UK Politics - BoJo and chums

[Gorbles]

And yet there was this paragraph which shows (further) just how petty and vindictive the EU has been.

The EU can change certain elements of the UK deal immediately, if it wants better ties. It has denied the UK mutual recognition for conformity assessment on products – the barebones courtesy offered to Canada and Australia. It has refused to reciprocate even on financial equivalence (itself very limited), withholding the cooperation accorded to New York or Singapore in areas such as derivatives. It offered China’s Communists better terms on financial services.

And? Do you want an itemised list of all the things we've pulled over the past few years? Or does it not matter when we're being petty (or more often, straight-up incompetent)?

Your opinions on Brexit are irrelevant here. Whatever you can pull from the Telegraph similarly so. My opinions on Brexit are also irrelevant here. This started because you provided a professor's statement, and I criticised the implicit bias in said statement. I'm a big fan of trusting experts generally, but in general I remember a big push around Brexit not to. So I feel it's entirely fair for me to have very high standards when pro-Brexit posters like yourself provide expert opinion. He doesn't make the cut, sorry.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

That last piece from the Telegraph was not by said professor. It was by someone who clearly is somewhat of an EU supporter. If the EU actually wants us to join some sort of second tier (as Macron says) then they are going about it in all the wrong ways.

I suspect most Remainers would want us to join this second tier as a first step to get back into the EU proper. And all that writer was saying was – here are some examples of how vindictive the EU is being and they need to stop it if they want us back in.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That last piece from the Telegraph was not by said professor. It was by someone who clearly is somewhat of an EU supporter. If the EU actually wants us to join some sort of second tier (as Macron says) then they are going about it in all the wrong ways.

I suspect most Remainers would want us to join this second tier as a first step to get back into the EU proper. And all that writer was saying was – here are some examples of how vindictive the EU is being and they need to stop it if they want us back in.

I wouldn't want us to rejoin for 20-30 years or so.
Too many people around who don't want to admit what a mistake they made, plus I don't think the EU would be overjoyed to see us back atm.

In other news Stanley Johnson has become a French citizen.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...pc=U531&cvid=4eba38b169664cdeb439690980a88823

 

[Gorbles]

That last piece from the Telegraph was not by said professor.

Whatever you can pull from the Telegraph similarly so.

Repeating for emphasis.

I was talking about the professor, or trying to, throughout. Because his comment seemed pretty biased, was all. Nothing more to it.

 

[really]

The quote comparing equivalence with Canada, Australia, New York, Singapore, China in different areas is quite telling.

It portrays the UK as a supplicant, complaining that the EU isn't treating them fairly.
The narrative doesn't seem to have evolved at all, it's the same cake and eat it stuff since before the referendum.
Will leave ever accept they won and this is the prise?

 

[Takhisis]

Is that EU agriculture subsidies, from the rebate Margaret Thatcher negotiated with the EU or are you referring to something else?

As for Scottish independence, maybe if England could stop voting Conservative that might help slow things down at least!

Well, as MegaTsunami says, the UK ‘tweaks’, or, let's say, breaks any and all treaties.
Margaret Thatcher's negotiation of a rebate was already a breach of the treaty because there had been no such clause and Britain's special boy status was already an abnormality.
And yes, what is the status of agricultural subsidies now that the UK is out of the EU? I've kindof lost track of them in the whirlwind of news items.

As for stopping or delaying Scottish independence, yes, starting by not voting for a party that is insultingly anti-Scottish is just basic.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

In many ways he was the Jedi master and Dawkins was the young apprentice

Some might see it more like this:

I wouldn't want us to rejoin for 20-30 years or so.
Too many people around who don't want to admit what a mistake they made, plus I don't think the EU would be overjoyed to see us back atm.

Sounds about right. If the UK rejoins the EU its going to take some skilled diplomacy. Neither side will want to appear like they missed the other too badly!

 

[Mega Tsunami]

The quote comparing equivalence with Canada, Australia, New York, Singapore, China in different areas is quite telling.

It portrays the UK as a supplicant, complaining that the EU isn't treating them fairly.
The narrative doesn't seem to have evolved at all, it's the same cake and eat it stuff since before the referendum.
Will leave ever accept they won and this is the prise?

I actually agree with you that most of those don’t matter – we will live with them. I merely mentioned them give further proof of how petty the EU can be.

They can be as petty as they like over stuff like that (all’s fair in business, after all). What they shouldn’t be petty about though is NI, because IMO their vindictive actions over NI are putting the GFA at risk.

 

[sherbz]

I wouldn't want us to rejoin for 20-30 years or so.
Too many people around who don't want to admit what a mistake they made, plus I don't think the EU would be overjoyed to see us back atm.

I wonder about this too. And i probably agree with your position. I think Brexiteers need to be roundly and assuredly proven wrong before we can even contemplate going back in. But i also think the EU needs to adapt for us to rejoin. Ironically what Macron suggested recently (https://www.france24.com/en/20170829-macron-calls-multi-speed-europe) and also what Cameron had put forward in the first place is probably not so wide of the mark. The fact is that the EU needs to integrate more because it has economic and monetary union. So it makes total sense to have a greater political union. For countries that do not have the euro, like us and a few others, they do not need that or really desire it, especially if they are a big economy in their own right - like the UK is. Although it was politically unpalatable for many Eurocrats to have a 2 speed europe. I think increasingly thats looking to be something they are belatedly coming round to.

 

[sherbz]

Boris Johnson burned pretty much all the bridges of diplomacy the UK had left with the 27 EU nations. There won't be a UK in the EU again; I don't see it.

The ongoing constant threats from the Tories and DUP to suspend/rip up the Protocol, is a gift from Heaven to those in Europe, that never wants to see the UK in the EU again. They will argue that the UK can not be trusted; a deal made with a British PM isn't worth the paper it is written on. A British Government would also be confronted with a long list of requirements from the EU27, should they seek membership again; rolling back several UK policies and laws, divorcing itself from all its Crown territories (aka tax shelters), sorting out the status of Gibraltar with Spain once and for all, handing back the Elgin Marbles to Greece... the list would be endless and unacceptable, especially to the more nationalist/'empire' Tories.

I dont think anyone can envisage us going back in as it was before. Even me as a remainer would not agree to such a move. Mostly because we would never get our rebate back so would remain a massive over contributor to the EU budget. I could however see a looser relationship. Sort of like being in the bloc and internal market but being exempt from most fiscal rules. Countries like Denmark, Sweden and Poland might also prefer that, seeming as they retain their national currencies. But in order to do that the EU would need to change and acknowledge that there is a 2 speed Europe and it was caused by the Euro.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Here is one ‘tweak’ that has already been carried out – the free flow of medicines from GB to NI.
If this can be agreed, “all” that is needed is for other goods to be treated in the same way.

If the EU can change our deal for medicines, they can change it for all sorts of other things too. If they wanted. If they valued the GFA.


EU vote on medicines between GB and Northern Ireland ‘step in the right direction’ claims Doug Beattie
A vote by MEPs in the European Parliament to approve measures to allow medicines to be imported seamlessly from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is a “step in the right direction”, according to Doug Beattie.
The Ulster Unionist Party leader said the move by the EU was “proof that change is possible” but argued there was “ further work to do on protecting and maintaining the flow of medicines to Northern Ireland”.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...t-direction-claims-doug-beattie-41532745.html

 

[Arakhor]

If the EU can change our deal for medicines, they can change it for all sorts of other things too. If they wanted. If they valued the GFA.

You realise that you're sounding extremely creepy right now? Just switch out the nouns and you could easily be talking about a possessive lover.

 

[MrCynical]

If the EU can change our deal for medicines, they can change it for all sorts of other things too. If they wanted. If they valued the GFA.

You realise that you're sounding extremely creepy right now? Just switch out the nouns and you could easily be talking about a possessive lover.

As someone who's just wandered into this thread, I have to admit total bafflement how this post follows on from the previous. "Just switch out the nouns" isn't a very helpful argument in any situation since it of course allows for totally changing the meaning, but in this case I'm genuinely struggling to come up with substitutes that would allow you to get from Mega Tsunami's post to yours. Perhaps an example needed?

 

[really]

As someone who's just wandered into this thread, I have to admit total bafflement how this post follows on from the previous. "Just switch out the nouns" isn't a very helpful argument in any situation since it of course allows for totally changing the meaning, but in this case I'm genuinely struggling to come up with substitutes that would allow you to get from Mega Tsunami's post to yours. Perhaps an example needed?

'If they valued the Good Friday Agreement' is a straight up threat. The GFA ended 30 years of civil war and murder.
Give us what we want or the peace goes away.

 

[Arakhor]

"If you can go out with your friends because they want to see you, you can stay in with me because I want to see you. If you want to. If you value our relationship."

(Yes, I need to paraphrase it a bit to make it sound like natural English, but that's precisely the same sentiment in a very similar structure.)

 

[Takhisis]

Britannia's waived rule of the week: due process!

Priti Patel to grab new powers to stamp out ‘mob rule’ of Just Stop Oil protests
Public Order Bill toughened to protect ‘key national infrastructure’ such as oil terminals

Priti Patel will grab new powers to stamp out the Just Stop Oil demonstrations when a controversial crackdown on protesting returns to the Commons on Monday.

The Public Order Bill has already sparked criticism for creating a new criminal offence of “locking on” and orders to ban people who have not committed a crime from demonstrating.

Police would be able to stop and search peaceful protesters without suspicion and check for items – such as glue, handcuffs or chains – they could use to attach themselves to objects or each other.

Spoiler :

Now the home secretary will go further by extending planned Criminal Disruption Prevention Orders from stopping activists travelling to repeat protests to their presence at “key national infrastructure” such as oil terminals.

The target is the Just Stop Oil protests, blamed for petrol shortages across parts of England and part of a hoped-for global “spring uprising” over unchecked climate change.

The group is demanding that the UK government halt all new oil and gas licencing and production immediately – as Boris Johnson plans an expansion in the North Sea.

Ms Patel will accuse climate activists of trying to “make policy through mob rule” and insist she is “standing up for the law-abiding majority”.

“I will not stand by and let anti-social individuals keep causing misery and chaos for others,” she will tell MPs, at the bill’s second reading on Monday.

“The Public Order Bill will empower the police to take more proactive action to protect the rights of the public to go about their lives in peace.”

But the civil liberties group Liberty is accusing the home secretary of “yet another power grab from a government determined to shut down accountability”.

“Protest is a right, not a gift from the state, and measures like these are designed to stop ordinary people from having their voices heard,” said Sam Grant, Liberty’s head of policy.

“From restrictions on protest to scrapping the Human Rights Act, this is all part of the government’s continued attempts to rewrite the rules so only they can win.”

The measures are being brought forward for a second time, despite being thrown out by the House of Lords last year when they were branded “draconian and anti-democratic”.

Police fear the crackdown on protests could put them in danger and damage public confidence, revealing they have not sought the powers.

The bill would introduce:

• Serious Disruption Prevention Orders – banning anybody from a protest who has attended more than two in the last five years, regardless of whether they have committed any crime
• Tougher stop and search measures – despite a Home Office assessment warning they disproportionately affect ethnic minorities with a risk of “indirect discrimination”
• Locking on offences – with a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both

The new offence of “interference with key national infrastructure” would allow offenders to be jailed for up to 12 months.

 

[sherbz]

Eco terrorists. Who generally cause way more harm than they either solve or raise awareness. Id have a bit more sympathy with them if they were whiter than white. But generally speaking many of them are hypocritical morons.

 

[Samson]

When "terrorist" covers everything from a bomb in a church to glueing yourself to the road it kind of losses its impact.

 

[Senethro]

Eco terrorists. Who generally cause way more harm than they either solve or raise awareness. Id have a bit more sympathy with them if they were whiter than white. But generally speaking many of them are hypocritical morons.

This is a trick though. Theres no way not to participate in society, because there isn't a boundary far enough away for you to cross, so its impossible for anyone not to be a "hypocrit" as you'd define them.

Additionally, the default state of the present is extremely harmful and it has been demonstrated over the past 40 years that mild action is completely ineffective.

What value has politeness, decorums, and reasonable cooperation with those people who are sawing at the branch we're all sitting on?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Well, here’s another ‘creepy’ view on what could be done, if the EU actually wanted to. It is a summary of a suggestion by Lord Trimble.
(Bearing in mind the very, very small amount of trade (from an EU point of view) that flows from NI to Ireland. And before Brexit stuff would cross the border to take advantage of differences in fuel tax, VAT etc. anyway)

So, what are the practical alternatives? In the absence of willingness to develop concepts of maximum facilitation, an attractive solution would be the concept of “mutual enforcement” set out by Lord Trimble, one of the GFA’s architects. He and his colleagues at the Centre for Brexit Policy suggested each side make a reciprocal legal agreement to enforce each other’s rules on trade. It would be an offence in UK law to export goods from Northern Ireland to the Republic which did not conform to EU rules, and vice versa. Punitive penalties would operate both ways as a disincentive to rogue traders, while necessary checks would be made at company premises and in company records rather than at a physical border. This can still be made to work if both parties are willing to do so.