UK Politics - Matt's Handcock

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Does that apply to the SNP too?

Uh... yes? I mean, they did.

As an exercise it was not perfect and attracted a fair amount of criticism on the weak points but then again, that's sort of my point.

[Hereward]

That was 7 years ago, and even then it was mighty light on the disruption to trade, economic, monetary, cultural, familial, defence and security aspects, even when there was an erroneous view that Scotland and England would be together in the EU.

Now? I get it that lots of Scots want to be independent. I get it that lots of Brexiteers wanted to be independent. But a bit of honesty would help. I don’t want to hear anymore complaints about the disastrous economic impact of Brexit, or that the EU was about keeping the peace after centuries of conflict, from people who opposed Brexit but want to separate two nations far, far more intertwined historically, culturally, constitutionally, financially, economically and familiarly than the UK and the EU ever were or could be.

 

[mormont]

35 minutes ago, Hereward said:

That was 7 years ago, and even then it was mighty light on the disruption to trade, economic, monetary, cultural, familial, defence and security aspects, even when there was an erroneous view that Scotland and England would be together in the EU.

That view turned out to be erroneous, yes.

But, again, this makes the point. You can critique that paper, because it existed. If the Cameron government had produced an equivalent, it would have completely changed the entire discussion, because there would have been something to focus the discussion.

[ljkeane]

4 minutes ago, mormonte said:

That view turned out to be erroneous, yes.

But, again, this makes the point. You can critique that paper, because it existed. If the Cameron government had produced an equivalent, it would have completely changed the entire discussion, because there would have been something to focus the discussion.

In fairness the SNP are arguing for independence, the Cameron government were in favour of remain. Setting out their plans for an exit from the EU they almost certainly weren't going to negotiate would have been a bit redundant. Boris and Farage and co would have just said 'we're not going to do that' to anything they thought would make brexit look bad.

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

In fairness the SNP are arguing for independence, the Cameron government were in favour of remain. Setting out their plans for an exit from the EU they almost certainly weren't going to negotiate would have been a bit redundant. Boris and Farage and co would have just said 'we're not going to do that' to anything they thought would make brexit look bad.

As opposed to what did happen, which was... that they said 'we're not going to do that' to anything they thought would make Brexit look bad. At least with a government paper on the subject, there would be something to compare against the Brexiter fantasy positions. That paper doesn't have to be the government's favoured position. But it should be an analysis of what the proposed measure being voted on actually is.

[ljkeane]

3 minutes ago, mormonte said:

As opposed to what did happen, which was... that they said 'we're not going to do that' to anything they thought would make Brexit look bad.

Sure. I just don't think there being a paper they would have just written off as unreasonably biased against what brexit was 'actually' going to be would have changed anything.

[mormont]

Well, at this stage it's very much the definition of a moot point.

[Spockydog]

 

[Zorral]

For someone looking from across the Atlantic, this seems to be a matter-of-fact, pretty much non-polemic exegesis of the Northern Ireland Unionist situation, which isn't entirely due to BREXIT.

"Northern Ireland Is Coming to an End" [paywalled; do not know whether NYT still allows a couple of access clicks per month, thus the lengthy quote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/opinion/northern-ireland-centenary.html?  

Quote

 

BELFAST, Northern Ireland — It was meant to be a year of celebration.

But Northern Ireland, created in 1921 when Britain carved six counties out of Ireland’s northeast, is not enjoying its centenary. Its most ardent upholders, the unionists who believe that the place they call “our wee country” is and must forever remain an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom, are in utter disarray. Their largest party has ousted two leaders within a matter of weeks, while an angry minority has taken to the streets waving flags and threatening violence. And the British government, in resolving Brexit, placed a new border in the Irish Sea.

It’s harsh reward for what Northern Ireland’s first prime minister, James Craig, called “the most loyal part of Great Britain.” But the Protestant statelet is not what it was. Well on its way to having a Catholic majority, the country’s once dominant political force — unionism — now finds itself out of step with the community that traditionally gave it uncritical support. And for all his talk of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has made clear his government would cheerfully ditch this last little fragment of Britain’s empire if it continues to complicate Brexit.

The writing is on the wall. While the process by which Ireland could become unified is complicated and fraught, one thing seems certain: There isn’t going to be a second centenary for Northern Ireland. It might not even last another decade.

. . . . The arrangement stumbled along for close to two decades, never fully working yet crucially keeping the peace. But Britain’s vote in 2016 to leave the European Union threatened the state’s always fragile constitutional relationships. And when the Conservative government settled Brexit with a protocol that established a border for goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, it effectively acknowledged the province as a place apart.

Northern Ireland now has borders with Britain and Ireland — and it is no longer a majority-Protestant state. The last census, in 2011, showed that the Protestant population had declined to 48 percent and the Catholic minority had risen to 45 percent. The Protestant community is aging, too: In 2011, only among those over 60 did it have a significant majority, and among schoolchildren, Catholics were the larger group. The results of a census to be published next year may well show an overall Catholic majority.

Nor can unionists count on the votes of Protestants. As a society, Northern Ireland has become more secular, more tolerant of diversity, less insular. People who reject conservative social policies have other voting options, and many young people do not vote at all. Some put their energy into global movements like climate justice and feminism — and plenty neither know nor care about the religious background of their friends. The constitutional issue of whether Northern Ireland is Irish or British does not preoccupy them. They are open to persuasion. . . .

 

 

[A wilding]

And on that subject, perhaps equally key to the thinking in Northern Ireland is that Ireland itself is no longer the backward Catholic theocracy it was a couple of generations ago.

[Zorral]

26 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Ireland itself is no longer the backward Catholic theocracy it was a couple of generations ago.

It's always been difficult to see Ireland that way for me -- though knowing better that in too many areas it was, since I know a lot of history about the colonization, etc., and have tended to blame the Church and the Brits.  But I don't know that much history! Having a deep familiarity with Yeats poetry and Joyce's fiction didn't  qualify, you know? Or Stoker, for that matter, though it did help, to a degree,

[The Anti-Targ]

Never doubt Star Trek. 2024 is probably too soon, but I don't expect Irish reunification will be many years after that.

[Werthead]

17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Never doubt Star Trek. 2024 is probably too soon, but I don't expect Irish reunification will be many years after that.

The writing is on the (security) wall.

However, do not doubt that unionists will let it go at that. Irish reunification, even if voted for by a significant majority of the population (and if it's in the next decade or maybe two it won't, it'll be maybe 52-55%), will trigger a renewed wave of violence. It's one of the reasons Northern Irish republicans and the Republic itself, though wanting and accepting reunification, are not exactly rushing headlong with glee at it. They know it's going to come with a price.

[Hereward]

It’ll come, but it’ll cost the Republic a fortune, both in terms of social security and infrastructure, but also in military spending, which is currently at less than 0.5% of GDP. They are going to need a much bigger army, plus helicopters, plus special forces, anti-terrorist police and an intelligence network. I guess the problem is, or one of the many problems, that as soon as they start spending on these things, unionists are going to get scared and loyalists are going to get armed. Not to mention a potential rush back to the No position from the undecided middle.

[Deedles]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

It’ll come, but it’ll cost the Republic a fortune, both in terms of social security and infrastructure, but also in military spending, which is currently at less than 0.5% of GDP. They are going to need a much bigger army, plus helicopters, plus special forces, anti-terrorist police and an intelligence network. I guess the problem is, or one of the many problems, that as soon as they start spending on these things, unionists are going to get scared and loyalists are going to get armed. Not to mention a potential rush back to the No position from the undecided middle.

For sure, and it’s semi entertaining to see support for reunification diminish slightly in the Republic. If a referendum in the North were to show a clear wish for reunification, then yes, as a democrat and Irish person, I would have to support it. I wouldn’t be so keen, on say, a hypothetical 52:48 result. The public service and NHS, if nothing else, cost a fortune. Schools are completely different etc. As Hereward has touched on, the policing and military spend would explode.

 

I may be a coward, but there is a bit of, lord let this pass over me

 

it’s even the political parties. Sinn Fein in the South is a different beast to that in the North, catering for fairly disparate tastes (how they pulled that off I’ve no idea!).

[DaveSumm]

Quote

“But there may be some things we have to do, extra precautions that we have to take, but I'll be setting them out.”

Boris Johnson earlier today on life after July 19th … any thoughts on what these precautions might be?

[Hereward]

Wearing masks, organising some sort of track and trace system, disabling office CCTVs?

[Derfel Cadarn]

2 hours ago, Deedles said:

For sure, and it’s semi entertaining to see support for reunification diminish slightly in the Republic. If a referendum in the North were to show a clear wish for reunification, then yes, as a democrat and Irish person, I would have to support it. I wouldn’t be so keen, on say, a hypothetical 52:48 result. The public service and NHS, if nothing else, cost a fortune. Schools are completely different etc. As Hereward has touched on, the policing and military spend would explode.

 

I may be a coward, but there is a bit of, lord let this pass over me

 

it’s even the political parties. Sinn Fein in the South is a different beast to that in the North, catering for fairly disparate tastes (how they pulled that off I’ve no idea!).

Poor Northern Ireland. Half want to be Irish, half want to be British, and neither country particularly wants them.

[Werthead]

6 hours ago, Hereward said:

It’ll come, but it’ll cost the Republic a fortune, both in terms of social security and infrastructure, but also in military spending, which is currently at less than 0.5% of GDP. They are going to need a much bigger army, plus helicopters, plus special forces, anti-terrorist police and an intelligence network. I guess the problem is, or one of the many problems, that as soon as they start spending on these things, unionists are going to get scared and loyalists are going to get armed. Not to mention a potential rush back to the No position from the undecided middle.

That's why it'll come when all sides are good and ready for it (so 2024 seems highly implausible, even if the polling shows a marginal majority for it by then). But the reunification of Ireland is not as daunting a task as the reunification of Germany was, and nothing like the nightmarish task Korean reunification ever would be. The EU would give Ireland tons of financial support and integrating the two countries' health and education systems would not be as difficult as is made out.

I also suspect there won't be an overnight switch, and Northern Ireland might continue to operate in a quasi-autonomous fashion for some time after legal unification, just as a subentity of the Republic rather than the UK. I can see the Northern Ireland police force remaining exactly as it is rather than the Republic's police and military rolling into town, which would case absolute bedlam, and there'd be an idea for integration over a long period of time.

Quote

Poor Northern Ireland. Half want to be Irish, half want to be British, and neither country particularly wants them.

Britain's government has basically been trying to find a way of resolving the Irish situation for the better part of 200 years, and thought they had it licked in the early 20th Century (the Irish may - and did - vehemently disagree) until the idea of partition ruled its head. Even at the time there was a feeling of "oh fuck, this is going to be an absolute nightmare" and thus it turned out to be. Literally, the London government would ditch Northern Ireland tomorrow if they thought there was an inexpensive, non-violent way of doing it, and if they were sure they wouldn't need those DUP votes ever again.

In some unionist circles, there's even been vague mutterings of a further partition where unionist-majority areas of Northern Ireland would remain in the UK and the rest would go to the Republic, but that idea isn't getting much traction (thankfully, as it would mind cutting Belfast into at least two and maybe three areas, and mapmakers would have a heart attack trying to make the new boundaries make sense).

I do think you are somewhat harsh on the Republic. Certainly in spirit and morally and ethically and to right historical grievances etc, Dublin would be more than happy to welcome Northern Ireland back into the fold. They just don't necessarily want that at the cost of bloodshed.

[ants]

On 6/29/2021 at 6:35 PM, SeanF said:

A two-stage referendum would have given Leave a free hit in round 1.  The EU was never popular in this country (except for a brief period in the Seventies) and if people thought they could vote Yes, while changing their minds at a later stage, the result would have been a landslide for Leave.  In practice, that would have created unstoppable momentum to leave.

Sure. But having had the first referendum, and its wording and results, then either a second referendum or plebiscite on the preferred method of Brexit (preferably with white papers on the options) should have been done to confirm what the preference was.