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

[choffer]

34 minutes ago, snowychap said:

How much will Arlene Foster demand from May to say yes?

Depends when you read your news. Or which side you believe...

 

[darrenm]

I guess you could say that the border issue is unsolvable and brexit won't happen?

[peterms]

59 minutes ago, snowychap said:

How much will Arlene Foster demand from May to say yes?

Well, that's an interesting one.  Richard Seymour, writing as a Northern Irish (presumably former) Protestant and present-day Marxist, thinks it's an issue that the DUP can't accept, and that it transcends their loathing of Corbyn and fear of an election.

So the answer would be that it might not be something that comes with a price tag.   Here.

Quote

Will the DUP, at long last, finally surrender?

The British government has more or less conceded every European Union starting point in the Brexit negotiations. The FT reports that the word 'negotiations' is not even close to what has happened:

Pascal Lamy, the former head of the World Trade Organization and two-time European commissioner, attempted to capture the asymmetry when describing Brexit not as a negotiation but “an adjustment”. On hearing the quote, one senior EU figure involved in Brexit talks cried: “Voila!”

There will be no bespoke Brexit deal. The UK will pay at least €50bn as part of its divorce bill. The UK does not hold the strong cards. The EU has a no surrender policy: it doesn't negotiate, it states its terms, patiently waits, and watches while the UK folds.

Now, on the question of a hard border between the north and south of Ireland, which in various ways would pose a threat to the 'Good Friday Agreement', it looks as if the government is about to make a further, substantial concession.

Current reports of draft deal being hammered out suggest that there will be "regulatory alignment" on the island of Ireland. Faisal Islam of Channel 4 News quotes a source that speaks of "full alignment" on those parts of the customs union that would lead to a hard border. That would, in effect, mean that there was a border in the Irish Sea.

Now, that could bring down the government. Never mind the careerists seeking Poujadist credibility in her midst. She relies on the DUP, and one point on which the DUP will not relent, for a second, is that the border must not be placed in the Irish sea. Any divergence of Northern Ireland's constitutional status from the rest of the UK, Arlene Foster has said, is unacceptable.

Unsurprisingly, the DUP is angrily and nervously 'rejecting' these reports, suggesting that it understands the UK government's position differently. Sammy Wilson, who is ordinarily the sort of MP who makes remarks that even his own wild party of fundamentalists 'distances themselves from', is cautious. But he doesn't forget to mention the nuclear option:

"I'm not going to let leaks from the Irish Government draw me down a road speculatively on what's going to happen.

"We have the political leverage in the House of Commons to hold the government to that agreement and we will do that."

The DUP is threatening to collapse the government. In case the message is too subtle, check out Arlene Foster's response, and the re-tweets on the party's Twitter feed.

The government claims that "the UK is leaving the European Union as a whole and the territorial and economic integrity of the United Kingdom will be protected". The only way for this to happen, would be for May to agree to the same conditions in the rest of the UK as in Northern Ireland. In other words, pursuing "permanent regulatory convergence" with the EU. This is something that May's backbenchers, not to mention her own cabinet ministers, will find impossible to swallow. After all, it means accepting EU rules without having any say in them. It also raises the question of ECJ jurisdiction. If the UK is, in effect, permanently adjusting to ECJ rulings, then it is in effect subordinate to that body.

This is why the pro-Brexit economist Andrew Lilico thinks that if May has agreed to: i. pay €50bn to the EU, ii. allow continued ECJ jurisdiction over some British subject; iii. allow NI to stay in the customs union and single market ("in all but name" as reports currently suggest), then she is gone.

So the question is this: if, legal sophistry aside, May has given in on all points with the effect of creating an Irish sea border, will the DUP surrender? Never, never, never, or just this once? After all, the alternative is potentially letting Jeremy Corbyn into Number Ten and, as far as they're concerned, he's dirty fenian-loving Ra-supporting scum. Better the devil you know, perhaps.

If you answer this question on the basis that the DUP is a 'normal' right-wing party making the usual calculations for incremental advantage, you will get it only half-right. The DUP is not a bourgeois party. It is a party with its roots in small town, provincial Protestant reaction. In particular, it is a party whose origins lie in a struggle led by the founder of the Free Presbyterian church, Ian Paisley, against Catholic civil rights (cf, "Romanism", "the Papal anti-Christ", etc).

The theology of Free Presbyterianism, which is massively over-represented in the upper ranks of the DUP, is pivoted on this: you are here as a Christian to wage holy war against the devil. That is what the "Church Militant" means. God's people separate from the world, much as in the Bible Israel was separated from Egypt, in order to contend for souls within it. God's people don't come to terms with "modernism". God's people don't pander to convivial notions of unity, compromise, or dialogue with apostasy. Peace is for the grave. God's people don't become like the world. And one's life is eminently worth laying down for the precious Saviour.

The faith motivates the reactionaries, galvanises provincial men and women with otherwise relatively little social or political power, and turns them into instruments of God. They really believe, you must understand, that ultimately, whatever setbacks they have, no matter how terrifying the devil's reign is, God will win their battles for them, provided they are saved and have faith in Christ. It puts the blue rinse brigade and the ruddy-faced bullshitters on the front lines. It situates them in the struggle. It gives them literally supernatural confidence and accounts in large measure for their bluster, their complacent self-satisfaction, and their fantasy politics.

The Loyalist struggle, from this point of view, is against the encroachments of anti-Christianity in one of the remaining strongholds of Protestant faith. And this very small fundamentalist sect has wielded extraordinary influence within Northern Irish politics, well beyond its tiny constituency, supplying the core activists and footsoldiers of the DUP and its various paramilitary enterprises.

There was some media speculation that this fundamentalist focus was changing under Arlene Foster's leadership. Foster, a Church of Ireland woman, certainly cuts a more professional and less sweaty and bulging-eyed look than many of her colleagues. But there is no evidence for any liberalisation. And in fact, the new division of labour relieves the Wee Frees of responsibility for things that First Ministers have to take care of, like LGBT rights.

I suspect, then, that the DUP would be happy to collapse both the government, and the Good Friday Agreement. The coalition is an alliance of convenience: the DUP are not Tories in today's sense. They may hate Corbyn, but they hate a border in the Irish sea even more. Meanwhile, the Agreement is based on communal power-sharing, when the DUP and Sinn Fein cannot agree on such points as: recognition of the Irish language, marriage equality, the Bill of Rights, legacy inquests and so on.

I don't think the DUP can give in on this and remain the same party. Even if Foster wanted to cut a deal behind some arse-saving casuistry, any attempt to do so would create a new schism.

Which means that either May has to accept that the coalition is falling apart, and call a new election; or she has to brazenly dare her own MPs and cabinet colleagues to collapse the government and force a new election. Right now, we're waiting to see which she has actually chosen.

 

[peterms]

How did we get here?  Oh yes...

 

[villa89]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I guess you could say that the border issue is unsolvable and brexit won't happen?

I have all along suspected that the UK will leave the EU with a deal that is pretty much the exact same as being in the EU. The anti-EU brigade wont be able to stamp their feet and demand bigger separation from the EU because of the tax/border/immigration issues involved. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. 

[OutByEaster?]

So the DUP veto the deal that the Irish and Prime Minister May thought would work. That means we're in a difficult position where May says what's right for the country as a whole is wrong for the DUP, but if May follows that principle and goes against the DUP she'll lose their support, her government will crumble and we'll be heading towards an election which as of right now would put Corbyn in power. 

We're somehow managing to make Brexit even worse by having to resist the best options now available to us in order to protect the PM and party politics in the most absurd and obvious way.

 

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Well, that's an interesting one.  Richard Seymour, writing as a Northern Irish (presumably former) Protestant and present-day Marxist, thinks it's an issue that the DUP can't accept, and that it transcends their loathing of Corbyn and fear of an election.

So the answer would be that it might not be something that comes with a price tag.   Here.

 

I was surprised how things have gone today.

It seemed that there was some sort of a deal going to be announced (with 'regulatory alignment') and then after the DUP statement and a 'phone call, it's 'not quite ready'.

If May consulted the DUP before she went over to Brussels then they either agreed with her and later reneged or they didn't, she told them to lump it and they made the statement they did when they did to tell her that she couldn't get away with it.

Or she decided to 'take control' personally of the negotiations without consulting the party that helps to keep her government afloat about what they would countenance. She couldn't be that incompetent, could she?

Edited December 4, 2017 by snowychap

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

So the DUP veto the deal that the Irish and Prime Minister May thought would work. That means we're in a difficult position where May says what's right for the country as a whole is wrong for the DUP, but if May follows that principle and goes against the DUP she'll lose their support, her government will crumble and we'll be heading towards an election which as of right now would put Corbyn in power. 

We're somehow managing to make Brexit even worse by having to resist the best options now available to us in order to protect the PM and party politics in the most absurd and obvious way.

 

 

If this is their support I’d hate to know what they’re like working against you.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’d hate to know what they’re like working against you.

"Booom"

[villa89]

11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

we'll be heading towards an election which as of right now would put Corbyn in power. 

I wouldn't be certain of that despite what the polls say. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

She couldn't be that incompetent, could she?

"Strong and Stable",  have you forgotten already ?

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

"Strong and Stable",  have you forgotten already ?

 

Not even strong enough to close the stable door

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I guess you could say that the border issue is unsolvable and brexit won't happen?

It'll happen. The only thing undecided is the extent to which it happens - No Deal through to Brexit in name only, the best result (but one that is still a loss for the the UK - pay the bill, lose the seat at the table and keep paying with no vote). And No Deal is the default option.

Brexit will not be cancelled. Nobody is going to cancel it because it will end their career. If someone were to cancel it, they have 15 months to overcome all the weight for Brexit or risk sacrificing themselves and possibly their party. And it would ultimately not be their decision to revoke it - we've started a legal process, it'll both sides to agree to stop it.

And right now given the ridiculous amount of clashing self interest going on, the default result is arguably still likely. There isn't a result that pleases all sides. Someone on the British side needs to lose harder than all the rest - it looks like May gambled that the DUP got the short straw. And she lost, either to try again with a further wording fudge (kicking the can down the road) or with another bribe. Whichever way the EU will not budge. As we've seen for over a year. And everyone paying attention knew was coming.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

3 minutes ago, villa89 said:

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

we'll be heading towards an election which as of right now would put Corbyn in power. 

I wouldn't be certain of that despite what the polls say.

Possibly but this is becoming a bit of a joke and they seriously look like they are losing control of things at an astonishing rate.  Fine if the landing is nice and soft but this has a bit of a strange "Some mothers do ave em" underlying vibe to it all.  Could I envisage Theresa May and / or Boris Johnson actually falling off a podium in the next 3 weeks, why yes I can.  

If it goes wrong they won't get in next time,  it would be madness.  

 

 

[peterms]

23 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I was surprised how things todayhave gone.

It seemed that there was some sort of a deal going to be announced (with 'regulatory alignment') and then after the DUP statement and a 'phone call, it's 'not quite ready'.

If May consulted the DUP before she went over to Brussels then they either agreed with her and later reneged or they didn't, she told them to lump it and they made the statement they did when they did to tell her that she couldn't get away with it.

Or she decided to 'take control' personally of the negotiations without consulting the party that helps to keep her government afloat about what they would countenance. She couldn't be that incompetent, could she?

I don't understand it.  It seems the RoI govt was content with various forms of words, and you can only assume that DUP agreement was sought beforehand.  But as we see, and as Seymour and others point out, those terms wouldn't be acceptable.

Even tbough May is notorious for being secretive and failing to bring people onside, it's unthinkable that the diplomats would not have satisfied themselves that there existed a majority for this.  The DUP position is hardly a revelation.

So I really don't get how she got to this.  Unless it was just a case of assuming the transparent fudge would buy a bit of time to get it sorted.  I suppose at least that approach would be consistent with the way the rest of this farce has been handled.

[peterms]

On an earlier point about the Brexiters thinking the UK was in a great position, it may be worth recalling that this kind of old bollocks was common talk among the ranks of the right wing, a few months back.

Quote

On the morning after the European Union referendum, Britain looked like a country in crisis. The Prime Minister had resigned, Scotland’s first minister was talking about a second independence referendum and the FTSE was in free fall. In several EU capitals, there was an assumption that, when the Brexit talks began, Britain would be the new Greece: a country that could ill afford to reject any deal offered by the EU, no matter how humiliating. In the days following the vote, Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, declared that Britain had just ‘collapsed — politically, economically, monetarily and constitutionally’.

Five months on, Britain is in a stronger position than Rutte and co. would have believed possible. Since the referendum, the British economy has grown faster than that of the eurozone. The government is now led by a Prime Minister who is as secure in her job as any of her EU counterparts. Theresa May can walk into the Brexit negotiations knowing that she has several aces in her hand...

 

[peterms]

The more we hear, the stranger and more incompetent it sounds.

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

I have all along suspected that the UK will leave the EU with a deal that is pretty much the exact same as being in the EU. The anti-EU brigade wont be able to stamp their feet and demand bigger separation from the EU because of the tax/border/immigration issues involved. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. 

you can do that thing where you kinda squeeze the tube to make its volume larger which sucks some of the paste back up though, which makes the best of a bad situation and saves a few pennies!

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, a m ole said:

you can do that thing where you kinda squeeze the tube to make its volume larger which sucks some of the paste back up though, which makes the best of a bad situation and saves a few pennies!

You could also make a small pinhole in the far end to let the air escape, then spend a very great deal of time and effort scooping up tiny amounts of toothpaste and pushing them back in.  After a lot of time and effort you would be back where you started, except you'd have a little hole in your toothpaste tube, and the contents would be a little the worse for wear.

It's a metaphor, isn't it?

[Enda]

On 1/6/2017 at 18:08, Enda said:

Oh and one last thing on the economics predictions. As Awol is so keen to reference, the most pessimistic mainline projection for post-Brexit economy was the Treasury's. If I'm not mistaken, they predicted that post-Brexit UK GDP would be 1.5% lower (than it would be without Brexit) after eighteen months. That's not the dire prediction the media are portraying it as.

Remember the Brexit drum-banging about how Treasury's forecast was so far off? The one that said UK GDP would be 1.5% lower after 18 months?

Well, eh, here's some new research:

Quote

£300 million a week: The output cost of the Brexit vote

...

Our approach to determining the costs of the Brexit vote uses the same intuitive idea, but it formalises the approach in a statistical sense. We let an algorithm determine which combination of other economies matched the evolution of real GDP in the UK before the Brexit vote with highest possible accuracy. We use the period between Q1 of 1995 and the Brexit vote in Q2 of 2016. For this purpose, we consider indices of real GDP for 30 OECD countries, normalised to unity in 1995.

The algorithm choses the economies and weights assigned, not researchers. The better the algorithm-driven economic doppelganger for the UK economy as a weighted combination of other OECD economies, the more accurate our results are. For the UK, our matching algorithm attributes high weights to Canada and the US, but also to Japan and Hungary. These weights are open to replication by other researchers.

...

This is a novel approach to tracking the realised output losses that can be causally attributed to the Brexit referendum. Currently, at the end of the third quarter of 2017, the output loss has been close to £20 billion or 1.3% of GDP, reflecting heightened uncertainty evident in less investment and a reduction in consumption. Current estimates suggest that the economic costs of the Brexit vote will rise further – even before the UK actually leaves the EU.