The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Enda]

On 11/25/2016 at 10:59, Awol said:

Knock yerself out, there's always   PM's if it's that blue. 

So, Awol, in response to my claim that the UK has a very patchy record in relation to recognising democracies, you mention that it's a "pity" that Ireland "took a holiday from those moral principles" in 1939. I think a few paragraphs comparing the UK's foreign policy in the 20th century to Ireland's is in order.

We need to start with the Irish General Election of 1918. The first election with something approaching a universal franchise in the United Kingdom (more work on this coming soon from, er, me and my two mates in QUB - stay tuned!) Coming two years after the Easter Rising, and on a platform of unilaterally withdrawing from the UK and continuing the Irish Republic, the result is an unambiguous declaration of independence. Sinn Fein win 70% of the seats. Outside of the Belfast area, SF (and the IPP) win about 90% of the seats.

A meeting is held in the Mansion House in Dublin, and the democratically elected leaders of the country formally declare Ireland as an independent republic. They set up their own parliamentary system, elect a leader, set up courts, and establish an army. The Irish Republican Army is founded. The response of the British authorities is to issue arrest warrants for them all, and ultimately to send over a shower of brutes to fight the IRA. The Brutes assassinate a Lord Mayor in front of his wife and kids; they burn half of Cork to the ground; and they decide it would be great fun to send a tank to shoot into the crowd at Croke Park, killing 14 civilians. (Obviously I mean the "Old IRA" - the boys that even the Queen lays a wreath to - not the same group as the post-1950 organisation that unfortunately stole the name.)

So here we have a small democratically-mandated parliament facing a fairly ruthless more powerful neighbour. Needless to say, they look for international support. Woodrow Wilson didn't acknowledge de Valera when we sent him over. At the Paris Peace Conference, Ireland was ignored. Turned away at the door. It's important to note that Ireland had just lost 50,000 men in Flanders and the like, under the promise of independence.  And just overwhelmingly voted for self-determination. Ignored. Thanks, Belgium, great bunch of lads. The Canadians, too, were ignored. It was a farce. The only country to recognize Ireland around the time were the fecking Russians. In the face of both absolute hypocrisy and deafening silence from the international community, the fighting in Ireland continued, and Cork continued to burn. Eventually (limited) independence, with an oath of allegiance to the King thrown in just for spite, was won. Only took 800 years. Thanks lads.

Fast forward twenty years, to September 1939. (Bear in mind at this stage that it was 1939, not 1945. Nobody knew how WWII would pan out, nor had the Holocaust begun. It was not clear in 1939 that WWII was different. More on this later.) The Austro-Germans are at it again. They'll probably invade France soon. Chamberlain's peace is as perfidious as you'd expect. Ireland has only finally escaped the British military occupation either two years ago (if you're talking about the Treaty Ports) or not yet (if you're from Derry). Churchill makes mention of securing independence if we join the good fight. Hah, thanks pal, heard that one 20 years ago and sent 50,000 lads to die; not falling for that one again. Belgians cry about their democratically elected parliament facing a ruthless more powerful neighbour. Remember Versaille?

So what does our parliament do? Send another tenth of her men to die in a European war, two years after finally getting British forces out of the Republic? Fall for the old trick of "Oh, we'll finally give you independence, lads" again? Do we feck. We have a lot of experience of strong neighbours invading. We declare neutrality. Invade us and we'll fight, otherwise we're neutral. Contain the war. Incidentally, this was the exact same approach as the Americans, and the approach that saw FDR re-elected in 1940. That's rarely mentioned.

Thankfully the better side won, in part because countries like the US did indeed get involved when they were attacked. As the horrors of the Holocaust emerged it was clear that this had been no ordinary European conquest -- but that was not apparent in 1939. What did become apparent was that this couldn't be allowed to happen again, and that international consensus would be needed to prevent another genocide. Thus Ireland promptly applied for membership to the United Nations (which is not the "Happy World Government of All" that it is sometimes portrayed as these, it was/is the Allies), and has only used its military power for peacekeeping (and the occasional use of the special forces to extract kidnapped Irish citizens, but let me conveniently ignore that.) Ireland has not attacked another country. It has not had an Iraq. Ireland has (probably?) contributed more per capita to peace-keeping than any other country since WWII. Every Irish soldier earns their stripes in Chad, Golan Heights, or some other God-forsaken place where the Defence Forces are stopping war. So much so that we're training your boys in peace-keeping in a continuation of our friendly relations.

Awol, when I suggested the UK is not the paragon of democratic values it sometimes sees itself as, you fairly smugly dismissed Ireland's decision to not enter WWII. At best, this exposes a lack of knowledge of Irish history. At worst, it demonstrates an arrogant, rose-tinted nationalism. Your quip misses so much nuance it requires a thousand words just to properly frame the issue, but would no doubt go down well in a pub in Sunderland. Then again, that is true of so much of the Brexit debate.

[snowychap]

I see that Fillon has beaten Juppé in the primary. So it's Fillon v Le Pen v ANO (Macron?) next year. Not good.

[Awol]

6 hours ago, Enda said:

So, Awol, in response to my claim that the UK has a very patchy record in relation to recognising democracies, you mention that it's a "pity" that Ireland "took a holiday from those moral principles" in 1939. I think a few paragraphs comparing the UK's foreign policy in the 20th century to Ireland's is in order.

We need to start with the Irish General Election of 1918. The first election with something approaching a universal franchise in the United Kingdom (more work on this coming soon from, er, me and my two mates in QUB - stay tuned!) Coming two years after the Easter Rising, and on a platform of unilaterally withdrawing from the UK and continuing the Irish Republic, the result is an unambiguous declaration of independence. Sinn Fein win 70% of the seats. Outside of the Belfast area, SF (and the IPP) win about 90% of the seats.

A meeting is held in the Mansion House in Dublin, and the democratically elected leaders of the country formally declare Ireland as an independent republic. They set up their own parliamentary system, elect a leader, set up courts, and establish an army. The Irish Republican Army is founded. The response of the British authorities is to issue arrest warrants for them all, and ultimately to send over a shower of brutes to fight the IRA. The Brutes assassinate a Lord Mayor in front of his wife and kids; they burn half of Cork to the ground; and they decide it would be great fun to send a tank to shoot into the crowd at Croke Park, killing 14 civilians. (Obviously I mean the "Old IRA" - the boys that even the Queen lays a wreath to - not the same group as the post-1950 organisation that unfortunately stole the name.)

So here we have a small democratically-mandated parliament facing a fairly ruthless more powerful neighbour. Needless to say, they look for international support. Woodrow Wilson didn't acknowledge de Valera when we sent him over. At the Paris Peace Conference, Ireland was ignored. Turned away at the door. It's important to note that Ireland had just lost 50,000 men in Flanders and the like, under the promise of independence.  And just overwhelmingly voted for self-determination. Ignored. Thanks, Belgium, great bunch of lads. The Canadians, too, were ignored. It was a farce. The only country to recognize Ireland around the time were the fecking Russians. In the face of both absolute hypocrisy and deafening silence from the international community, the fighting in Ireland continued, and Cork continued to burn. Eventually (limited) independence, with an oath of allegiance to the King thrown in just for spite, was won. Only took 800 years. Thanks lads.

Fast forward twenty years, to September 1939. (Bear in mind at this stage that it was 1939, not 1945. Nobody knew how WWII would pan out, nor had the Holocaust begun. It was not clear in 1939 that WWII was different. More on this later.) The Austro-Germans are at it again. They'll probably invade France soon. Chamberlain's peace is as perfidious as you'd expect. Ireland has only finally escaped the British military occupation either two years ago (if you're talking about the Treaty Ports) or not yet (if you're from Derry). Churchill makes mention of securing independence if we join the good fight. Hah, thanks pal, heard that one 20 years ago and sent 50,000 lads to die; not falling for that one again. Belgians cry about their democratically elected parliament facing a ruthless more powerful neighbour. Remember Versaille?

So what does our parliament do? Send another tenth of her men to die in a European war, two years after finally getting British forces out of the Republic? Fall for the old trick of "Oh, we'll finally give you independence, lads" again? Do we feck. We have a lot of experience of strong neighbours invading. We declare neutrality. Invade us and we'll fight, otherwise we're neutral. Contain the war. Incidentally, this was the exact same approach as the Americans, and the approach that saw FDR re-elected in 1940. That's rarely mentioned.

Thankfully the better side won, in part because countries like the US did indeed get involved when they were attacked. As the horrors of the Holocaust emerged it was clear that this had been no ordinary European conquest -- but that was not apparent in 1939. What did become apparent was that this couldn't be allowed to happen again, and that international consensus would be needed to prevent another genocide. Thus Ireland promptly applied for membership to the United Nations (which is not the "Happy World Government of All" that it is sometimes portrayed as these, it was/is the Allies), and has only used its military power for peacekeeping (and the occasional use of the special forces to extract kidnapped Irish citizens, but let me conveniently ignore that.) Ireland has not attacked another country. It has not had an Iraq. Ireland has (probably?) contributed more per capita to peace-keeping than any other country since WWII. Every Irish soldier earns their stripes in Chad, Golan Heights, or some other God-forsaken place where the Defence Forces are stopping war. So much so that we're training your boys in peace-keeping in a continuation of our friendly relations.

Awol, when I suggested the UK is not the paragon of democratic values it sometimes sees itself as, you fairly smugly dismissed Ireland's decision to not enter WWII. At best, this exposes a lack of knowledge of Irish history. At worst, it demonstrates an arrogant, rose-tinted nationalism. Your quip misses so much nuance it requires a thousand words just to properly frame the issue, but would no doubt go down well in a pub in Sunderland. Then again, that is true of so much of the Brexit debate.

To be honest it was just a quip and partly a provocation to see what you'd come back with. Glad I did because that's an interesting post. 

Of course the UK has had a pretty shocking record when it comes to democracy for other people and (as importantly) human rights, a tradition we maintain to this day in the Middle East.

National interests as perceived from Whitehall tend to come before consistently applying those values. That's pretty normal for a major power but no less wrong.

[snowychap]

I was watching the BBC news channel earlier and I doubt it was purely by chance that the story about the Brexit notes was followed by a story with the headline 'Britain has the highest self-harm rate in Europe' (that may not be verbatim...).

[peterms]

Thing I like about the Brexit notes is the bit about the strategy being to have your cake and eat it.  The phrase means something which is logically impossible to accomplish.  It's like they want to say they are attempting something, but they are at the same time at some level admitting it's a load of nonsense, without wanting to say so expicitly.  A psychiatrist would have fun with that one.

[Awol]

Interesting story on Politico.eu stating that Merkel is blocking the mutual recognition of each other's citizens right to remain resident post-Brexit, preferring instead to keep them on the table as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

That is despite (reportedly) most other EU nations including the UK wanting to clear up the issue immediately to give certainty to the people who could be affected.

I wonder if those at Al Beeb, the Guardian et al will now stop blaming May for this issue and wake up to the fact that Berlin isn't looking for a friendly relationship with London?  

Sorry, rhetorical question. 

[villakram]

40 minutes ago, Awol said:

Interesting story on Politico.eu stating that Merkel is blocking the mutual recognition of each other's citizens right to remain resident post-Brexit, preferring instead to keep them on the table as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

That is despite (reportedly) most other EU nations including the UK wanting to clear up the issue immediately to give certainty to the people who could be affected.

I wonder if those at Al Beeb, the Guardian et al will now stop blaming May for this issue and wake up to the fact that Berlin isn't looking for a friendly relationship with London?  

Sorry, rhetorical question. 

1. UK inc. is only interested in business relationships.

2. Negotiations 10X: Concede nothing without receiving something in return. Or do we expect the EU to make the initial good faith gesture to help the UK deal with the decision of it's people, and to help it's internal decision making process? 

[Awol]

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

1. UK inc. is only interested in business relationships.

2. Negotiations 10X: Concede nothing without receiving something in return. Or do we expect the EU to make the initial good faith gesture to help the UK deal with the decision of it's people, and to help it's internal decision making process? 

1. Not quite true. I think there is genuine and well founded expectations on both sides of the channel that on security and diplomatic efforts the UK and the EU will remain joined at the hip. That is far less likely to happen if the Germans start being silly - and upset their EU partners in the process by blowing sway the fallacy of equality amongst the 27.

London is (or was) the 5th largest French city by population, it's obvious that mutual recognition will happen. 

2. What was being proposed was mutual recognition of the right to remain for 1.2 million Brits on the continent and 3.2 odd million EU nationals in UK. 

Seems to me that's the definition    of getting something in return for both parties? Pretty sure there's more than a few posts on this thread attacking May's inhumanity for not doing this simple thing, will those same posters now be condemning Merkel for mental cruelty? Let's see.

 

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

1. Not quite true. I think there is genuine and well founded expectations on both sides of the channel that on security and diplomatic efforts the UK and the EU will remain joined at the hip. That is far less likely to happen if the Germans start being silly - and upset their EU partners in the process by blowing sway the fallacy of equality amongst the 27.

London is (or was) the 5th largest French city by population, it's obvious that mutual recognition will happen. 

2. What was being proposed was mutual recognition of the right to remain for 1.2 million Brits on the continent and 3.2 odd million EU nationals in UK. 

Seems to me that's the definition    of getting something in return for both parties? Pretty sure there's more than a few posts on this thread attacking May's inhumanity for not doing this simple thing, will those same posters now be condemning Merkel for mental cruelty? Let's see.

 

Equality amongst the 27? You lot have quite specifically voted that you want out because of XYZ. Why should you be treated on the same level as Ireland/Poland/Italy etc., who are currently members of this club? The UK made a decision and it is up to the political representatives of the UK to solve this riddle. Step 1: Trigger article 50.... go on, I double dare you  

There is nothing stopping the UK from unilaterally deciding to grandfather-in/guarantee the status of all current legal UK residents. The E.U. is simply holding to its negotiating position, which is all contained in the treaty the UK signed onto, of trigger article 50 if you lot want to talk serious. 

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

2. What was being proposed was mutual recognition of the right to remain for 1.2 million Brits on the continent and 3.2 odd million EU nationals in UK. 

Proposed by whom?

Edit: I see the website in question suggests that May apparently put this forward as some pre-negotiation request for assurance. Doesn't this run contrary to the things that May has told the UK and the world previously? Even if she has had a change of mind and gone for this, I'm not sure that the 'bargaining chip in negotiations' line that you attribute to Merkel is correct even from that article - the line is that Merkel is saying no negotiations of any sort until the UK invokes Article 50.

Edited November 29, 2016 by snowychap

[Awol]

8 hours ago, villakram said:

Equality amongst the 27? You lot have quite specifically voted that you want out because of XYZ. Why should you be treated on the same level as Ireland/Poland/Italy etc., who are currently members of this club? The UK made a decision and it is up to the political representatives of the UK to solve this riddle. Step 1: Trigger article 50.... go on, I double dare you  

There is nothing stopping the UK from unilaterally deciding to grandfather-in/guarantee the status of all current legal UK residents. The E.U. is simply holding to its negotiating position, which is all contained in the treaty the UK signed onto, of trigger article 50 if you lot want to talk serious. 

I don't understand your first paragraph, sorry if I'm being dense but could you try rephrasing it? BTW we are currently fully paid up members of the EU. 

On your second point obviously we won't guarantee right of residence to EU citizens in UK without a reciprocal arrangement. We've offered to do so up front to give people millions of people certainty and the Germans are playing political games with it. 

It's that attitude which some have incorrectly ascribed to May along with words like 'disgraceful'. I'm interested to see whether those same epitaphs will now be thrown at Frau Merkel.

Obviously we will trigger A50, once the Supreme Court has sorted out the legal arrangements around the process of doing that. 

[TrentVilla]

11 hours ago, villakram said:

Equality amongst the 27? You lot have quite specifically voted that you want out because of XYZ. Why should you be treated on the same level as Ireland/Poland/Italy etc., who are currently members of this club? The UK made a decision and it is up to the political representatives of the UK to solve this riddle. Step 1: Trigger article 50.... go on, I double dare you  

AWOL wasn't talking about us (although he is quite right we are currently fully paid up members so are equal irrespective of voting leave) he was talking about Germany in relation to the rest of the EU.

The German's are in charge (although it so often looks that way) and it isn't for them/Merkel to call the shots on negotiations alone. As AWOL pointed out other nations have different views to Germany on this.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, Awol said:

Interesting story on Politico.eu stating that Merkel is blocking the mutual recognition of each other's citizens right to remain resident post-Brexit, preferring instead to keep them on the table as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

That is despite (reportedly) most other EU nations including the UK wanting to clear up the issue immediately to give certainty to the people who could be affected.

I wonder if those at Al Beeb, the Guardian et al will now stop blaming May for this issue and wake up to the fact that Berlin isn't looking for a friendly relationship with London?  

Sorry, rhetorical question. 

The right to remain thing was first raised by Liam Fox, disgraced former defence secretary, now some sort of government brexit numpty.  May has also raised it. Now apparently Merkel has done the same. They are all going down a path of hostility and of hurting people's lives and situations.

and so the insanity goes on. Brexit, eh? Brilliant isn't it? No.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The right to remain thing was first raised by Liam Fox, disgraced former defence secretary, now some sort of government brexit numpty.  May has also raised it. Now apparently Merkel has done the same. They are all going down a path of hostility and of hurting people's lives and situations.

and so the insanity goes on. Brexit, eh? Brilliant isn't it? No.

Spoke with Fox in a forum about Afghan/SDSR in 2009 and agree he is a chod. May I don't really have an opinion on yet as PM, but in six months she'll either be doing very well or appallingly, but I think you're deliberately trying to fudge and confuse the issue being discussed by suggesting an equivalence in these statements about EU nationals.

The UK, with the support of 20 EU countries and encouragement from the European Commission has asked to put in place reciprocal guarantees for member state nationals current living arrangements. Merkel has blocked it so as to retain the future lives of those affected as a political bargaining chip. 

If anything it shows the UK did the right thing by not making a unilateral guarantee before now, because the Germans would have used the future of UK nationals in the EU as a hostage to the main negotiations.

It's disgusting, she's disgusting, and I don't really see another fair interpretation of Germany's actions. There is no reason for an issue of basic decency to be dragged into the lengthy and probably acrimonious political negotiations following A50. 

Far from insanity it reinforces the view that the EU is Germany by other means, both politically and economically through the Euro.

I suspect we won't be the only EU country that decides against being a part of this s*it show. 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Awol said:

Merkel has blocked it so as to retain the future lives of those affected as a political bargaining chip. 

That's not my reading of it. Merkel has blocked it to maintain the stance of no negotiations before article 50 is triggered. The report even says she did it because she doesn't want salami slicing by the uk. It shows a hard line is being taken to the uk.

The effect on people from the uk in yurp, or from yurp in the uk is negative, as I said above. Overall it indicates that when the likes of Johnson, Leadsome, Fox and co. claimed if we left the Germans would be all nice because BMWs, were talking out of their tailpipes.

[villakram]

In addition to the above point, it is currently the explicit (as in that's what they've repeatedly stated they're going to do) policy of the UK government to withdraw from the free movement of people provisions of any future agreement. Perhaps Merkel's position can be equated with simply saying that all folks are equal, not just a certain subset.

Trying for this is quite smart from a UK negotiating point of view and trying the old divide and conquer thing is always fun, of course it's never fun when you don't get your own way.

[villakram]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

I don't understand your first paragraph, sorry if I'm being dense but could you try rephrasing it? BTW we are currently fully paid up members of the EU. 

On your second point obviously we won't guarantee right of residence to EU citizens in UK without a reciprocal arrangement. We've offered to do so up front to give people millions of people certainty and the Germans are playing political games with it. 

It's that attitude which some have incorrectly ascribed to May along with words like 'disgraceful'. I'm interested to see whether those same epitaphs will now be thrown at Frau Merkel.

Obviously we will trigger A50, once the Supreme Court has sorted out the legal arrangements around the process of doing that. 

errr... I hope some of the above has clarified what I was alluding to. Yes, you are fully paid up members who have said "I want a divorce" and the rest of us are waiting for you lot to get the papers together. Things are different between us now.

I would suggest that it is anything but obvious that A50 will be triggered.

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

errr... I hope some of the above has clarified what I was alluding to. Yes, you are fully paid up members who have said "I want a divorce" and the rest of us are waiting for you lot to get the papers together. Things are different between us now.

I would suggest that it is anything but obvious that A50 will be triggered.

We've told you we want a divorce but we've not asked for it yet. Until then we are still paying half the mortgage. So for now we will keep having an opinion on the curtains.

We are keeping the cat! 

[villakram]

15 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

We've told you we want a divorce but we've not asked for it yet. Until then we are still paying half the mortgage. So for now we will keep having an opinion on the curtains.

We are keeping the cat! 

Never liked that damn cat anyway and I'm actually a dog person!

[darrenm]

I just died a little inside watching question time tonight. :-(

Where did all this shit come from? Was it always there but dormant and austerity has stirred it all up?

A primary school teacher was shouting at a panel member that English wasn't the first language in his playground and that he can't get a doctor's appointment. All because of immigration.

A school teacher.

Doesn't know that austerity has **** all to do with immigration.

Teaching our kids.

Last one out switch off the lights.