UK Politics Thread

[Catfish]

You are all evading the question
If you introduce nations that have borders you have to accept the political consequences.

re Skybird; while Thuringia and Saxony are counties belonging to one COUNTRY/NATION/STATE, the southern Republic of Ireland is sovereign, independent and an own nation. It does NOT belong to the UK.
Again, no one doubts that Northern Ireland belongs to the UK, but the ROI does NOT.
The Republic of Ireland is NOT a part of the UK, but Northern Ireland IS.
Again, no one denies that Northern Ireland is part of the UK.
So while the two Irelands are geographically and logically and by its people one entity, it is politically two countries/nations/states.
Even if a majority in Northern Ireland voted against brexit, it had to follow the UK's decision to LEAVE.

So all this talk about sovereignty, the UK has it, the ROI has it, ok?
Now if this sovereignty (read: passport checks, tax goods, controlling immigration and so on) is mandatory for the UK, where does it want to perform those checks for its "sovereignty"?

At the edge to Northern Ireland in the Irish sea? Makes no sense, but this is how it being done right now, evading the problem with a border between the two Irelands.

Again: If the UK needs its sovereignty where will the controls be?
Where does the UK control immigration, tax goods from the EU, control smugglers which will of course come up now after brexit?
If at all there can only be a border between Northern Ireland and the ROI, as Sky rightly said.

And as i now say for the third time, if the UK breaks the treaty, does not install a border, does not perform passport checks and so on, and lets goods freely flow between the UK and the EU across an open Ireland border without controls, where does it check EU imports, where does it control immigration, where does it execute its sovereignty? What kind of sovereignty are you talking about with such an open "border"?

It is a messed up situation alright, and the UK/England will have to solve it at some point.

[Skybird]

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Whether the Republic of Ireland is an independent nation or a green tennis ball, doesn't matter as long as the Irelands do not unite, and NI leaves the kingdom.



What things a nation does at its borders, is said nation's business. They can implement controls, or not. They can wave through migrants or goods or sausages, or not. What a wannabe superstate in some other part of the world thinks iother nations should want to do at their border, does not matter.


The only issue here is that Johnson signed something that he could not hold. If he had not signed it, there would be no rule whatever - as you imply - that he must order custom controls at a border, or not. Brussle cna only demand the 'Republic of Ireland doing this or that ion iuts side of the border. But its no external's business what the UK does at its borders, on its side of the border. Execpot this stupid thign with the Iriosah border, where they agreed a special treaty, a protocol, that part of the Uk should be treated in a schizophrenic comedy of absurdity to please Breussels, to mock Londown , and to appease backwardly Irish natioinalists.



The only issue here is that he signed the NI protocol although he should and could have known that this could not stand by it. You make it appear as if evben without that thjer ewould be somethign ike an intwenratioanlylly accept habit that London must do this or that on its side of the borders it has. This is not so.



The simple truth is he picked the easy and tempting way, hoping to release it by that the EU would not take the invitation to project max pressure over it. Which of course it does, however. He could have known it. God knows what devil has ridden him. Naivety at its best.



I in his place would not have signed the NI protocol. Which would have made the EU not accepting the rest of the Brexit treaty. which would have meant that there would have been no treaty. What I would have been okay with. Which would have meant there are a solid border between both Irelands, and customs and controls, so the UK wishes, on the British side of that border. What the EU and the RoI would have done on its side of the border, would have been their business.


Fact is the EU does not give much for the Good Friday peace status, obviously, if it rates the chance to put London under pressure as so much more relevant than accepting a pragmatic compromise on this certain border, and by that helping to keep that Good Friday status. Brussels hopes that London must break under the pressure. London hopes that brussel breaks under the creation of facts. Which is all as great a miscalculation as was Johnson'S expectation that the EU would play kind.


The French expectation to be co-owneers of Breitish fishing waters, and the EU'S ever raising demands on paper war that bogs down British expoprts toi the contient, are other exmaples of that the EU is not playing fairly or constructively. As a British exporter said in a business docu on I think Euronews two or three weeks agto: today it takes a frtaction fot he time to exprt to the US, and it also costs only a frraciton of the money, that it takes to exporetr on the toher side of the channel. Anbd you cna beg that this is a situation that not London has toguht outk but Brussel - THEY demand all this paper war, not so much London.



That businessman laughed, however. He said he had to change ways, but now sells more, all in all, by shifting his focus to trade with the US. He has stopped trading with Europe completely, he said. Some food stuff it was.



How many trade deals has Britain signed in the past 6 months since Brexit? I stopped counting. What has Brussle acchieve dint he same time. Was not worth counting.


And another thing. More and more Britoish peopoel must get pissed by the European. And the UK is pratcially the only war-reay,. by quality war-capable military in Eurooe, beside Turkey, and I see the Turks as unrerlaible "allies". The brits have the best electrionic intel and psissivbly the best human intel service in europe-. Thjeir expertiose in terms for European security, cannoit be replayced. Their armed forces may have become too small now to be globally relevant anymore in any furtutre bigger war, like they played a role in Iraq 91, still: in place, in that corner of th eEuzropean co9ntinent, in thgat close-by ocean, they cnanot be replaced.


Its stupid to risk these ressources going amiss just for the cause of lecturing a people for having done a free choice. One day they may have the nose spo full of the continent that they turn their back on it completely, security-wise, police-wise, military-wise, intel-wise. I do not see Europe could afford that loss.

[Catfish]

I think your first five paragraphs are at least dealing with what i asked (if once more eavding the question), the rest is your opinion.
It is about the fact and question how he UK's "sovereignty" shall be actively handled and executed by themselves in Ireland. But there are only loaded words and opinions, and a cloudy idea of what sovereignty means. And it seems Johnson is not only unprepared, he has no idea.

[...]I in his place would not have signed the NI protocol. Which would have made the EU not accepting the rest of the Brexit treaty. which would have meant that there would have been no treaty. What I would have been okay with. Which would have meant there are a solid border between both Irelands, and customs and controls, so the UK wishes, on the British side of that border. What the EU and the RoI would have done on its side of the border, would have been their business.

You are aware what this means for the good friday agreement, and the nationalist movement.

It is ok with me if they break the treaty, i just ask what people think will happen then. If they have their border control even only (lol) on the british side (Northern Ireland) all hell will break loose.

The UK cannot execute their idea of border control without breaking the irish agreement. And if they do not implement their border control on their side (or on the moon i don't care) because they want to keep the peace, what is this control and sovereignty idea all about?
The whole idea is flawed.

[Skybird]

I already have repeatedly adressed the lose ends you imply. You just do not like my answers. Well, maybe I do not like them either. But that does not matter. What I like things to be, and what they are, and what they likely turn for, are three very different things. Of these three, my likings are the one thing most unimportant in all this.

[Moonlight]

I don't believe the Republic of Ireland or the EU would want an hot potato like Northern Ireland landing in their lap, me thinks they will do anything for that not to happen, even agreeing to whatever the UK proposes to do on the matter.

If that sets off the troubles again you can put the blame entirely on the EU for being so bloody minded about it.

[mapuc]

I'm glad I don't sit at the negotiation table- They have a hard work in front of them.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

what is this control and sovereignty idea all about?

It is about ownership of sovereignty and having the choice to determine how it is implemented, not dictated to by a foreign entity.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

If that sets off the troubles again you can put the blame entirely on the EU for being so bloody minded about it.

That is precisely what would most likely happen.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

It is about ownership of sovereignty and having the choice to determine how it is implemented, not dictated to by a foreign entity.

"Dictated by a foreign entity?" This is from 2016:

"Unlike most other EU member states—and some countries outside the EU—the UK is not part of the Schengen passport-free area because it hasn’t signed the Schengen agreement. This means it can retain border controls.
[...]
Controls at the UK border
The British government retains full control over its own border controls. Travellers who hold EU passports can’t cross the UK border without having their passport or identity checked, and the same applies for travellers from non-EU countries.

The exception is people travelling over the Northern Ireland-Ireland border where there are no border checks.

The UK can, and does, perform passport and identity checks at its borders and refuses entry to travellers who do not travel with valid identity documents even if they are from another EU member state."

- https://fullfact.org/europe/border-security-eu/

"The fact is that we do already control our borders: we monitor our sea crossings, airports, the Channel Tunnel and that we impose passport controls on arrivals from every other country (except Ireland)"
- If you think we need to 'take back control' of our borders, you don't understand what that actually means

And this all was BEFORE brexit.
The UK has always controlled its borders, and it always kept its sovereignty.
If you want to make "deals" or treaties with other nations and people, all sides have to agree to some degree to be able to trade. If you call this "giving away sovereignty" you have to reread what that means, especially when the WTO rules over you.

So can you tell me where and when the UK did not have control before brexit and whether it now wants to extend its border controls/sovereignty to the irish borders, or doesn't it all remain as it is and was since decades?
Because this border in Ireland was and is the only free border, in the UK.

[Skybird]

Ach, Catfish... Rhetorical prestidigations. Think of enforced mas smigration. Enforced free access to labour market. Enforced EU-wide call for bids. After that column has drivne through, not much of your borders and sovereignty is left.

Meanwhile, in another part of the tiny universe, Die Welt writes:

The transfer of wealth by the ECB and the EU contrary to the treaty will not save Europe -

Although the EU treaties prohibit its own indebtedness, the Commission is in the process of doing just that. Parliaments and courts provide protection in circumventing and defending European law. That will backfire. -

After the Second World War, the project of the unification of Europe was the wise answer to the revenge of the victors over the conquered after the First World War, crystallized in the Treaty of Versailles. The execution of vengeance led to the next war, the project of unification for a peaceful and prosperous Europe. -

French politicians were decisive for both development paths: Raymond Poincaré for the first and Charles de Gaulle for the second. But French European policy has always been dominated by the desire to take the lead on the continent. -

While peace and prosperity were created through the legally anchored free movement of goods, services, capital and people while respecting the sovereignty of the nation states, the French claim to leadership demanded political centralization. A single currency, wrested from the French President Mitterrand from the German Chancellor Kohl during the turbulent times of German reunification, was intended to serve as a means of achieving this. -

But the pressure exerted by the single currency to centralize elementary areas of national sovereignty is countered by the legal framework created for freedom and prosperity. The logical consequence would be to let the peoples of the European Union vote on the replacement of the existing legal framework by a European federal state. -

However, since this would not find a majority among the citizens of the nation states, the political elites are trying to achieve their goal of centralization by circumventing and bending European law. In doing so, docile courts of law provide them with support. We are experiencing how this works right here and now. -

Although the European Treaties prohibit the Union from borrowing itself, the European Commission is in the process of doing just that. From July onwards, money will mainly flow into the coffers of states whose citizens could otherwise question the benefits of the EU. This includes countries such as Italy and France, but also Spain, Poland and Hungary. -

And although the ECB is expressly forbidden to create new money for the states, it continues unmoved with its large-volume purchases of government bonds. Parliaments and courts accept explanations for these Orwellian “double-talk” -style purchases as instruments of monetary policy. For any economist with common sense, however, they are clearly recognizable as the financing of over-indebted states. -

Political centralization, enforced against the will of the citizens and the infraction of European law will ultimately lead to the disintegration of the Union. “Brexit” was the first step on this path. Instead of seeing the UK's exit as the answer to their disastrous policies, European leaders have belittled it. Possibly they believe in the Babylonian captivity of the other big net payer, Germany, in the EU. -

But disaster threatens from another side. In France, Marine Le Pen could move into the Elysée Palace next year, and in Italy, Giorgia Meloni is waiting for the right moment to conquer Palazzo Chigi. Would more money help convince the women of further EU membership? And whether Federal Chancellor Laschet would continue to provide backing for the ECB's money printing machine and a handle in the pocket of the German taxpayer?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[...]Think of enforced mas smigration. Enforced free access to labour market. Enforced EU-wide call for bids. After that column has drivne through, not much of your borders and sovereignty is left.

I guess your main source of information must be The Sun or the UK Express, not the NZZ. Did you happen to read the links i posted in those 30 seconds?
"MASS MIGRATION", "ENFORCED", Britain is being RAPED, FOREIGNERS, you sound like Farage's Nazi placard

[MGR1]

I do think that there should perhaps be a separate EU thread. No offence to Catfish or Skybird but their arguments about what the EU is or isn't is derailing what is meant to be a thread about British politics.

There is quite a lot going on here but since it's mainly Jim, Moonlight and me (sporadically) that's posting I'd hazard a guess that most of the UK SubSim members aren't terribly bothered about what our political representatives are up to.

Maybe pop this thread on "furlough" for a bit?

Mike.

[Moonlight]

^I second that, Perhaps we should banish those two to the German thread if they don't want to create a new EU thread.
Reading all the nonsense Catfish posts about the EU and Brexit anyone would think he hasn't got anything better to do, it's France vs Germany tonight Catfish, do us a favour and bloody watch it will you.

You can tell us who were the biggest prats after the game.

[Jimbuna]

Both points taken but having looked back over this thread it appears obvious that Brexit has been an almost constant theme throughout the thread.

There is nothing to stop anyone from adding different topics in this thread provided there is a UK connection and currently the EU in general is certainly that.

[Skybird]

I think the bickering between Catfish and me, focussing on the eU and its relaiton to the UK, and may attitude toiwards the UK and the eU, both are hgard to realyl be seen comeoltely unrelated to UK topics. Like it or not, but the things I and Catfish bring up, touch upon UK realities for better or worse. Thats why I post it here. In fact some other EU stuff I post in the German thread, the economy thread, or elsewise.


I agree however that with Catfish and the EU I have become a runner in circles, like he has with the UK and Jim and me, too.



Very passionate disagreements from all participating debators here, we cannot help it.