Westministenders: Boris and The By-Elections

[RedToothBrush]

You lot post too fast!

A50 has made it out of the Commons without any amends. Its on its way to the Lords, but this week is half term, so in theory not much going on (in the UK at least). It hit the Lords on the 20th where it might not get such an easy ride. The Lords will not (and CAN NOT) stop brexit or frustrate it. But the numbers are in perhaps more favour of amendments if they choose to go that way, than the Commons. This would throw the bill back to the Commons. This is pretty reasonable.

In the meantime its 12 days to go until the Copeland and Stoke Central By-Elections.

Leave.Eu think UKIP have Stoke in the bag. They think there will be a 33% turnout. I think a turnout that high is the land of fantasy. Paul Nuttalls who was at Hillsborough is now a devout Stokie who has lived there all his life. Except of course he isn't.

Copeland looks like it will go Conservative. Its theirs to throw away. It would be the first victory for a sitting government in a by-election since 1983 if they make it. They intend to use a victory as another argument for a 'mandate'. But have they managed to drop a nuclear booboo?

One more Question. What are the chances of this thread making it to the 23rd?!

Also, individual leavers are not responsible for the government's or opposition's ineptitude. That doesn't always come over here.

A lot of us have stressed that it is a Government responsibility.

We can disagree on this point, and even think that it's an immoral point of view, but it is at least logical and consistent: brexit uber alles, no price for sovereignty is too high.

I agree that this is the logical position. What are we getting? 'We cant go against the will of the people' which I am interpreting as 'when the shit hits the fan, we will pass the buck'. Hence the sorry procession of MPs saying the other night that they didn't agree with A50 but were voting for it anyway, thus trying to get their excuses in first.

semi this is the transcript I refer to above data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/future-of-the-land-border-with-the-republic-of-ireland/oral/46648.pdf

Here are some other blog posts about it (written by a brexit supporter)

www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86374 (Not all about NI but a section about halfway down)

www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86372

I think Semi's contributions rather prove the point. Anyway, didn't mean to derail. Back to lurkersville for me.....

Of course, there is nothing inherently ridiculous about a response that says that "yes, Brexit may cause the GFA to fail and terrorism to arise as a result, but this is a price I am personally prepared to pay and to defend politically". We can disagree on this point, and even think that it's an immoral point of view, but it is at least logical and consistent: brexit uber alles, no price for sovereignty is too high.

For me (personally), and I expect most Leavers - I would not want the GFA to fail and terrorism to rise as a result; however, the threat of terrorism should not dictate the direction of Brexit.
The threat of terrorism is as abhorrent from Ireland/NI as it is from Islamic terrorists and bowing to threats is not something that I would be comfortable with.

However, threats of terrorism aside, the people of NI & Ireland face far different effects of Brexit than the rest of the UK so I do agree that they must be given special prominence in deciding the type of Brexit.

I've done a bit of reading round the Customs Union thing (not single market) and it seems to have been hinted at by Liam Fox etc that following a Turkey style model is on the table as far as UK is concerned.

This doesn't address the financial services market (if I'm understanding it correctly), but it would appear that the rEU would be damaged by the collapse of UK as a financial centre, so I can't see them pushing against that side of things too hard.

So, would the following scenario be workable?
UK remaining as part of customs union, with UK keeping the right of free movement of Irish/NI citizens between Ireland & UK as mentioned previously (EU would have to green light NI citizens moving freely to Ireland, obvs).

What pitfalls & problems are still not addressed with that scenario?

Of course if NI is given special status, that leaves Scotland in the quite right position of wanting a special status for them too. In some respects The Troubles are not a good enough answer to that.

Sorry Misti, I massively x posted.

I'll read that later, thank you.

I think Semi's contributions rather prove the point. Anyway, didn't mean to derail. Back to lurkersville for me.....

Sorry, in what way do they prove the point?

You have seen an acknowledgement that she raised some pertinent questions with respect to NI. Someone spelt out what one logical conclusion would be.

Then Semi raised a question, again a valid one, about Turkey and the Customs Union. Again an answer has been given, and in no way hostile, just factual.

So what point is being proved or not? It's a sorry reflection on May's Government that she doesn't seem to have thought these issues through.

Hashi, I don't think that Scotland is in any way similar to NI though, other than voting to remain.
NI is a special case purely because of the UK/EU border.

Semi The IRA gave up their "armed struggle" / bombing campaign, because the UK government signed an agreement with them.
Many Republican dissidents said the British could never be trusted to keep their side of a bargain.

If the UK unilaterally reneges on parts of the GFA - e.g. May's plans to withdraw from ECHR after Brexit - or if May's form of Brexit has the natural consequence of breaking the GFA terms, then
the question is if the IRA will say "You won, we'll suck it up"

Leavers can blame the EU all you wish for not giving the UK a special deal.
However, If the IRA return to bombing, it won't be Brussels or Berlin they hit.

Bombing London's financial district - which previously forced the uk govt to negotiate - would likely be the last straw for many financial institutions debating whether to go / stay after Brexit.

Who knows which side Trump will back - he attended at least one fundraiser with Gerry Adams the last time the IRA was bombing London.

Interesting FT article (sorry if it has already been posted) entitled "Theresa May will rue her failure to lower expectations" if you want to Google.

The reflects on the fact that she was uniquely placed to work with Parliament, the Lords and both leavers and remainers to try and deliver a Brexit that works, and has decided instead to charge for the exit at full pelt.

www.ft.com/content/08d45a6e-eee2-11e6-930f-061b01e23655

I doubt the Scottish would see it like that. If there's a special deal available for one then there's a potential special deal for another. WM doesn't work well recognising the union. In this case it really needs to.

FOM of UK citizens is a matter for the RoI, as the UK will be a "third country", like Pakistan
So, fairly easy to solve bilaterally.

The question is if the EU would feel it necessary to give the UK a better customs / trade deal to save the GFA when it is UK actions that put it in jeopardy.
NI is the responsibility of the UK PM to sort out.

One possibility: NI alone could join the EEA / EFTA and there is then a customs border between NI and the UK mainland

Neither side would benefit from the collapse of the London financial centre ( or from the EU suffering badly either)
However, it looks like financial passporting will be lost, so naturally Frankfurt and other financial centres will be wanting to grab part of the lucrative market and jobs, to compensate for any economic side effects of Brexit

Also, if there is another bombing campaign in the City, that may decide many financial institutions to pull out anyway - business is only interested in what benefits them, not in making some macho stand against bombers

Peregrina - sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the point that leavers may have some valid concerns. Just because others may not articulate them as well as Semi, doesn't mean that they don't have them.

NI is a special case and regarded as so in the E27. They'll go the extra mile
Probably not enough for any special Brexit deal May is demanding for all the UK, if the EU think there are other Brexit options that would work for NI.
Keeping the UK together - or moving to a federal UK - is May's job.

For a non-partisan view of the Troubles, P. J. O'Rourkes essay in "Holidays in Hell" is interesting. He notes there are Unionist terrorists (with Catholic members) as well as Protestant IRA members. He also notes that (mid 80s) both sides had settled on "an acceptable level of violence".

Being a born and bred Londoner, I agree with the suggestion that while the IRA were only killing civilians (and who cares about them ?) there was "nothing that could be done" to settle the Troubles. Within hours of the IRA signalling a change of tack - hitting the City - the UK had a special envoy in the air to begin negotiations.

If the IRA are anywhere near as good as their hype, they would have already scoped out how to put a big dent in the UKs finances for very little effort.

Given the passage of time since the last IRA activity, I'm afraid there are a whole generation of people who are in for a shock if they do start up. again.

Bombing London's financial district

Is a bit 20th century really.

The intervening years have seen much more powerful tools available to the smart civil dissenter.

Bear in mind that - fine words excepted - HMG gives not one toss about the lives of it's citizens. And it was the IRA, rather than our own press that twigged first.

I think a special deal could probably be stitched up for Gibraltar, if the will was there on both sides, because it's not part of the UK. I am not convinced that the will is there.

As for Scotland and NI - personally, I can't at present see any acceptable compromise.

Yes, it would probably cause some resentment, Mother
It might also give cynics / realists the impression that bombing the City financial institutions is a far more effective way of forcing concessions from the UK govt than a peaceful Indy movement with popular support

Lh I was 12 when the troubles started, so lived through the horrible entirety
Every bloody week there seemed another bloody shooting, bombing, kneecapping.
The discrimination against Irish people on the mainland and their resentment & sometimes consequent sympathy for the IRA
The miscarriages of justice against Irish people, the torture, the shootings of non-combatants by the British security forces
May is my age, so she must remember too.

At least we can hope the IRA have learned that killing ordinary poor sods is very ineffective compared to bombing the City or bombing top politicians (iirc the Brighton bomb caused MrsT to start negotiating too)

The reflects on the fact that she was uniquely placed to work with Parliament, the Lords and both leavers and remainers to try and deliver a Brexit that works, and has decided instead to charge for the exit at full pelt

Sorryunicorns I can't get into full article. This is why we're seem to be at a sort of whack a mole problem point. TM has, to use a very local government phrase, failed to engage fully with her stakeholders

iirc the Brighton bomb caused MrsT to start negotiating too

IIRC it did the opposite - it entrenched her "no negotiations" stance, backed by the stiff-upper-lip of the trusting Great British Public. In fact, I suggest it was this which marked a turning point. I was living with someone from NI at Uni. Their extended family were regular visitors, and discussed politics quite a bit. I distinctly remember their amazement after Brighton that not one English person had ever asked them "what's it all about ?". As they explained ... "if someone seems to have set their mind on blowing me up, I'd want to know a lot more than it's bad men ".

It must have dawned on the IRA that the more civilians they killed, they less they got. But as soon as money was at risk - well rich peoples money ...

Try googling for the title, Hashi. You then find the article comes up, although you usually have to answer a questionnaire first.

I thought it a very interesting article. I am not sure I 100% agree, but some points are worth noting e.g.

....remember that every prime minister since Margaret Thatcher lost their credibility in one go, not in stages: Sir John Major after Britain’s disorderly exit from the exchange rate mechanism, Tony Blair after the Iraq war soured, Gordon Brown when he ducked a snap election and David Cameron on the morning of the referendum loss.

As of next month, when she files the paperwork to commence exit talks, the source of opposition will move to the rest of the EU. By giving her an adverse deal or running down the clock, they can do more to end her career than anyone in Britain. It should not console her much that her personal prospects are neither here nor there to other heads of government.

For me, this is the part I don't wholly agree with. May will be able to portray a bad deal as all the EU's fault. I do expect her to come unstuck, but I expect it to be her own extreme right wing that she is busily appeasing to be one group to stab her in the back.