all us Remainers really were wrong all along.

The really big sticking point as to why it won’t work? Northern Ireland (and to a lesser extent Scotland), the fact we need Free Movement of People whether we want to admit it or not (for NI and certain industries like agriculture) and the practicalities of registering all current EU citizens so we can keep the new unwanted ones out.

It always comes back to these 3 points doesn’t it?

Nor does it take into account the issue of acquired rights and the legal position of British citizens abroad.

Nor does it take into account what the actions of MPs and Lords might take in blocking a50 and not playing ball. Indeed Merkel may be quietly waiting to see what happens for this very reason. Let the British play it out, see what they find, see if people oppose it and block it. See if the government does collapse as a result. Afterall, this option, is better for Germany than either a new EU Treaty or the Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan.

She would come out of it with her hands clean.

This is also why May will not make any announcement nor make any promises over EU citizens in the UK. They simply aren’t part of the plan. Not at this stage at least. So why bother talking about such a sticky issue?

And it also explains the lack of an alternative plan to Off The Top of The Cliff Plan too, at this stage. It’s all about who will blink first.

Nothing else seems to fit. This actually does.

I also don't think it ends well for FUKD. Still.

This is mostly about Trump, but it ties in with Banks and his ilk.

This:
"Burley says that the very fact that these ideas were once so thoroughly discredited opens up a gap for them to be promulgated again. “Right now the arguments against their race and IQ position are less well-known, so they have the ability to plant the seed in the public imagination."

I thought was very interesting, as is this line:
"The “original sin” of current American politics, according to Cassino, is that neither liberals nor conservatives have a very good answer to the question of what is to be done about “the people who get screwed over” by economic policies." - which is precisely the feeling that Banks/Farage etc have exploited.

So you (or the Tory right) are saying Red that we declare a sort of UDI, but then carry on as though we are still in the EU? Which I believe is the stance BoJo was taking, i.e. get them to give us better terms.

I can imagine that anyone pushing the Art.50 button will get the blame, if anything doesn't go to plan, even if that blame should belong to Cameron, so that is a way round it.

I could see that the rest of the EU could, by the same token, unilaterally cut off any agreed funding which should be in the pipeline now. Haven't they already done similar with Switzerland - or was that just a cut to University Research Funding and Erasmus grants?

Is Theresa May really going to ignore 16 million people totally, some of whom were her supporters, as well as some of the 17 million who did vote for Brexit? I don't know. I sincerely hope not, but seeing the supine way that Tory MPs seem to have rolled over, I think it's possible. Sadly, those who, in the Commons, would object, i.e. the LibDems, SNP and the one Green, and PC(?) are too few in number to make a difference. Labour seems to busy conducting its own Civil War.

Then again, do we risk the damage accruing from being a nation which can't be seen to be trusted? At least some of the hard Brexit camp seem to believe that we still have the clout that we had when we had an Empire. I think they are mistaken, and I think other Countries will also think the same.

On a separate note, I see that VW is in trouble in Germany, and going to put workers onto short time. This is a result of a disagreement with a parts manufacturer. There is an article in today's Guardian about it, but I can't immediately find the link. This is aside from the scandal about fiddling emissions tests. A good question here might be how individual EU countries domestic issues influence the whole picture? E.g. would the German car industry need more parts from us, if their domestic supplies have been compromised.

I too think we are in danger of being FUK'd.

Does anyone have a list of the known Hard-Brexiters? A quick google search didn't immediately bring one up. I take some comfort (not much) from the fact that some, like John Redwood, are not in Government, and some Remain MPs are.

In government you've got the likes of David Davis, Priti Patel and Andrea Leadsom, and then you've got the ball benchers like Government, Rees-Mogg and Bill Cash, just off the top of my head. The back benchers are probably more dangerous because they've got time to stir up dissent, and committees to ask awkward questions.

Probably the bigger problem is the pundits and writers, like Tebbitt and Tim Montgomerie who bang the sum constantly, not to mention the express/mail/telegraph.

You've then also got the rabble rousers like Farage and Banks who need to be able to claim to be shaping the brexit vision in order to stay relevant, because otherwise what's the point of them?

The back benchers are probably more dangerous because they've got time to stir up dissent, and committees to ask awkward questions.

Awkward questions in themselves are no bad thing, if they lead on to constructive debate. It wouldn't have hurt Cameron to pay them more attention, but he fluffed it. He could have challenged the Eurosceptics to say what they were voting for, and produce a manifesto. It might have been full of assumptions, but it would have been a starting point.

It's the ones who bang on like stuck records who are the problem - like Leasdom - who bother me; it's clear that she couldn't take part in a debate, hence her falling back on 'as a Mum'... and scoring a most spectacular own goal when interviewed.

I wonder whether it might be in Theresa May's interests to call an early general election. She has a lot of difficult back benchers to deal with and a fractured opposition. If (or rather when) Corbyn wins, she faces a very unpopular Opposition Leader and she is currently riding high in the polls. An early General Election would also serve her interests in that it is likely to unite the Conservative party against others seeking power. The benefit of winning is likely to be a vastly increased Conservative majority which would give her much more scope to negotiate with Europe as she sees fit.

To do this, May would need to find some reason to call an early election. I think a plan on Brexit (I feel some sort of drumroll is needed for this) would be a sufficient reason. I'm not clear whether that would need to be just a domestic plan or whether it would need wider EU (German and French?) agreement. Ideally the latter I would imagine but this might not be realistic.

This is all speculation of course.. but must be a possibility. I'd be surprised if Theresa May has not thought about it.

The big question then would be - what is her plan on Brexit?

There is some debate as to whether TM would be able to call a GE:
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-theresa-may-actually-call-one-a7132846.html

As that Indie article says, TM can call an early election but only through complicated routes. What she can't do is keep the benefit of surprise and call a snap election in the way that previous PMs were able to do. A short bill would seem to be the easiest way to proceed, though that isn't guaranteed and would no doubt bring out the fillibusterers, even if the Whips agreed to put it through on an emergency timetable.

Corcory: What is this about the word Unionist being 'sinister'? I think this must be an English thing.

You couldn't be more wrong.

In the last quarter of the 19th century and the first 20 years of the 20th, British Unionist politicians (Joseph Chamberlain and Randolph Churchill pre-eminent among them) fanned flames of sectarian hatred and outright insurrection, partly to further their personal careers and partly to further their party interests against the Liberals.

They also flirted with civil war in Ireland and political earthquake in Britain, armed volunteers in Ulster who had signed with their own blood a pledge to fight Home Rule, and inspired an armed Ulster militia that was 90,000 strong, imported arms for the militia from Germany on the eve of the First World War - 20,000 guns and 2 million rounds of ammunition were landed at Larne - encouraged and supported a mutiny of senior officers in the Curragh Camp (British army HQ in Ireland), provoking an unprecedented constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as the political unit then was. Almost 60 very senior officers publicly announced their intention to resign their commissions if ordered to Ulster to suppress armed revolt against Asquith's Home Rule Bill.

The mutiny (aka 'incident') had a disastrous impact on discipline and thus morale in the army, again on the eve of WW1.

The mutiny and its aftermath revealed lines in the army and the governing classes that included the King and his circle, most notably Haig, that affected how the government could manage the Great War (Haig was untouchable and was responsible for the surprisingly uninterrupted career of Hubert Gough, one of the primary players in the mutiny and for the continued careers of many others involved. Haig warned the government that many Aldershot officers would resign if Gough was punished)
(An interesting read is "Haig - The Educated Soldier" by John Terraine).

www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/curragh-mutiny-had-disastrous-effect-on-discipline-in-the-british-army-1.1734239

Henry Wilson, a major player in the mutiny and subsequently in the Black and Tan policy, was assassinated in 1922 by the IRA.

A footnote:
The Curragh mutiny and what it told Irish nationalists about the loyalty of many of the British Army's protestant Irish-born officer class forms part of the context of the burning of many of the 'big houses' in which they and their ilk were born and brought up in the Irish countryside, during the War of Independence.

www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/the-man-theresa-may-wants-to-be/ Theresa May and Joseph Chamberlain.

From the New European article by Martin McGuinness, linked by Red (thank you Red):
'The island of Ireland is facing the biggest constitutional crisis since partition as a result of the Brexit referendum.

The British Government appears determined to usurp the democratic will of the people here by dragging the north of Ireland out of the European Union against our will.

That is an affront to democracy.

Fifty-six per cent of the people in the north of Ireland – unionist, nationalist and republicans – voted to remain in the EU. That mandate should be respected not dismissed.

However, the new British Prime Minister – who I met in recent days – seems determined to ignore that mandate.

And that should be of no surprise to anyone because this toxic debate was never about the desire of the people. It wasn’t even about Brussels bureaucrats or British sovereignty. It was a power play within the Tory party which unleashed and fed upon xenophobia and racism.

The dynamics which led to that schism within the Tory party are still there. They will continue to influence the Tory leadership in the time ahead and we are the collateral damage.

Because there is nothing good in Brexit for Ireland. There are no opportunities. There are no silver linings. Brexit is an economic, political and social catastrophe.

Due to our legacy of conflict and peripheral geography, the north of Ireland is particularly dependent on EU support.

Between 2014 and 2020, we were set to receive 3.5 billion euros in direct European funding. A sizeable portion of that will be at risk if we are forced out of Europe. Such funds will, of course, not be available at all in the years following 2020 and I don’t think that anyone seriously believes that the
 British Government will reimburse these losses.

Certainly when I met with Mrs May she offered no guarantees about recompensing the North of Ireland for this loss.

The impact of losing billions from our economy will be a devastating blow in a region which is still emerging from a long and bitter conflict. We still suffer some of the highest levels of deprivation seen anywhere on these islands. We are dealing with the legacy of generations of neglect and under-investment from successive British governments, all of which has been compounded by the austerity agenda of the Tories.

In a society emerging from conflict, we need to be able to demonstrate that politics can deliver for people, that it can bring about positive change and consolidate the peace process. Our ability to do that has been crippled by the Tories and Brexit threatens to make a bad situation incalculably worse.

As well as these direct European funds, we are already losing an unquantifiable amount of private investment as foreign direct investors turn their attention to regions which can guarantee access to the European market.

The European Union has also been central to the peace agreements which have underpinned the incredible progress we have made in the past 20 years.

The role of Europe is written into the Good Friday Agreement. Brexit would directly challenge the integrity of that internationally-binding treaty and represent a major setback for the political process in the North.

It would undermine the all-Ireland bodies and co-operation created by the peace process and harden partition.

It would have huge consequences for human rights legislation which, again, is specifically referenced in the Good Friday and subsequent agreements.

The most tangible aspect of that would be the return of any kind of border on the island of Ireland.

An EU frontier, hard or soft, stretching from Dundalk to Derry is something no one in Ireland wants. And it’s all very well for Theresa May to say she doesn’t want a return to the borders of the past. But when she was Home Secretary, she was absolutely clear that Brexit would inevitably lead to renewed border checks of some form.

I fear that is exactly what will happen.

And the simple fact is that Theresa May hasn’t ruled a new border out because she can’t rule it out. It’s not within her gift to make that decision because this will be a matter for negotiation with the other EU member states. It will be one of the many prices of Brexit.

And that is the great folly of this entire issue. Brexit may well mean Brexit but nobody – Theresa May included – has any idea of what it will actually look like. It is abundantly clear from the engagements I have had with the highest levels of the Westminster government that they are scrambling in the dark. They have no demonstrable plan to plot a way through this crisis because they didn’t expect this to actually happen.

I personally warned David Cameron nine months ago that he was sleepwalking us all out of the European Union. He clearly didn’t think then that he would lose the referendum but that is precisely what transpired. The British Government recklessly dragged us all into the unknown and they did so for entirely self-serving reasons. It was a foolish attempt to placate UKIP racists and the loony-right within the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, for us, we will be dealing with the consequences of that decision for generations.

From our perspective, what is needed now is an island-wide approach to dealing with the EU. That is why Sinn Féin called on the Taoiseach to establish an all-Ireland forum to discuss the impact of the referendum. That now needs to go ahead.

The Taoiseach and the Irish government need to play their part in ensuring that the democratic rights of all Irish citizens are protected, regardless of where they live on the island.

Despite the huge challenges Brexit presents, it has also led to a focus on the potential for building a new Ireland.

The people of the north voted to remain in the European Union and we have to explore all options to give effect to that mandate.

A debate has already begun across the country about what a new Ireland within the EU, would look like.

That debate needs to be as wide-ranging as possible, inclusive of the views of a wide range of civic and political opinion from right across Ireland.

The example from Scotland has shown that such a debate can be carried out in a mature, reasonable and sensible manner.

The Tories and the British Government have demonstrated, yet again, that they care little for the needs, entitlements and democratic wishes of the people in the north of Ireland.

I believe the people here see their future as part of Europe. As part of an outward-looking, positive and inclusive new Ireland.

The agenda being pursued by the Tories is contrary to all of that and it is time we had a genuine, mature and rational debate about how we make that happen.'

I think this is a fair overview of the economic disaster about to befall Northern Ireland. The effects of that disaster are yet to be seen, but it should be noted that the only main party to back Brexit in NI was the Democratic Unionist Party, one of whose prominent members has since the vote commented on his willingness to sign applications for Irish citizenship. Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Greens supported Remain. This is an almost unprecedented crossing of the floor in NI.

It should also be noted that the idea of a federal Irish political entity encompassing the whole island has been kicked around in theoretical or hypothetical terms, and also that McGuinness' early border poll idea fell really flat.

I suspect that hard headed decisions made with the economy front and centre will eventually be made in NI and in Ireland.

Peregrina on your side note, VW have resolved their dispute with their suppliers www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/23/vw-settles-dispute-which-stopped-output-at-half-of-german-plants

Oh dear, more pesky Europeans apparently sorting out their problems without having to turn to the good old UK. I too think we are FUKD.

Unless of course Owen Smith unexpectedly wins the Labour leadership election battle: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167253

I'll give him this, it's made me pick up my ears!

Math - A very interesting insight into 20th cen. politics. However my point is that we really shouldn't carry on these connotations that words seem to have picked up along the way and regain our language. I am 60 and am used to being able to use the word Unionist to describe or Conservative party in Scotland and will continue to do so.

Thank you Math - shamefully, although I am interested in history and read as much as I can, I was not aware of the impact of the Curragh mutiny and I will look into it - thanks.

I thought in terms of billionaires buying countries, this article in today's guardian was interesting:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/23/first-thiel-now-the-trumps-how-billionaires-threaten-free-speech in particular on the self-censorship. If this is happening in the US, where there is a constitutional right to free speech, I can see it being much worse here, where the MSM is owned by 3 billionaires in the first place.

Peregrina - if the greater London city state is to work like Singapore or Hong Kong, it will need to include a fair amount of infrastructure. It should therefore definitely include the Thames Valley, at least as far as Oxford and the surrounding area!