Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Creative Midfielder

When will the UK rejoin the EU?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

HIWEM, the longer answer (while waiting for an Amazon delivery…) goes like this, with necessary background. Although it hardly seemed discussed by either side in the campaign, at least in Great Britain, Brexit was always going to pose an Irish border problem, since the EU was never going to allow open access for a third country (ie post-Brexit UK) into the single market, as represented by the Irish Republic.

The EU wanted the border in the Irish sea, with Northern Ireland in effect staying in the single market, but May was totally in hock to the unionists, whose entire political raison d’etre is the maintenance of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and so she asked for it to be between the two parts of Ireland.

The EU agreed , with the proviso that the UK came up with technological solutions that would ensure the necessary checks on goods without disrupting trade. To no-one’s surprise the UK’s promises that this could easily be solved all turned out to be fantasies, but events made that moot anyway.

Johnson replaced May as PM and needed to make it look as if he was the great negotiator, so he had to produce some major change. What could be more major than moving the border into the Irish Sea? Of course this betrayed the unionists, but unlike May he didn’t need their votes. And it was what the EU had wanted all along, but that didn’t stop Johnson portraying it as his triumph.

Did Johnson actually understand the supposedly fantastic deal he had negotiated? The question arises because apart from anything else the promise to the people of NI of no checks and forms - “Tell them [NI business owners]…to throw them in the bin.” – has proved false.

But more generally Johnson, Truss and Frost have all recently said the whole deal is so rotten it cannot be put right with tinkering. Hence the threat of what is generally agreed by legal experts to be an unlawful move to break an international treaty.

Now various points need to be made about this. Firstly that all the way through the EU has bent over backwards to try to ease the UK's  inevitable self-harming economic pain. It agreed to a border with the Irish Republic to help May when she was PM, even though it thought it impracticable.

It then gave Johnson the renegotiating “triumph” of moving the border. And in the deal the EU agreed to periods of grace on certain aspects of trade to allow the UK/Great Britain to get to grips with the inevitable shock of leaving the single market. And as I understand it the EU is now turning a blind eye to the fact that some of these grace periods have elapsed without the government having instituted the necessary measures. And the EU is willing to renegotiate parts of the treaty.

Moving onto that, Johnson et al claim justification for their threat because renegotiation is allowed for. Which it is. A common device to cope with unforeseen problems with the original deal, or changed circumstances after some years of operation.

But there have been no such. The deal is working out pretty much as it was negotiated. It is not the EU’s fault Johnson et al consistently lied about how it would work, and are now simply complaining about the nasty reality they signed up to. The clause Johnson is clinging to for support was never intended to be used to throw most if not all of the deal overboard, and certainly not if the supposed “casus belli” is that one signee has played jolly unsportingly by actually keeping its side of the bargain.

It is true that business leaders in NI want some changes to the deal, but only at the margins, just as the clause was intended for. All surveys show both they and a majority of people support the protocol and want it to continue. Not surprising since they know NI is doing better economically than the rest of the UK, apart from London, and this is due to being in the single market, for which the protocol is a necessity.

Johnson et al have claimed all-round support on the basis that those mentioned above do want changes, but it is essentially a fraudulent argument, since those approve of most of the deal and certainly do not want it torn up, as Johnson is threatening. But when you are in fear of the barking-mad men and women of the ERG throwing you out of Downing Street, and take the views of the equally crazed extreme unionists about those of the majority in NI, including its business leaders, then rationality is not to be expected.

A final key point here is that at no stage have Johnson et al ever said the EU has broken the deal. Not once. Frost in particular has tied himself in verbal knots with intellectually nonsensical formulations, such as complaining that the EU has interpreted a legal document in an “overly legalistic” fashion. And most recently accusing it of “purism.”

To realise how looking-glass world crazy that is you only have to imagine what the reaction would be from Johnson and his government of none of the talents if the situation was reversed and the EU was threatening to illegally rip up an international treaty because the UK had been “overly legalistic” in its interpretation…

Or as Fintan O’Toole put it in The Guardian a few days ago:

Think, rather, of the strategy that Johnny Depp’s lawyers employed against Amber Heard. It is called Darvo – deny, attack and reverse victim and offender. This legislation should be called the Darvo bill: deny the flagrant breach of international law. Attack the very thing you are purporting to defend, which is the political and economic stability of Northern Ireland. And blame others (in this case the EU) for the known consequences of your own choices.

The bill is not, as Boris Johnson claimed on Monday, “a bureaucratic change that needs to be made”. It is an exercise in gaslighting. Its purpose is to invent an alternative reality in which Johnson did not himself create the protocol, did not claim of it that “There will be no checks on goods going from GB to NI, or NI to GB”, did not call it “a good arrangement … with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences” and did not insist that “it is fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement”.

Once again, the claim that the bill is illegal is the EU's claim, the UK's position is that it's defensible under article 16 of the NIP in the TCA. IMO, the bill goes too far, but I think that's simply a reflection that it's intended as a threat to get the EU to pay attention rather than a serious intention. 

Perversely, the EU actually has used the successes of border force in controlling the border in the Irish Sea to attack the government's position. 

Nobody is accusing the EU of breaking the deal because they haven't. What they are saying is that there are problems with the deal, the Irish Taoiseach has fully acknowledged the concerns of the unionist community, and has called for compromise over the NIP. On the other hand the EU is not budging in any significant way at all, even in interpretation. Even Keir Starmer accepts the protocol needs amending somehow. 

The bill in parliament sits there as a carrot to help get the DUP to the table and a stick to persuade the EU to take things seriously, because they are serious and the EU is treating unionist concerns with contempt, while the Republic is treating them with a lot more respect. If that complacency does finish up with NI blowing up and the TCA collapsing, as Tony Blair warned in his recent publication, then those that dismissed the concerns  deserve to be considered every bit as myopic as those who dismissed the threat to Northern Irish peace that leaving the customs union presented in the first place. 

If the EU still doesn't budge and the bill does go through then we'll just have to see where we end up. May we live in interesting times. 

As a wider point, the bill includes provisions for both sides to tear it up in its entirety (which only the EU is threatening BTW) along with other legal countermeasures and dispute resolution procedures that the EU is showing little interest of using, preferring to stick to big threats; the hyperbole about 'breaking international law' is merely posturing and somewhat absurd in light of some of the breaches of international law going on at the moment. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How convenient. In that case we should just go to WTO terms seeing as the IRA are nothing to worry about. 

Well that certainly seems to be the view of this Tory Government and a substantial chunk of their MPs - and it could well happen if they continue along their current incompetent, deceitful course. Our only hope seems to be that Johnson gets blown up by his own stupidity or behaviour before we actually reach that stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Well that certainly seems to be the view of this Tory Government and a substantial chunk of their MPs - and it could well happen if they continue along their current incompetent, deceitful course. Our only hope seems to be that Johnson gets blown up by his own stupidity or behaviour before we actually reach that stage.

Clearly it isn't, or they could just announce that's what they're doing tomorrow and the TCA would be officially dead 365 days later, NIP and all, completely legally. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If littleyellowbirdie's scenario of a trade war comes to fruition, there is a way to export to the EU without involving Ireland at all, and thus preserving the GFA

Immingham to Brevik or Bergen in Norway. Drive to Sweden. Smuggle over the border (every time I have been there it has been unattended), down to Malmo, over the Øresund bridge and Bob's yer uncle 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Clearly it isn't, or they could just announce that's what they're doing tomorrow and the TCA would be officially dead 365 days later, NIP and all, completely legally. 

😂 If they announced that it would be the first time ever that this government has been truthful and accurate about what it was going to do so I think we can dismiss that approach as a possibility.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, living in France as I do and listening to you guys, maybe the UK collapsing completely won't be so bad at that. You can all pop on here and congratulate each other for being so clever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/06/2022 at 19:08, littleyellowbirdie said:

Once again, the claim that the bill is illegal is the EU's claim, the UK's position is that it's defensible under article 16 of the NIP in the TCA. IMO, the bill goes too far, but I think that's simply a reflection that it's intended as a threat to get the EU to pay attention rather than a serious intention. 

The EU and pretty much everybody apart from the UK government has said it would constitute a breach of international law, and there was even an inference in the government’s own rationale that the use of the argument of necessity meant it knew was doing so.

Significantly the government never published its legal advice and it is understood the expert it would normally have consulted was deliberately kept out of the process. At an event the view of Sir Jonathan Jones, the former head of the government’s legal department, was typical, saying the supposed justification was ‘hopeless’, giving no evidence as to how the legal test had been met, or why other lesser measures, such as the safeguarding measures in the protocol under Article 16, had not been met.
 

Quote

Perversely, the EU actually has used the successes of border force in controlling the border in the Irish Sea to attack the government's position. 

Nobody is accusing the EU of breaking the deal because they haven't. What they are saying is that there are problems with the deal, the Irish Taoiseach has fully acknowledged the concerns of the unionist community, and has called for compromise over the NIP. On the other hand the EU is not budging in any significant way at all, even in interpretation. Even Keir Starmer accepts the protocol needs amending somehow. 

The bill in parliament sits there as a carrot to help get the DUP to the table and a stick to persuade the EU to take things seriously, because they are serious and the EU is treating unionist concerns with contempt, while the Republic is treating them with a lot more respect. If that complacency does finish up with NI blowing up and the TCA collapsing, as Tony Blair warned in his recent publication, then those that dismissed the concerns  deserve to be considered every bit as myopic as those who dismissed the threat to Northern Irish peace that leaving the customs union presented in the first place. 

The EU has not budged and is the problem? No. far from it. As I posted, the EU agrees that the protocol can be improved, and is willing to negotiate on that, and tried to do so, particularly over checks on goods from GB into NI that will not end up in the Irish Republic and so in the single market. And has been lenient over the grace periods expiring.

The all-important point you have not acknowledged, which again I alluded to above, and which explains all of what is going on, is that the ERG and the unionists, who are driving a politically weak Johnson to do their bidding, do not want changes to the protocol.

They don’t want there to be a protocol at all, because their real aim makes it unnecessary. Which is scrapping the Irish Sea border; The DUP recently circulated to Tory MPs a booklet with seven reasons why that border has to go.

While the EU has attempted to discuss improving the protocol, in line with the wishes of NI businesses, it cannot and will not agree to scrapping the Irish sea border and allowing open entry into the single market. Nor would any reasonable person expect it to. Certainly NI business leaders and a majority of NI residents neither want nor expect that.

The UK voted for Brexit, which meant, whether voters realised it or not, there had to be an Irish border somewhere, and Johnson chose the maritime option. The unionist argument is really with him.

 

Quote

As a wider point, the bill includes provisions for both sides to tear it up in its entirety (which only the EU is threatening BTW) along with other legal countermeasures and dispute resolution procedures that the EU is showing little interest of using, preferring to stick to big threats; the hyperbole about 'breaking international law' is merely posturing and somewhat absurd in light of some of the breaches of international law going on at the moment. 

No again. The immediate threat to tear up the protocol in its entirety has come from the UK. Clauses 15 and 16 of the bill would if approved give the UK the power to disapply in the jargon any or all of the parts of the protocol not specifically mentioned as being disapplied. As one independent summary put it:

“This power would allow ministers to disapply other parts of the protocol in future (other than specified parts) and make regulations for new arrangements through secondary legislation with limited parliamentary oversight. Although this is primarily presented as tidying up power, it is exceptionally broad, potentially giving ministers significant power, with little parliamentary oversight.”

Any EU reaction has been in response to that UK threat. As to:

"The hyperbole about 'breaking international law' is merely posturing and somewhat absurd in light of some of the breaches of international law going on at the moment." 

Not sure why this nonsensical irrelevancy has been introduced, unless it is an attempt to derail the thread.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The EU and pretty much everybody apart from the UK government has said it would constitute a breach of international law, and there was even an inference in the government’s own rationale that the use of the argument of necessity meant it knew was doing so.

Significantly the government never published its legal advice and it is understood the expert it would normally have consulted was deliberately kept out of the process. At an event the view of Sir Jonathan Jones, the former head of the government’s legal department, was typical, saying the supposed justification was ‘hopeless’, giving no evidence as to how the legal test had been met, or why other lesser measures, such as the safeguarding measures in the protocol under Article 16, had not been met.
 

The EU has not budged and is the problem? No. far from it. As I posted, the EU agrees that the protocol can be improved, and is willing to negotiate on that, and tried to do so, particularly over checks on goods from GB into NI that will not end up in the Irish Republic and so in the single market. And has been lenient over the grace periods expiring.

The all-important point you have not acknowledged, which again I alluded to above, and which explains all of what is going on, is that the ERG and the unionists, who are driving a politically weak Johnson to do their bidding, do not want changes to the protocol.

They don’t want there to be a protocol at all, because their real aim makes it unnecessary. Which is scrapping the Irish Sea border; The DUP recently circulated to Tory MPs a booklet with seven reasons why that border has to go.

While the EU has attempted to discuss improving the protocol, in line with the wishes of NI businesses, it cannot and will not agree to scrapping the Irish sea border and allowing open entry into the single market. Nor would any reasonable person expect it to. Certainly NI business leaders and a majority of NI residents neither want nor expect that.

The UK voted for Brexit, which meant, whether voters realised it or not, there had to be an Irish border somewhere, and Johnson chose the maritime option. The unionist argument is really with him.

 

No again. The immediate threat to tear up the protocol in its entirety has come from the UK. Clauses 15 and 16 of the bill would if approved give the UK the power to disapply in the jargon any or all of the parts of the protocol not specifically mentioned as being disapplied. As one independent summary put it:

“This power would allow ministers to disapply other parts of the protocol in future (other than specified parts) and make regulations for new arrangements through secondary legislation with limited parliamentary oversight. Although this is primarily presented as tidying up power, it is exceptionally broad, potentially giving ministers significant power, with little parliamentary oversight.”

Any EU reaction has been in response to that UK threat.

No again. The immediate threat to tear up the protocol in its entirety has come from the UK. Clauses 15 and 16 of the bill would if approved give the UK the power to disapply in the jargon any or all of the parts of the protocol not specifically mentioned as being disapplied. As one independent summary put it:

“This power would allow ministers to disapply other parts of the protocol in future (other than specified parts) and make regulations for new arrangements through secondary legislation with limited parliamentary oversight. Although this is primarily presented as tidying up power, it is exceptionally broad, potentially giving ministers significant power, with little parliamentary oversight.”

Any EU reaction has been in response to that UK threat. As to:

"The hyperbole about 'breaking international law' is merely posturing and somewhat absurd in light of some of the breaches of international law going on at the moment." 

Not sure why this nonsensical irrelevancy has been introduced, unless it is an attempt to derail the thread.

You currently have more patience than me Purple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

You currently have more patience than me Purple!

Still waiting for that Amazon package but it may be on its way and I think I have and said all I needed to! The point to stress is that the two sides have totally different endgames in mind. The EU is happy to adjust the protocol but its essential aim, to protect the Irish Sea border and so the single market, has to stay intact. Those driving the UK's attack on the protocol are really using it, and are quite open about this, as a way of destroying the border.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Still waiting for that Amazon package but it may be on its way and I think I have and said all I needed to! The point to stress is that the two sides have totally different endgames in mind. The EU is happy to adjust the protocol but its essential aim, to protect the Irish Sea border and so the single market, has to stay intact. Those driving the UK's attack on the protocol are really using it, and are quite open about this, as a way of destroying the border.

I quite agree and it's as you say openly admitted to. All the rest is just hyperbole. Hope Amazon arrive - I'm just waiting on some dollars here (from exports).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Those driving the UK's attack on the protocol are really using it, and are quite open about this, as a way of destroying the border.

Think the reality of the situation for most is kicking in, with Sinn Fein winning most seats last election and with the Irish Sea Border, NI is still within the single market. The likelihood of naturally NI and UK growing apart is a real risk and the reunification of Ireland seems inevitable at some point in the future. Unsure of the status of the Scottish nationalism movement, but that's likely to reenergise their requests for a vote. 

To answer the topic heading... its unlikely the UK will re-enter the EU, but its more likely we re-enter separately as NI, Scotland, Wales and England.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Think the reality of the situation for most is kicking in, with Sinn Fein winning most seats last election and with the Irish Sea Border, NI is still within the single market. The likelihood of naturally NI and UK growing apart is a real risk and the reunification of Ireland seems inevitable at some point in the future. Unsure of the status of the Scottish nationalism movement, but that's likely to reenergise their requests for a vote. 

To answer the topic heading... its unlikely the UK will re-enter the EU, but its more likely we re-enter separately as NI, Scotland, Wales and England.

I find it weird that Brexiteers standardly fail to recognise that their key argument for leaving the EU, i.e. to gain independent control of our own destiny, applies exactly the same to the individual members that make up the United Kingdom. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I find it weird that Brexiteers standardly fail to recognise that their key argument for leaving the EU, i.e. to gain independent control of our own destiny, applies exactly the same to the individual members that make up the United Kingdom. 

That is true, didn't say I oppose the developments. But I can see it being the main motivations of the conservatives/DUP agenda. I guess its quite hard being a 'unionist' if there is no union lol. 

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Think the reality of the situation for most is kicking in, with Sinn Fein winning most seats last election and with the Irish Sea Border, NI is still within the single market. The likelihood of naturally NI and UK growing apart is a real risk and the reunification of Ireland seems inevitable at some point in the future. Unsure of the status of the Scottish nationalism movement, but that's likely to reenergise their requests for a vote. 

To answer the topic heading... its unlikely the UK will re-enter the EU, but its more likely we re-enter separately as NI, Scotland, Wales and England.

If it is so important that NI remain part of the Union why don't they compromise. The bull that they don't feel part of the Union because they are still in the single market is pathetic. There are always obstacles to perfection and this really isn't one. Compromise is the minimum. And as you say, reunification is the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Think the reality of the situation for most is kicking in, with Sinn Fein winning most seats last election and with the Irish Sea Border, NI is still within the single market. The likelihood of naturally NI and UK growing apart is a real risk and the reunification of Ireland seems inevitable at some point in the future. Unsure of the status of the Scottish nationalism movement, but that's likely to reenergise their requests for a vote. 

To answer the topic heading... its unlikely the UK will re-enter the EU, but its more likely we re-enter separately as NI, Scotland, Wales and England.

Think that is probably all pretty accurate.

But it is still a puzzle that although it was crystal clear in the deal Johnson signed that there was going to be a weakening of links between Great Britain and NI whilst concurrently a strengthening of ties between NI and Ireland, nevertheless the DUP, Tory MPs and a lot of UK voters all believed Johnson's blatent lies that there would be no border in the Irish Sea and more generally that it was a fantastic oven ready deal.

I guess the reality would have kicked in a lot earlier if the pandemic hadn't provided the Government with some cover when the Brexit problems first emerged but clearly the notion that all the problems and issues we currently face are a result of the pandemic (or the energy crisis or Ukraine) isn't washing any more, and that is especially true in NI where as we've seen the economy is performing much better than the rest of the UK and has significantly reconfigured with reduced trade with Britain and greatly increased trade with Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Think you are spot on with your conclusion that the UK in its current form probably wont rejoin the EU but it's constituent parts will, quite probably at different speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

But it is still a puzzle that although it was crystal clear in the deal Johnson signed that there was going to be a weakening of links between Great Britain and NI whilst concurrently a strengthening of ties between NI and Ireland, nevertheless the DUP, Tory MPs and a lot of UK voters all believed Johnson's blatent lies that there would be no border in the Irish Sea and more generally that it was a fantastic oven ready deal.

I think it was a clear strategic decision. Get a deal signed, have clauses that the could argue at a later date to then change the deal. 

 

48 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

that is especially true in NI where as we've seen the economy is performing much better than the rest of the UK

I thought there would have been a large  amount of manufacturing moving to NI to make use of being in the single market and getting the best of both worlds. It's probably the best NI has ever had it within the Union, lets be honest NI for a significant period of time has been underserved by Westminster. 

 

51 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

significantly reconfigured with reduced trade with Britain and greatly increased trade with Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Was always going to happen and eventually UK/EU will pass a rule that conflicts with one another and at which point NI I assume would have to have a different law to the rest of the UK to maintain membership of the single market. Thus, becoming a defacto independent state. 

Not sure whether Ireland will reunify, or whether it will become independent but I fully expect it to leave the UK timescales impossible to tell and become a full member of the EU. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/06/2022 at 18:10, horsefly said:

I find it weird that Brexiteers standardly fail to recognise that their key argument for leaving the EU, i.e. to gain independent control of our own destiny, applies exactly the same to the individual members that make up the United Kingdom. 

Yep Scotland was a country before it became a colony of England. They do not need permission from Westminster to become Independent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Yep Scotland was a country before it became a colony of England. They do not need permission from Westminster to become Independent.

 

Whilst in practice it wont be quite as simple as that I think you are fundamentally right - if the Scottish Government has a clear electoral mandate to hold a referendum on independence, as the current one has, then it will be almost impossible for any Westminister government to stand in its way - never mind one in the which the PM has only one interest, that of keeping himself in a job, and can't rely on the backing of nearly 50% of his MPs (maybe more than 50% after Thursday 😂😂)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Whilst in practice it wont be quite as simple as that I think you are fundamentally right - if the Scottish Government has a clear electoral mandate to hold a referendum on independence, as the current one has, then it will be almost impossible for any Westminister government to stand in its way - never mind one in the which the PM has only one interest, that of keeping himself in a job, and can't rely on the backing of nearly 50% of his MPs (maybe more than 50% after Thursday 😂😂)

Indeed CM. And let's not forget the vote was in 2014 and pre Brexit. The economic conditions are so different - which is well understood of course by the SNP. 

Just what kind of authority has Johnson got left!

Over 84% turnout at that time. I might imagine the longer Johnson stays on then the turnout would be very high again - and who would bet against that majority 55% outcome being reversed?

This is another very interesting story that will keep evolving - and on many ways more deeply worrying - given the way the world seems in a disintegrating phase at the moment.

It's the same with Johnson - (like the union) he appears to be disintegrating in slow motion. We can see it, have to put up with it and wish it could all be over soon. It's an odd one because the longer he continues, the stronger the counter response grows. Yet there are also many people being damaged the longer his government continues. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland was never a colony of England, the act of Union passed the Scottish parliament because the country was in serious economic strife due to the failure of the Darien project. Sure it was an unfair vote in that most members of the Scottish parliament were set to gain significantly from the deal, (some were essentially bribed) and many others were just desperate for access to colonial markets, but to compare it's inclusion into Britain as akin to the Ireland's experience, or even that of Wales is just ahistoric.

Having said that, the Scottish government have a mandate for a referendum and a referendum should take place.

If the government was so desperate to keep Scotland in the Union, it should have focussed a lot more on the reasons independence is so popular and a lot less on how to prevent Scottish voters for having a say about it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/06/2022 at 17:22, sonyc said:

It's the same with Johnson - (like the union) he appears to be disintegrating in slow motion. We can see it, have to put up with it and wish it could all be over soon. It's an odd one because the longer he continues, the stronger the counter response grows. Yet there are also many people being damaged the longer his government continues. 

 

Exactly so, I think many of us have felt this conflict for quite a while, between wanting Johnson to get the bullet he so richly deserves immediately, and the longer term perspective of him continuing to damage the Tories' electoral prospects right up to the next election.

The long term option certainly has its attractions - the possibility of the Tories suffering an electoral humiliation of historic proportions but as you say the country continues to be damaged further whilst he is there and you can't help but wonder just how bad things are going to get in the next 2 years if he does manage to hang on.

Also to return to the 'when will we re-join the EU ' theme, it is already becoming clear that even some Tory MPs are beginning to have second thoughts about Brexit, or at least Johnson's very damaging version of it, but it's also clear that Johnson's exit is a pre-requisite (though no guarantee) to the UK adopting a sensible policy towards improving Johnson's appalling deal and negotiating honestly with the EU to achieve that aim.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/06/2022 at 22:50, Herman said:

Do all brexiters live in France now?

Doesn’t Farage now reside in the US? It appears they **** up this country and **** off! Though I was under the impression that UK citizens only allowed to be inside the EU for 90 days. That’s why I have a Czech citizenship too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

becoming clear that even some Tory MPs are beginning to have second thoughts about Brexit, or at least Johnson's very damaging version of it, but it's also clear that Johnson's exit is a pre-requisite (though no guarantee) to the UK adopting a sensible policy towards improving Johnson's appalling deal and negotiating honestly with the EU to achieve that aim.

And I think with your final paragraph quoted here you've made my mind up on the dilemma of him staying and doing damage to his party but continuing to damage the country, plus its reputation abroad. For the reason of a move back towards (even greater) reintegration I believe you're right - he would have to go. Even though as you say, it's not guaranteed. Yet, I'm off that fence. 

There are SO many articles and stories now about the sheer damage that Brexit is causing that I'm still hopeful that the movement towards closer links to the EU really starts to grow. Even for it to be a debate again (to prepare the public, to properly educate and with none of the hyperbole we had by the mendacious Leave movement). A debate is surely the least we might hope for.

I've just come back from France and I spoke to a few people there. They believe Brexit was really stupid - and that is from a very French rural perspective. Much sentiment is of the 'shakes head / feel sorry for you' kind of thing.

The French are also fiercely independent in their own way of course - so much food you can buy is of French origin. Plus energy and some transport is subsidised. Not that those issues are without controversy or challenges ...but perhaps those things tend to give some support to the 'state' whereas in the UK so much has been privatised / sold off. And in the so doing a little sense of national identity has gone with it?

Ah well...that move north to Scotland (or Ireland) might be something worth seriously thinking about! Both those nations seem to understand the value of being part of a bigger picture. 

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Indy said:

Doesn’t Farage now reside in the US? It appears they **** up this country and **** off! Though I was under the impression that UK citizens only allowed to be inside the EU for 90 days. That’s why I have a Czech citizenship too!

I'm eligible for an Irish passport; I'll be applying as soon as I can get my hands on all the required documentation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Indy said:

Doesn’t Farage now reside in the US? It appears they **** up this country and **** off! Though I was under the impression that UK citizens only allowed to be inside the EU for 90 days. That’s why I have a Czech citizenship too!

They've all got plenty of money to get around the new visa/passport rules. Brexit was never really going to affect the very rich pushers of the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm eligible for an Irish passport; I'll be applying as soon as I can get my hands on all the required documentation.

I've been looking into it. I just need to get a copy of my grans birth certificate and set the ball rolling. I don't really want to leave my country but if it keeps going in the direction it is, I may have to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Herman said:

I've been looking into it. I just need to get a copy of my grans birth certificate and set the ball rolling. I don't really want to leave my country but if it keeps going in the direction it is, I may have to.

 

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

They've all got plenty of money to get around the new visa/passport rules. Brexit was never really going to affect the very rich pushers of the project.

Indeed, I’ve recently been to Spain and looking to sell my rental property in the near future and purchase a second Spanish home, near Valencia. If things carry on as they are I really don’t want to living here in a few years. I’ll keep my current home and possibly rent it out to top up my dwindling pension!

If we didn’t have so many ties here with elders requiring our help we’d have moved a few years ago!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...