UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship

[Werthead]

Number 10 apparently in complete meltdown.

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

So if I'm understanding this right, Dominic Cummings is leaking to the press that he may resign, because he really is that bigheaded, and because he's annoyed that another unelected official resigned because a third unelected official was appointed over their heads. Also, I guess Johnson's partner and the mother of one of his (legally speaking, innumerable) children was involved.

Good governance.

It seems like it would be a weird time to quit given that the Brexit deal with the EU is still (supposedly) being negotiated. Or maybe he's not happy with the direction of the negotiations?

[ants]

So if this is a fight for influence over Boris between Cummings and Symmonds and her allies (as the below article attests) ..... what is the differences in policy views between the two groups?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/11/lee-cain-pms-senior-aide-resigns-amid-infighting-at-no-10

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

You mean Democrats? Republicans have been somewhat more consistent in distancing themselves from Sinn Fein and the Republican cause (the Bush Jnr. administration revoked her travel licence in 2004) and leaving the issue as a UK-Irish one which the GFA has essentially resolved (at least in the short term).

They both want the votes. I said [US] Republicans because it's not going to cause Biden any grief in terms of Republicans making a big deal about it to try to score political hits, because they will be own goals if anything. Republicans may be more neutral, but they are not going to swing in behind the UK and support that side in opposition to the Irish republican cause.

The point is, Farage thinking he's hit on a point of weakness for Biden in having his photo taken with O'Hare is a mis-read of the situation. But if it was mentioned to reinforce the point that Biden is not a friend to the UK when it comes to anything to do with UK-Northern Ireland matters then he's dead right. But the USA as a whole should not be seen as a friend in this regard whoever is president (there is a reason the All Blacks played Ireland in the USA, and it wasn't exactly neutral ground). The difference with Trump is that he probably doesn't give a crap about it either way. He would have jumped whichever way was going to make him look the best and a winner, so he was probably manipulatable. Though he'd be more inclined to listen to what would keep Irish American's on side rather than make the UK govt happy.

[Myshkin]

Farage’s entire rant shows a complete failure to grasp how things stand in the US. First, and this is not a value judgement on my part, the IRA doesn’t evoke any kind of visceral response in the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans simply don’t give a shit, and those who do are unlikely to see the IRA in such black and white terms as people in the UK.

Secondly, and more importantly, endangering the GFA was never going to fly in the US, regardless of who occupies the White House. It is seriously one of the very few things that enjoys near unanimous bipartisan support over here. Old Boris might have to step a little more carefully around J. Robinette Biden, but it ain’t like he was gonna be able to trash the GFA and still negotiate a trade deal with Trump in office.

[ljkeane]

7 hours ago, Myshkin said:

Farage’s entire rant shows a complete failure to grasp how things stand in the US. First, and this is not a value judgement on my part, the IRA doesn’t evoke any kind of visceral response in the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans simply don’t give a shit, and those who do are unlikely to see the IRA in such black and white terms as people in the UK.

It's not aimed at Americans though. He's painting Biden as a biased and unreliable figure on this subject (not entirely unfairly) to a British audience so he has someone to blame when brexit goes badly wrong (which it was going to anyway) other than, you know, Nigel Farage. I doubt he really cares how things stand in America, it doesn't really matter, as other people have said a hastily arranged trade deal with the US isn't necessarily a good thing anyway. 

[Werthead]

 

11 hours ago, ants said:

So if this is a fight for influence over Boris between Cummings and Symmonds and her allies (as the below article attests) ..... what is the differences in policy views between the two groups?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/11/lee-cain-pms-senior-aide-resigns-amid-infighting-at-no-10

Symonds and her coterie seem to be more "moderate" Tories and soft Brexiters who believe - quite correctly - that the majority of the British public are so monstrously fed up with Brexit after four and a half years of constant discussion of it to the exclusion of everything else (it's been pretty much the only thing, bar the US elections and even that was for only three or four days, to make headlines this year apart from COVID) that they'll happily accept a relatively soft Brexit (maybe even to the point of a Brexit In Name Only) as long as they can say that Brexit has been accomplished, it's done, please move the fuck on to something - anything - else. A soft Brexit that doesn't destroy the economy but which they can say "mission accomplished" about is ideal. There is also the calculation that getting Brexit out of the way now leaves them well-positioned to tackle other issues in the run-up to the next election (which is likely three and a half years away, enough time to get momentum on other things but not so much they can continue dawdling on Brexit for months or years more).

Cummings and his group are Brexit diehard-ultras who are utterly obsessed with the hardest of hard Brexits, believing it is the only thing that will deliver "true independence" to the UK (even though they seem to be fine if that means utter subservience to the USA instead, oddly). Cummings believes that Britain can prosper as a just-offshore tax haven for people in Europe, a Singapore of the Atlantic, and that Britain can use that to become a new Silicon Valley in Europe and allow tech companies to operate unfettered here and make enormous amounts of money for the country (how that squares with being a tax haven isn't quite clear). Cummings seems to be basing his model on Ireland, which is weird because Ireland is doing some of the same things whilst happily remaining an EU member, but go figure.

The problem for the Cummings team is that their arguments were sort-of persuasive to Johnson and Gove when COVID wasn't a thing. The judgement that Johnson now seems to have reached is that Britain can survive either a massive depression resulting from Brexit or COVID but not both simultaneously, and that makes reaching a reasonable Brexit deal more attractive. Biden winning the election means he can sell the idea of a softer Brexit to his party on the basis that Britain can't expect a good deal from the USA any more (not that they ever could, but this is for PR purposes) so they have no choice but to accept a more moderate deal from Brussels. If he can get a mild concession on something negligible like fishing rights he can blow out of all proportion into a major victory, so much the better.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

maybe even to the point of a Brexit In Name Only)

What would say would qualify as ”Brexit in name only?”

[Heartofice]

Brexit in name only or BRINO would be something like the Norway option, where you stay in the single market, align closely to EU rules, but are essentially a rule taker, with little to no influence in them. I find it highly unlikely that would ever be the preference of the British public. Even if enthusiasm for the project has dropped after numerous bouts of incompetence, a soft Brexit would come back to bite Boris should he ever allow it to happen (worth noting that Brexit has already happened). There is really very little to no benefit to a soft Brexit and plenty of downsides.

[Spockydog]

nvm

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

No? Then please go ahead and list the myriad benefits of a hard Brexit.

There are plenty.  

The most important one in my mind is a separation from an increasingly federalised EU that can only ever move in the direction of closer integration if it hopes to succeed, especially with the Euro. Any promises that Britain wouldn't need to get involved in that integration would of course be circumvented by stealth without asking the UK population, as has happened repeatedly over the past few decades.

Then there is issue of democracy. Politicians will be more accountable because they can no longer hide behind the EU preventing them from making decisions. A UK resident had almost no say over EU policy that affects the UK but they do have a vote over who is in charge of the UK. You can set your own laws and regulations and not be tied to a 3rd party indefinitely. Note the EU still seems to be under the impression that we should be using their standards as a benchmark in perpetuity. 

Then of course you are able to follow your own independent trade policy, strike trade deals with countries around the world rather than endlessly delay because some Flemish farmers are kicking up a fuss. Of course a lot of nonsense is being written about the US deal right now, but there will be a deal, and I think it would happen a hell of a lot quicker than any EU/ US trade deal (its ok because they have an agreement on Lobsters.. slow clap). Other deals will follow, and the point is it's the UK making those deals. 

Immigration is obviously a big one, the UK would have the ability to set its own immigration policy. Note this should be a basic ability for any nation. Doesn't mean there should be more or less immigration, but that the UK can decide it, and it was the lack of that ability that probably did more to make Brexit happen than anything else. 

Of course there's stuff like state aid and fishing that the EU is really trying to be tough on as well.

So yeah, I think there are potentially a lot of benefits long term to not being tied to the EU, especially given the direction it is going in, and a hard Brexit would be far superior to a soft one, because a soft one really doesn't allow you to do anything, it essentially makes you closer to a vassell state than anything else. I would rather no brexit than a soft brexit. 


 

[Fragile Bird]

30 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

nvm

Bet you’re sorry you didn’t delete fast enough...

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bet you’re sorry you didn’t delete fast enough...

Its always worth getting an answer in quickly before the inevitable NVM.

[Maltaran]

In an excellent case of nominative determinism, UKIP's candidate for Mayor of London is called Dr Gammon

https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/12/ukip-have-chosen-an-actual-gammon-as-london-mayor-candidate-13584170/

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bet you’re sorry you didn’t delete fast enough...

Yup, the moment I hit enter I realised my post wast just an opportunity for someone to reply with some unsubstantiated, gammony bullshit. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yup, the moment I hit enter I realised my post wast just an opportunity for someone to reply with some unsubstantiated, gammony bullshit. 

... eh! Nvm

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What would say would qualify as ”Brexit in name only?”

Being part of the European Economic Area without being part of the EU itself, like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, or voluntarily adhering to its rules, like Switzerland.

To some degree Britain is going to have to do that as part of any deal (at least being part of a regulatory framework agreement) since the EU will not allow Britain to become a bridge to funnel non-EU goods into the EU by the back door, but there are degrees of it.

[BigFatCoward]

Anyone else find it sus as fuck that no death rate has been released yet for today? 

[Spockydog]

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Anyone else find it sus as fuck that no death rate has been released yet for today? 

You're just naturally suspicious. Not a criticism, it's all part of the job. 

[Chaircat Meow]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

Symonds and her coterie seem to be more "moderate" Tories and soft Brexiters who believe - quite correctly - that the majority of the British public are so monstrously fed up with Brexit after four and a half years of constant discussion of it to the exclusion of everything else (it's been pretty much the only thing, bar the US elections and even that was for only three or four days, to make headlines this year apart from COVID) that they'll happily accept a relatively soft Brexit (maybe even to the point of a Brexit In Name Only) as long as they can say that Brexit has been accomplished, it's done, please move the fuck on to something - anything - else. A soft Brexit that doesn't destroy the economy but which they can say "mission accomplished" about is ideal. There is also the calculation that getting Brexit out of the way now leaves them well-positioned to tackle other issues in the run-up to the next election (which is likely three and a half years away, enough time to get momentum on other things but not so much they can continue dawdling on Brexit for months or years more).

Cummings and his group are Brexit diehard-ultras who are utterly obsessed with the hardest of hard Brexits, believing it is the only thing that will deliver "true independence" to the UK (even though they seem to be fine if that means utter subservience to the USA instead, oddly). Cummings believes that Britain can prosper as a just-offshore tax haven for people in Europe, a Singapore of the Atlantic, and that Britain can use that to become a new Silicon Valley in Europe and allow tech companies to operate unfettered here and make enormous amounts of money for the country (how that squares with being a tax haven isn't quite clear). Cummings seems to be basing his model on Ireland, which is weird because Ireland is doing some of the same things whilst happily remaining an EU member, but go figure.

The problem for the Cummings team is that their arguments were sort-of persuasive to Johnson and Gove when COVID wasn't a thing. The judgement that Johnson now seems to have reached is that Britain can survive either a massive depression resulting from Brexit or COVID but not both simultaneously, and that makes reaching a reasonable Brexit deal more attractive. Biden winning the election means he can sell the idea of a softer Brexit to his party on the basis that Britain can't expect a good deal from the USA any more (not that they ever could, but this is for PR purposes) so they have no choice but to accept a more moderate deal from Brussels. If he can get a mild concession on something negligible like fishing rights he can blow out of all proportion into a major victory, so much the better.

Soft Brexit, which used to mean something like the Norway option has been dead a long time. It may never have been alive. The only fight left now is between a pretty thin trade deal with issues to resolve on fish and state aid (restrictions on which do form part of normal trade deals) and no deal at all, aside from what was settled in the Withdrawal Agreement. If people think a deal can deliver Brexit in Name Only they are in for a horrible shock.