Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Steerpike]

The nation state as a concept is barely even 200 years old. And during its existence we had two devastating world wars. You might say those had nothing to do with nation states but let's just say those wars did little to help the argument that nation states are the best way to manage politics.

The UK has never been a nation state. Ever. It was an empire. During the brief period after it had stopped being the empire but before joining the EEC it experienced an awful economic crisis. Because, well, being alone is a lot harder than being a global colonial power.

Freedom of movement allows for a lot of things. Governments can subsidise certain sectors, they can aim for creating certain types of jobs to make sure that most EU workers have the 'desired skills', whatever those might be. The only thing FoM prevents is turning away someone who is offered a job in the country.

England was already a nation state at the time of the Norman conquest, so the concept is a good deal more than 200 years old (even if the term itself isn't). Being the seat of an empire, and being a nation state, are not mutually exclusive - most of the European powers had empires at some point, but were still nation states on their own account.

You could argue that the UK ceased to have an empire shortly after World War 2 when India was granted independence (1947). The course had been set by that event, even if the process of divesting the overseas possessions lasted quite a bit longer. The economic crisis you refer to broadly encompassed the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. There is little evidence to support the view that joining the EU was the main cause of the recovery, though I wouldn't dispute that it played a part. Also the EU at the time was more of a trading bloc, and was called the European Economic Community (more informally, the Common Market). More important factors in the recovery by far were North Sea oil and the deregulation of the financial markets.

If the EEC had remained as simply a trading bloc, and not morphed into the EU (Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon), I doubt that there would be many people at all wanting to leave it.

 

[JPRouve]

As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.

Is that a joke or you have no idea about international trade and WTO?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

This page depresses me.

 

[Maticmaker]

Is that a joke or you have no idea about international trade and WTO?

I thought we were talking about the implications of the GFA on border issues? You are now on to something else entirely, you wouldn't by any chance be trying to change the subject?

 

[JPRouve]

I thought we were talking about the implications of the GFA on border issues? You are now on to something else entirely, you wouldn't by any chance be trying to change the subject?

No, I'm not changing the subject. Why do you think a border is necessary outside of a custom+free trade agreement aka No deal?

 

[Sassy Colin]

 

[Maticmaker]

Why do you think a border is necessary outside of a custom+free trade agreement

I don't think this has anything to do with what we started to discuss, you are changing the subject.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't think this has anything to do with what we started to discuss, you are changing the subject.

I'm not but you seem to not understand the subject and the implications of a No deal.

 

[Eire Red United]

As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.

Wish it was that simple chap. Even leaving aside trade, free movement of people is a big issue wrt the border in Ireland. As per EU rules, any EU citizen can travel into Ireland and at the minute, there is free travel between north and south and as the north is part of the UK, anyone can travel freely between the north and Britain.

Now obviously a big thing for the Brexiteers is ending freedom of movement, taking back control of your borders, but how do you suggest this is done without either stopping free travel between Ireland and the EU, (not going to happen), ending freedom of movement in Ireland (there would literally be war) or ending freedom of movement between the north and Britain.

 

[horsechoker]

Labour’s Stephen Doughty asks why it is acceptable for May to call three votes on her deal, but for the public to be denied a second vote.

May says the Commons has to implement the results of the referendum.

Is she obtuse or a literal robot?

 

[Maticmaker]

Wish it was that simple chap. Even leaving aside trade, free movement of people is a big issue wrt the border in Ireland. As per EU rules, any EU citizen can travel into Ireland and at the minute, there is free travel between north and south and as the north is part of the UK, anyone can travel freely between the north and Britain.

Now obviously a big thing for the Brexiteers is ending freedom of movement, taking back control of your borders, but how do you suggest this is done without either stopping free travel between Ireland and the EU, (not going to happen), ending freedom of movement in Ireland (there would literally be war) or ending freedom of movement between the north and Britain.

It can be much simpler with goodwill, but I take your point about free movement of people. I said way back in my posts that one of the reasons we are in this predicament is because the EU cannot (apparently) change or vary its rules on this , or any other of the four freedoms, treaty's etc. That's why my original argument was that the UK should have moved to 'no deal' first if it truly wanted to implement the results of the referendum; however the problem as I have tried to explain to others is that there is no such thing as a 'good deal' unless it involves both political (treaty amendments) as well as economic ones. Since then we have strayed off into other areas involving GFA and now it seems WTO issues.

 

[Siorac]

England was already a nation state at the time of the Norman conquest, so the concept is a good deal more than 200 years old (even if the term itself isn't). Being the seat of an empire, and being a nation state, are not mutually exclusive - most of the European powers had empires at some point, but were still nation states on their own account.

You could argue that the UK ceased to have an empire shortly after World War 2 when India was granted independence (1947). The course had been set by that event, even if the process of divesting the overseas possessions lasted quite a bit longer. The economic crisis you refer to broadly encompassed the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. There is little evidence to support the view that joining the EU was the main cause of the recovery, though I wouldn't dispute that it played a part. Also the EU at the time was more of a trading bloc, and was called the European Economic Community (more informally, the Common Market). More important factors in the recovery by far were North Sea oil and the deregulation of the financial markets.

If the EEC had remained as simply a trading bloc, and not morphed into the EU (Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon), I doubt that there would be many people at all wanting to leave it.

No, England was not a nation state before the Normann conquest. That is factually wrong on a number of levels. The modern concept of nation didn't even exist back then. The Kingdom of England was no more of a nation state than the Kingdom of Poland. Or the Holy Roman Empire.

And I hear often that 'if only the EU had remained a trading block'. First, for the UK it's still pretty close to being just that: you opted out of almost everything else yet it's clearly still not enough.

Second, I'm pretty sure the UK would want out of the EEC if it was still called that. Because even when you joined it was already a lot more than a simple trading block. It already had freedom of movement for workers. It had already been working towards further integration. Because it had never been intended to be a simple trading block.

What’s happening now is basically the return of the idea of splendid isolation. It shows that the British still don't really consider themselves to be part of Europe. You want out because you can't dictate the terms. Because you think you don't need those pesky Europeans who are such a bother and you can do just fine without them. Yes, we'll grant them the favour of trade but otherwise leave us alone.

It's a shame because European cooperation could really use the Brits. But they simply don't want it.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It can be much simpler with goodwill, but I take your point about free movement of people. I said way back in my posts that one of the reasons we are in this predicament is because the EU cannot (apparently) change or vary its rules on this , or any other of the four freedoms, treaty's etc. That's why my original argument was that the UK should have moved to 'no deal' first if it truly wanted to implement the results of the referendum; however the problem as I have tried to explain to others is that there is no such thing as a 'good deal' unless it involves both political (treaty amendments) as well as economic ones. Since then we have strayed off into other areas involving GFA and now it seems WTO issues.

What you are describing is cake and eat it, take the bits the UK want and not the bits they don't like.

The only solution to the Irish border problem is for NI to be in the CU and the SM.

 

[Maticmaker]

I'm not but you seem to not understand the subject and the implications of a No deal.

I do understand the implications, but my initial point has been that given the restrictions on the UK to be able to enter true negotiations with the EU (i.e. no preconditions) on all aspects WA and Trade issues at the same time, then 'No deal' was the better option for leaving. It has always been a binary choice between No deal /Leave or Remain/revoke A50 and still is IMO, everything else is nonsense.

 

[Maticmaker]

What you are describing is cake and eat it, take the bits the UK want and not the bits they don't like.

Yes, that is what we were supposed to be after wasn't it? The only way that might have been achieved was to go to 'No deal' first, every other course of action was a no win' for the UK, even I suspect now, revoking A50, the damage has been done!

 

[Honest John]

Doesn't the common travel area still exist? If so any un-checked movement via a soft border, post- Brexit by non-Irish EU citizens is not free and would therefore be illegal. Am I wrong?

 

[MadMike]

Yes, that is what we were supposed to be after wasn't it? The only way that might have been achieved was to go to 'No deal' first, every other course of action was a no win' for the UK, even I suspect now, revoking A50, the damage has been done!

Cake and eating it also applies to the idea you can somehow have a hard border with Europe but not with Ireland, as if Ireland is not part of Europe. What everyone is at pains to explain to you is that no-deal will result on a border in Ireland and the break of the GFA. Something which every no-deal Brexiteer either completely ignores or sweeps it under the carpet with "no side wants to". No side might want to, but both sides will have to if they are to have border integrity. Otherwise every country that has a trade deal with the EU could use it as a backdoor of goods into the UK and vice versa.

 

[mancan92]

she is literally a robot. Doesnt listen to anything anyone says, just deflects constantly

Her only reference to the march was a jab at Corbyn. I mean come on 1.4 million people marched

 

[JPRouve]

I think if we left without a deal and ignored the border issue completely, implementing no border checks or infrastructure, we'd be in breach of our WTO rules. I don't know what the penalties would be.

The UK aren't members of WTO at the moment but the problem is the same. Basically you can't discriminate countries unless if you have a trade/custom agreement between two markets. The EU cannot not control its borders outside of a deal otherwise they would have to grant that right to everyone else, for the UK there will be no point for other markets to seek trade deals because the british market will be open to everyone and all of that will only work on one way, other countries will have every right to put all the barriers they want.

Edit: I'm actually wrong about the first sentence, every EU members are also individual WTO members, so you most definitely have to respect it from day one.

 

[Minimalist]

So she's ruled out No Deal again? Or so the beeb is headlining things with.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yes, that is what we were supposed to be after wasn't it? The only way that might have been achieved was to go to 'No deal' first, every other course of action was a no win' for the UK, even I suspect now, revoking A50, the damage has been done!

But it is not possible. If you have an open border with Ireland then you have to have open border with all countries you do not have a trade agreement or customs union with. So you are open to all kinds of illegal goods, immigrants from worldwide, smuggling and could never have a trade agreement with any country because there would be no need as they could flood the UK with anything they like. (And this is only a small part of the problem)

 

[Eire Red United]

Doesn't the common travel area still exist? If so any un-checked movement via a soft border, post- Brexit by non-Irish EU citizens is not free and would therefore be illegal. Am I wrong?

But how are the British going to end freedom of movement (a big reason for Brexit for a lot of people) without either a border in Ireland or in the Irish Sea?

 

[Mb194dc]

I think the government is going to collapse, we're going to end up with a temporary national coalition till Brexit is done, and then a GE in a few months.

May has totally lost the plot, deluded, maybe mad? take your pick, the DUP seem to be furious with May, even Tory backbenchers must be sitting in astonishment at what is happening. A confidence motion, defeat the government, then use the FTPA to form a national one is the only way forward.

 

[GloryHunter07]

Is she obtuse or a literal robot?

Its ridiculous but has just become the norm when asked a difficult question.

 

[SteveJ]

As in the US, there's too much power and authority vested in the leader. May's holding Parliament and the nation hostage.

 

[Smores]

Amendments aren't due to be voted on til 10pm tonight. Should have voted whilst May regurgitated catch phrases

 

[Ekkie Thump]

England was already a nation state at the time of the Norman conquest, so the concept is a good deal more than 200 years old (even if the term itself isn't). Being the seat of an empire, and being a nation state, are not mutually exclusive - most of the European powers had empires at some point, but were still nation states on their own account.

No it wasn't, you are misunderstanding and misusing the term. England may have become a nation at the point you mention, but not a nation state. The only controversy about this is whether nation states gradually emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia or arrived abruptly through the French revolution.

Hobsbawm's a good read on this.

 

[JPRouve]

No it wasn't, you are misunderstanding and misusing the term. England may have become a nation at the point you mention, but not a nation state. The only controversy about this is whether nation states gradually emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia or arrived abruptly through the French revolution.

Hobsbawm's a good read on this.

And @Siorac was talking about the United Kingdom not England, it's a bit strange to reduce the conversation to England.

 

[Minimalist]

My reaction to most of this stuff now is a mixture of laughter, confusion and eventually it reaches the old faithful of...

yeeoo

 

[711]

No, England was not a nation state before the Normann conquest. That is factually wrong on a number of levels. The modern concept of nation didn't even exist back then. The Kingdom of England was no more of a nation state than the Kingdom of Poland. Or the Holy Roman Empire.

And I hear often that 'if only the EU had remained a trading block'. First, for the UK it's still pretty close to being just that: you opted out of almost everything else yet it's clearly still not enough.

Second, I'm pretty sure the UK would want out of the EEC if it was still called that. Because even when you joined it was already a lot more than a simple trading block. It already had freedom of movement for workers. It had already been working towards further integration. Because it had never been intended to be a simple trading block.

What’s happening now is basically the return of the idea of splendid isolation. It shows that the British still don't really consider themselves to be part of Europe. You want out because you can't dictate the terms. Because you think you don't need those pesky Europeans who are such a bother and you can do just fine without them. Yes, we'll grant them the favour of trade but otherwise leave us alone.

It's a shame because European cooperation could really use the Brits. But they simply don't want it.

You're wrong about England not being a nation state, it was pretty homogeneous with an agreed government before the Norman conquest, as @Steerpike says. Everyone, bar possibly the Cornish, spoke the same language, and that language wasn't spoken elsewhere. It's arguable GB or the UK isn't a nation state, but a group of nations, you may be getting confused with that.

The rest is about right, except it tends to apply to about half of the British, and not the other half, which is of course the problem in the first place.

 

[Maticmaker]

So you are open to all kinds of illegal goods, immigrants from worldwide, smuggling and could never have a trade agreement with any country because there would no need as they could flood the UK with anything they like.

You can get illegal and illicit goods now, especially those that are copies of top brands; illegal immigrants already get into the UK, some get caught, but not many especially with people trafficker's now in operation, and the smuggling of goods as been part of the UK's traditions, especially in many costal areas for hundreds of years, whole communities were involved in some cases; however I take your serious point about the absence of borders/deals etc. on such matters.

The point once again is that given the referendum result was to leave the EU, a "no deal' was a real option (in a binary choice) as the only chance of the UK Government exerting leverage, which might have come up with 'cake and eat it' result, or something much closer to it, than May's current 'deal.
The other real option was of course to remain, which will occur, unless May can dragoon her rebels MPs to get her over the line.

I am not saying that 'No deal' was preferable to remaining, but for those who wanted to leave it was the only logical option, even if it presented almost as many problems as it solved. That's why so many people are still agitating for this result. It started as a binary choice and it still is!

 

[Buster15]

I'm not but you seem to not understand the subject and the implications of a No deal.

Him and millions of others I suspect.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You can get illegal and illicit goods now, especially those that are copies of top brands; illegal immigrants already get into the UK, some get caught, but not many especially with people trafficker's now in operation, and the smuggling of goods as been part of the UK's traditions, especially in many costal areas for hundreds of years, whole communities were involved in some cases; however I take your serious point about the absence of borders/deals etc. on such matters.

The point once again is that given the referendum result was to leave the EU, a "no deal' was a real option (in a binary choice) as the only chance of the UK Government exerting leverage, which might have come up with 'cake and eat it' result, or something much closer to it, than May's current 'deal.
The other real option was of course to remain, which will occur, unless May can dragoon her rebels MPs to get her over the line.

I am not saying that 'No deal' was preferable to remaining, but for those who wanted to leave it was the only logical option, even if it presented almost as many problems as it solved. That's why so many people are still agitating for this result. It started as a binary choice and it still is!

It isn't May's deal though, it is just the withdrawal agreement to leave the EU which was the only one possible. It is just a stepping stone to the next phase.
On the ballot paper it only said the EU. It did not say the EEA or the customs union. You can still leave the EU and be in the CU and SM. So it was not exactly a binary choice, it was an interpretation - the negotiations have been conducted per the interpretation of Theresa May.

You would have no objection to Dover having no border then.

 

[afrocentricity]

she is literally a robot. Doesnt listen to anything anyone says, just deflects constantly

Her only reference to the march was a jab at Corbyn. I mean come on 1.4 million people marched

How does this stuff still surprise? Hope people aren't waiting for signs of sentience from her?

 

[SteveJ]

 

[Damien]

Maybe J2bk was thinking of

 

[SteveJ]

 

[NinjaFletch]

.

 

[711]

Nah, @Siorac is right. The term 'nation state' is anachronistic and England was a pretty diverse place at the time with huge cultural variation between various areas. The Danelaw (and the north east in paticular) was particularly was pretty different to the rest of England and had strong links to Scandinavia as a result of Viking settlement. You'll often see the term 'Anglo-Scandinavian' in historic writing to describe those areas, and William of Malmesbury complained in 1130ish that he couldn't understand people form the north because they spoke such a weird language. Hell, William the Conqueror only went North of the Humber about three times, and one of those was to commit genocide because the northerners were being too rebellious.
I'm not really sure what the relevance of it is on anything to do with Brexit, mind.

Good point about the Danes. England except for the Cornish and the Danes then. To be fair we twatted the Danes eventually but their cousin Norman the bastard sneaked in and we became foreign ruled and part of a foreign empire really, so it definitely becomes a bit dodgy then.

 

[SteveJ]

Pretty damn shameful:

'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”'