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?!

Oh and bombing may seem 20th century, but if the aim is terror then bombs do that very effectively;

hacking doesn't produce the same visceral fear for your own life and your family
Trump and the far right in Europe & the UK were boosted by widespread public fear of very low tech bombing & shooting
Makers & shakers in financial institutions get just as scared as anyone else.

A commentator Rose Sayer says:

A very good but depressing read. Auntie Theresa is the Peter Principle in action.

Yes, I have to agree with that. The fact that she let her overwhelming ambition to be PM override all other considerations points to that. Not a mistake that Boris Johnson made, who is equally desperate to be PM.

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?

Hi semi, if you have the time and patience, the NI select committee link answers this at some length. Basically, there's a difference between being part of a bespoke customs union with the EU, as is the case for Turkey, and being part of the EU customs union, which is the case for all EU members. In the latter case, there are no hard borders for customs purposes. However, in the Turkey scenario, some goods are excluded from the agreement and hard borders exist.

Most people don't even realise that there is a distinction, and even with some background in trade I didn't understand the implications until I watched the NI select committee session.

What this means is that a "Turkey solution" is a non-starter as you would gain nothing. NI remaining in the EU CU might be a solution (if the EU agrees to this, which is likely but not guaranteed), but for a number of reasons the NI select committee appeared to conclude that this is probably not feasible. The problem is that it would introduce a hard trade border, with tariffs and all the other necessary restrictions and prohibitions, between NI and the rUK. The volume of trade between NI and the rUK is sufficiently large that this is a major issue.

Personally I do not believe that - in the case of NI - FOM of people presents anything like the same problems as does trade. But the trade issues are enormous, and so far, the only credible solution I can see is a long transition period during which the UK as a whole remains in the EU CU (and cannot therefore negotiate separate FTAs). If brexiters say this is unacceptable under any circumstances, then it very likely amounts to a "brexit uber alles" decision to chuck NI under the bus.

Thanks for your insight into the customs union, Misti. I must admit I was confused about what it entailed.

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.

Seeing that a hell of a lot of issues that had nothing to do with the EU have been made th EU fault, I would agree to that. You just have to read the current news and see it at play already.
its not the UK wanting its cake and eat it, its the EU being uncompromising, unreasonable, wanting to have a go at us and punish us etc...

Excellent explanation, Misti
What about a "reverse Greenland" for NI (to provide RoI & EU or EEA access) combined with a bilateral FTA between NI and rUK ?

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.

The only way the EU can do this (unless NI remains in the EU CU) is to strike a fully-fledged FTA or a CU agreement. Otherwise the EU will fall foul not just of EU law, but also of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT - the rules that govern international trade). The "most favoured nation" rules mean that the EU cannot, outside of a proper customs union or free trade agreement, simply grant the UK more favourable conditions than other third party nations. If the EU offers concessions to the UK, outside a proper FTA, then it must offer them to every other country with which it trades

lh Many Republicans claim the Brighton bomb is what made MrsT start low-level negotiations behind the scenes - regardless of what public macho impression she made, they say the reality is she just refused to communicate with them before.
They will repeat what they think worked for them, plus it was a huge worldwide propoganda coup to nearly kill the PM. It boosted their morale & funds, gave them terrorist stardom.

I agree the IRA have learned that hitting the City (and maybe Tory donors too) is the most effective method to force the govt to negotiate, whereas the same govt might regard thousands of ordinary civilians dying as very regrettable but an acceptable loss.

What about a "reverse Greenland" for NI (to provide RoI & EU or EEA access) combined with a bilateral FTA between NI and rUK?

I don't even know what a "reverse Greenland" means, but aside from that there are rather important and significant differences between Greenland (which produces some fish and minerals, has no land border with the EU, and no regular shipping routes) and NI, which has a land border with the EU, complex cross border trade with the ROI, and substantial road, sea and air trade across a huge range of product groups both with the rUK and other EU countries.

If NI remains in the EU CU it would not be able to strike up bilateral deals with the rUK. If it has a bespoke CU agreement, it would be able to strike bilateral deals with the rUK only for sectors not concerned by the CU agreement. But a bespoke CU agreement means a hard border anyway.

hacking doesn't produce the same visceral fear for your own life and your family

Yes, but ultimately that was useless to the IRA. We Brits just lapped it up. It's what history tells us. It would probably be in supremely bad taste (although it might open a few eyes) but a graph of civilian deaths 1970-1990 plotted alongside "progress made" would reveal that far more progress was made 1990-1998 than in the preceding 20 years - despite significantly fewer mainland killings.

If you want to know what your life means to the UK government - that's the T-shirt right there.

To return to the discussion on NI terrorism, lurking husband said
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

I'm sorry I can't give chapter and verse but I was under the impression that there was Westminster: Republican dialogue for many years throughout the troubles, but just not openly acknowledged. If I find the source I will post it.

However I also think that the risk of increased Loyalist violence shouldn't be underestimated: being sold down the river by GB when they consider themselves as British to the bone is going to be intensely psychologically damaging to a large section of the NI population. Removing large chunks of EU funding which WM won't replace means that the local economy is going to be devastated, with even more unemployment and social deprivation (both of which help increase sympathy for, and membership of paramilitary groups). It would be ironic if Loyalists began to take out their anger on the rest of the UK, but no matter who the targets are renewed violence is abhorrent and it's vital that WM get to grips with the issues and find the necessary fudge so no-one has to endure the consequences of a hard Brexit.

Misti I know WTO members must treat everyone equally in the absence of an official trade deal.
I was meaning an official deal, what the 3 Dunces originally claimed they could force the EU to allow - keeping the advantages of the EU but without FOM.
Saving NI would not be enough motivation to push the E27 into what they think would be a bad deal for the EU.

BigChocFrenzy

Grocer Heath was conducting top-secret negotiations with Sinn Fein/IRA (wasn't McGuiness there ?) in the 1970s.

By the time terrorists have become organised to outgrow the criminal police, they usually have very well-defined aims. Which is more than can be said for most Brexiteers. Whether those aims are realistic or achievable is another matter.

For myself, as mainland Englander, the notion of a "U"K is purely practical - while it works. If NI wanted to devolve in whatever way from the Union, it's the business of it's citizens. Same for Scotland - who I feel are owed another IndyRef anyway,

It would be ironic if Loyalists began to take out their anger on the rest of the UK
Going to be an interesting marching season this year with the pro brexit Orange Lodge minority marching through the remain majority areas in NI, Glasgow and Liverpool.

lh I meant terror felt by the big cheeses in the cCity, wrt the big bombs there
Making a few key city bods terrified for their own life & limb, plus massive property damage, is far more effective than killing thousands of ordinary civilians and terrifying the UK public

The point is the IRA know that bombing the cIty forced the govt into negotiating for the GFA; it wasn't the peaceful SDLP, the Alliance Party, the churches or the RoI
Once the City applied pressure, all the macho posturing & newspaper outrage against surrender to terrorists became unimportant

There is an article on the profile of prime ministers in the Guardian today which finishes with this:

"There is a Shakespearean dimension to the way British prime ministers meet their tragic destinies. The seeds of their downfall are sown as they rise to the top. Thatcher glittered in the October 1974 election when as shadow environment secretary she pledged to abolish rates, the unpopular property tax. A few months later she was leader. Yet when she finally abolished the rates as prime minister, replacing them with the poll tax, the policy destroyed her. Cameron appeased Eurosceptics in his leadership contest by pledging that Conservatives would leave the centre-right grouping in the European parliament. He won, and then appeased them again as leader by holding the referendum that killed off his political career. Blair was propelled to power by his belief in third way politics, an attachment that led him to the hell of Iraq as he sought to back the US and yet persuade it to work with the UN – his fatal third way.

May rose to the top via the Home Office, where she had a particular focus on immigration. Now she views Brexit partly through the prism of her formidable tenure at that department, making free movement constraints her red line. Will this be the trigger for another tragic sequence? The experience of her predecessors suggests it might. One of the dark lessons of leadership is that in their beginnings lie the seeds of their end."

I don't recall any similar speculation on whether and how any other PM would go at this point after their selection but I'm happy to be proved wrong!

The whole article is here: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/14/theresa-may-up-to-the-job-prime-minister-how-to-tell

lh It may be Republican myth or macho talking up victories, but they cite the Brighton bomb as their turning point in starting serious talks, as distinct from faffing around
Belief is more important than facts, as we have learned
They think it worked, so they'll do it again if they can.

renewed violence is abhorrent
WM and comrade May seem to have no idea of the stoicism, patience and humanity with which peace is being maintained across the whole country, but NI in particular atm.

There you go BCF on Major's considerable contribution to initiating the peace process( and the peace women, George Mitchell, Clinton, Bertie Aherne, Mowlam, and brave NI peace nicks) Getting the US to realise it would help if they stopped funding IRA and ROI, antipathy to IRA helped too.
www.theguardian.com/uk/1993/nov/28/northernireland

obv Greenland with 50,000 people is a lot easier c than NI with 1.8 million
I'm trying to think of an arrangement so that NI isn't screwed, but also so that rUK can have the Brexit that May wants.

Reverse Greenland:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0813/808996-brexit-greenland-sturgeon/

Greenland voted to leave the EU. It still belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member, but has special dispensation and remains outside the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm

woman I lived through all the peace process and vividly remember all the twists & turns, the peace women Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan & their Nobel prize, Major (and his humiliation during Clinton's NI visit), Mo Mowlam, decommissioning, Trimble & Hume winning their Nobel...

Many strong women and men worked to bring about the GFA
However, much as we would like it to be otherwise, the key turning point was City bombs forcing the govt to make concessions that they were never prepared to do before
Violence works, or nations wouldn't bother to have armed forces

I imagine BigChoc that the violence did work, but at least there were, as you say, strong women and men in the background, prepared and ready for when the tide turned, to do the hard work of negotiating.

Contrast that with Brexit:: the people responsible have so far made it clear that they haven't the foggiest idea what they are doing and are busy making it up as they go along, but with IMO appeasing the UKIP tendency as their only frame of reference.

Violence works , I see that BCF and I'm sure a few others have too, the Brighton Bombing was watched with interest by many. It made the tory/ukip party we got now.

As Arborea posted earlier, it's going to be ironic of the pro brexit DUP end up with the UI they don't want as a result of current 'policy' .

If the trumpsters are having a re run of the US civil war, mrs married lady wants to be careful she doesn't start a re run of several similar ones here. Brexiteers as roundheads, any one?

Misti, I've bookmarked the links you posted earlier and I'm honestly going to read them properly later (I'd cross posted with you earlier and missed what you'd said).

Thanks for taking the time btw to give detailed responses - I'm just randomly clicking on this thread when I've got a minute, so am not ignoring, just not had time to read it yet

Semi I appreciate you taking the time to have a substantive discussion. We may never agree about brexit, but if people who disagree can have a civil, fact-based discussion then democracy is the winner.

Many remainers genuinely understand that losing is part of the democratic process (I was on the losing side the whole of my voting life in the UK) but are dismayed, scared and angered by the ignorance and dishonesty of the people implementing brexit.

The NI select committee meetings are an interesting example of how brexiters in parliament behave when confronted by unfortunate facts (many of which they really should have known before taking evidence - the SDLP MP on the committee seemed to be the only one who had done his homework). It will be very interesting to see what their eventual report and recommendations look like.

I was meaning an official deal, what the 3 Dunces originally claimed they could force the EU to allow - keeping the advantages of the EU but without FOM.

Only Fox ever sincerely thought this possible (it isn't), the other two are not that stupid/ ignorant - just very dishonest.

To be acceptable under GATT rules it would have to be a fairly wide-ranging FTA - you can't cherry pick - and there isn't time for that.