Brexit Thread VII - Revenge of the Brexiteers

The UK may have decolonised most of its former possessions (let's leave aside the conundrum of Australia, Canada and NZ being Dominions for another post*), and leaving all the other cases aside, in the particular case of Northern Ireland the UK is still the Imperial metropolis. And Norther Ireland is of crucial relevance as one of the major stumbling blocks in the currency process.

 

There was a footnote linked to that leftover asterisk but I deleted it to keep things on track.
Basically they aren't colonies except that the Queen (through the Lieutenant Governors of course) does retain some discretionary powers as the monarch which are customarily not exercised. Everybody pretends it doesn't really happen, the few times that it does.
And Northern Ireland… I'm not sure who's wagging whom, but the fact that it's a colony is borne out, for example, by NI being exempted from reproductive health issues that are mandatory in the rest of the kingdom (most obviously legalised abortions).

 

Northern Ireland is still definitely a colony.
It is being administered by the Northern Ireland office at the moment informally and unless the assembly reconvenes it will become formal in a few days.

All the identity questions are colonial in nature. Themmuns vs usuns.

 

While I agree that NI cannot be considered a colony, and that the spanish governments protesting Gibraltar are hypocrites, I cannot agree with your description of the Cyprus bases. Those are colonial territories that the UK refused to relinquish to the cypriots.

 

British base on Cyprus is similar to Guantanamo--though the Cuban revolutionaries wanted to take it back, at least on paper. Cyprus (either Cyprus) government showed no desire of taking it back.

 

It's not like Boris needs the DUP at this point; he is 40+ MPs short of a majority.

 

I've seen so much speculation that I'll have to wait to see before believing. But what of the backstop in this proposal, if it is true? The plan will live or die depending on that. Is Ireland giving up on its exorbitant demand for EU law to apply to NI for ever without an ability to leave?
Is the EU giving up on its precious red line that caused may's deal to be rejected, all this drama and all these delays? If it does, they're not going to want to talk much about it! But Boris will.

In before the media distort things: the issue that sunk "May's deal" was not the fact that Ireland was to have a different status on brexit. It was the "backstop", the fact that this status was designed to be permanent, with no way out without the consent of the EU. This was a gamble by Barnier and Varadkar, that they could impose it upon the UK. If the EU now give up on the "backstop" it will suffer a loss of face, whatever the amount of propaganda they place on the media shifting attention on the fact that NI will have a special status on brexit. But I'm guessing that part of the deal (if it happens! I remain skeptical of such reports) will be a demand that Boris and the bits do not gloat about a "win" and that both sides will avoig dwawing attention to the backstop.
The problem with such a deal is that the issue of who "won" is bound to come up in the approaching british election. This alone is a political obstacle to reaching a deal.

Speaking of obstacles, there is only one other I see within the UK, and it is bigger. Will Parliament vote for any deal brought forward by Boris? Or will too many MP vote against so as to deny him a "victory" claim?

 

Yes, I have been wondering all along whether the EU would force Ireland to drop its demand.

I can't say if it is Ireland dropping the backstop now and admitting that a NI vote alone can end it, of it it was the EU quietly telling the irish government to cease being spoilers. Because in the event of a no-drexit deal the EU party to lose the most was Ireland anyway, and their posturing on the absolute necessity of a backstop (a "permanent deal") would lead to the exact opposite: no deal whatsoever. But I can bet that someone already pointed out the absurd of "dying on the backstop" to the irish.

I can't even tell if this is seriously being considered, or going to happen. But it will be a climbdown if it does happen.

And at least I pointed out here, months ago, that the backstop was the problem and the thing that needed to be removed for a deal to happen. If it happens, I do get liberty to gloat a little.
Mind you, I still thing that refusing the deal altogether and negotiating after brexit would be a better move. The EU has been bluffing all along, that's still my opinion: they need a deal, as much as the UK. It goes beyond the economic, the political stability of both is at stake. The EU's hand was never stronger than the UK's, only wielded by a more competent team. The deal proposal discusses as it exists (surely some kind of tweaked "May's deal" with different provisions on the NI issue) already reflects that incompetence of the british negotiators. They gave in too much too soon, allowing it to be closed and having a fight only on this most exorbitant of demands, the backstop.

 

Ireland loses in all scenarios short of remaining.
We are just trying minimise the damage but take a broader view than pounds and pence.

We have suffered from the results of partition for most of the past century and were enjoying the normalisation of the border via the EU and the peace process over the past two decades.
We're not going to sign up to anything that brings us backwards and delivers a 'permanent' border.

Short term no deal will be painful but should bring the UK to it's senses pretty quickly.

 

I think you are going to see that EU solidarity you believed in put to the test very soon.

I do understand the RoI irredentist position on Norther Ireland. But there is already an agreement that the citizens of NI can hold a referendum to decide on whether to join the RoI. The UK may try to delay but cannot realistically prevent it. That much you can demand of the UK.

But on the customs aspect of the border, the Republic is as responsible for the eventual implementation of one as the UK. It takes two to dance it. If the UK wants to leave the EU, it cannot be prevented. If the RoI wants to remain in the EU, it cannot be prevented. If remaining in the EU means that the RoI cannot do a trade deal with the UK alone, that was a choice made by the RoI and the RoI alone. The UK is not responsible for the Republic of Ireland's choice to relinquish its sovereign ability to engage in diplomacy and border deals with other countries.

 

Ireland removed it's constitutional claim on the north as part of the peace process.
The referendum results were:
Yes 1,442,583 94.39%
No 85,748 5.61%

Any border poll in unity will be through the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

If we weren't in the EU and were negotiating on our own with the 13/14 times bigger UK how much credence do you think Johnson et al would be giving Irish concerns?

 

Come on, it is entirely unfair to claim that Inno "pretends" to sympathize with Ireland.
And it sort of is tested in practice just how much "solidarity" exists in this union. Just cause you live in Britain, which never felt the hostility (prior to Brexit) it doesn't mean it's not there. Austerity ruined entire countries.

I get the various positions in the UK. Eg Scotland wanting to remain. But I am surprised - and alarmed - that is always one-sided a debate.Yes, the brexit referendum was mostly a result of known english attitudes towards the Eu already there prior to 2008- and the very clear downgrade of the Eu, which now is filled with fascist governments and parties. This doesn't mean the actual state of the Eu didn't change for the worse, just cause a majority of brexiters voted to leave due to unrelated and old british jingoism.