Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Detournement]

21 minutes ago, renton said:

That's not to say that many Scots did not make it rich out of the Empire, but those same people would've been making it rich somehow, somewhere. The argument is not about individuals but about the nation. Some Scots may have made it big out of Empire, but Scotland itself did not.

This whole post was nonsense. You can't compare trading within Europe to the massive looting of the western hemisphere, Africa, the subcontinent and East Asia. Scotland clearly got it's share of the wealth transferred from the imperial outposts to the centre.

The capital created by slavery (including post Wilberforce) and imperialism still exists in inherited wealth and the buildings which surround us. Glasgow Uni recently published a study into how they benefitted directly from slavery and every single pre 1945 institution will be the same. 

[Pet Jeden]

59 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

The border in Ireland will become a border between the EU and the UK. It may be located in Ireland but if Ireland is to remain an integral part of the bloc then it is effectively a border for all of them.

So. The UK seems to be willing to dilute sovereignty a bit to avoid an old-fashioned hard border. What do you think Ireland - as a joint signatory to the GFA, - should be prepared compromise on? And what leeway should the EU give Ireland.  Surely they will both be prepared to dilute their sovereignty a wee bit, for the sake of peace? No?

Edited September 30, 2019 by Pet Jeden

[renton]

12 minutes ago, Detournement said:

This whole post was nonsense. You can't compare trading within Europe to the massive looting of the western hemisphere, Africa, the subcontinent and East Asia. Scotland clearly got it's share of the wealth transferred from the imperial outposts to the centre.

The capital created by slavery (including post Wilberforce) and imperialism still exists in inherited wealth and the buildings which surround us. Glasgow Uni recently published a study into how they benefitted directly from slavery and every single pre 1945 institution will be the same. 

I imagine that even an independent Scotland post 1707 would still have made a lot of it's income from morally reprehensible schemes, as any nation trading with the Americas at the time would, and being right next door to England's empire would have sharpened that instinct as well. The question is whether Union with England and the imperial access that went with it was somehow necessary for Scotland to not be 'a provincial backwater' - my contention is that it was not because:

1. Outside of the restrictions of the Navigations and Aliens act and the subsequent US war of independence we'd still have been engaging in all that tobacco trade and it's attendant slavery

2. Parts of our infrastructure that became entirely dependent on the British empire would not necessary be so. Indeed, through a particularly turbulent time in Europe we'd still have third party access to the Dutch and French empires (and their grubbiness). As well as trading with - for example - Scandinavia.

I'm not disputing that large chunks of Scottish infrastructure grew up around the accumulated private wealth of individuals involved with Slavery. I'm making the point that the British Empire, though clearly an optimal basis for doing so, was not intrinsically necessary in the development of those aspects of the Scottish economy. 

Edited September 30, 2019 by renton

[Lee Van Tee]

Strangely we don't hear too much about modern day slavery in Africa in places like Mauritania.

I heard a woman from work recently talking about how Glasgow had swept its slavery connections under the carpet, although everybody I know knows about it and none of them are  remotely proud of it. 

I mentioned Mauritania, and she obviously knew nothing about it.

[Detournement]

While I agree it's possible to construct a convenient counterfactual history it's very difficult to imagine Scotland remaining independent during the Age of Empire. 

It's also far more productive to focus on what actually happened and that is that Scotland - overwhelmingly the upper class and the bourgeoisie - was enriched by colonial practices. 

[hearthammer]

41 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

The Empire was built on murder, theft, slavery, rape and genocide.

A horrendous chapter in the history of the world. 

It should be looked back on with the utmost shame and anyone talking of it as they were some sort of glory days that should be aspired to needs an absolute hiding.

I believe that's why westminster still sends astronomical annual amounts of "aid" to a number of countries as some form of reparation and "mea culpa" for the utter devastation caused when blighty hubristically thought they ruled the waves world. 

[Fullerene]

34 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

So. The UK seems to be willing to dilute sovereignty a bit to avoid an old-fashioned hard border. What do you think Ireland - as a joint signatory to the GFA, - should be prepared compromise on? And what leeway should the EU give Ireland.  Surely they will both be prepared to dilute their sovereignty a wee bit, for the sake of peace? No?

My point is that it is not Ireland that is being asked to compromise - it is the whole of the EU.  Ireland is part of the EU.  If you smuggle chlorinated chicken into Ireland, will there be any checks to stop those chickens going on to France.  Presumably no - because France and Ireland are both in the EU.  The EU do not want the border to become the Maginot line of smuggled imports from the UK into the EU27. 

[Pet Jeden]

12 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

My point is that it is not Ireland that is being asked to compromise - it is the whole of the EU.  Ireland is part of the EU.  If you smuggle chlorinated chicken into Ireland, will there be any checks to stop those chickens going on to France.  Presumably no - because France and Ireland are both in the EU.  The EU do not want the border to become the Maginot line of smuggled imports from the UK into the EU27. 

1. Most of RoI's exports go through the UK - and we keep being told about the fastidious and lengthy checks that will be carried out at Calais.

2. Surely RoI/France can do some checks on the sea crossings (as UK is offering to do on the routes to/from NI) ?

3. Chicken smuggling ffs! Should we not be more concerned to filter out drug smuggling and human trafficking.

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

My point is that it is not Ireland that is being asked to compromise - it is the whole of the EU.  Ireland is part of the EU.  If you smuggle chlorinated chicken into Ireland, will there be any checks to stop those chickens going on to France.  Presumably no - because France and Ireland are both in the EU.  The EU do not want the border to become the Maginot line of smuggled imports from the UK into the EU27. 

That's why the EU are quietly desperate to avoid a no deal Brexit. The only way to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and the Good Friday Agreement would be to have an effective border on the Channel, undermining Ireland part in it and the "all for one and one for all" coda. Otherwise I think they've had enough and would happily be shot of us. I also doubt they'd be happy to see a referendum 2 voting Remain, another decade of the whining British mad men not being able to decide what they want.

Edited September 30, 2019 by welshbairn

[Fullerene]

Just now, Pet Jeden said:

1. Most of RoI's exports go through the UK - and we keep being told about the fastidious and lengthy checks that will be carried out at Calais.

2. Surely RoI/France can do some checks on the sea crossings (as UK is offering to do on the routes to/from NI) ?

3. Chicken smuggling ffs! Should we not be more concerned to filter out drug smuggling and human trafficking.

I was using chickens as example.  Obviously the same thing would apply to other things too.

[ICTJohnboy]

Sajid Javid (and others) insisting the UK is leaving the EU on the 31st despite the legal requirement for a request to an Article 50 extension, in the even of there being No Deal in place. Nobody is prepared to reveal how this could happen without breaking the law, which is causing much speculation regarding some kind of cunning plan.

Could it be they are counting on an EU country (Hungary, perhaps) to veto the possibility of the EU granting an extension to Article 50?

How else might they get round the so called Benn Act?

 

ETA.... Hearing that the Lib Dems will not agree to a VONC in the Gov/t as it would lead to Corbyn becoming PM.

How stupid are they?

Edited September 30, 2019 by ICTJohnboy

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Sajid Javid (and others) insisting the UK is leaving the EU on the 31st despite the legal requirement for a request to an Article 50 extension, in the even of there being No Deal in place. Nobody is prepared to reveal how this could happen without breaking the law, which is causing much speculation regarding some kind of cunning plan.

Could it be they are counting on an EU country (Hungary, perhaps) to veto the possibility of the EU granting an extension to Article 50?

How else might they get round the so called Benn Act?

I'd imagine they'll stall until it's too late for the courts to stop us crashing out on Oct 31st.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

1. Most of RoI's exports go through the UK - and we keep being told about the fastidious and lengthy checks that will be carried out at Calais

2. Surely RoI/France can do some checks on the sea crossings (as UK is offering to do on the routes to/from NI) ? ...

They have been making preparations to boost ferry capacity direct to the continent so point 1 isn't insurmountable, 5-1. Agree that point 2 is something that could have been explored in technical terms but it is about as palatable to Irish nationalists as checks at Larne have been for the DUP.

[Pet Jeden]

1 minute ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Sajid Javid (and others) insisting the UK is leaving the EU on the 31st despite the legal requirement for a request to an Article 50 extension, in the even of there being No Deal in place. Nobody is prepared to reveal how this could happen without breaking the law, which is causing much speculation regarding some kind of cunning plan.

Could it be they are counting on an EU country (Hungary, perhaps) to veto the possibility of the EU granting an extension to Article 50?

How else might they get round the so called Benn Act?

They could be bluffing. But more likely is that there are other laws that contradict the Surrender Act. I said in a post a few weeks ago, clever-dick legalistic solutions are rarely solutions. There's always a loophole or counter-law. And for every loophole there's a smart-alec lawyer claiming he/she has yet another solution.Etc,etc,etc. These are political/democratic problems that need political/democratic solutions. The law is there to enforce what society has agreed. If society can't agree, the law is almost useless. Except for boosting lawyers egos and bank accounts.

[Pet Jeden]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That's why the EU are quietly desperate to avoid a no deal Brexit. The only way to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and the Good Friday Agreement would be to have an effective border on the Channel, undermining Ireland part in it and the "all for one and one for all" coda. Otherwise I think they've had enough and would happily be shot of us. I also doubt they'd be happy to see a referendum 2 voting Remain, another decade of the whining British mad men not being able to decide what they want.

You're an optimist. You think another decade would sort it?

[ICTJohnboy]

13 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'd imagine they'll stall until it's too late for the courts to stop us crashing out on Oct 31st.

 

9 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

They could be bluffing. But more likely is that there are other laws that contradict the Surrender Act. I said in a post a few weeks ago, clever-dick legalistic solutions are rarely solutions. There's always a loophole or counter-law. And for every loophole there's a smart-alec lawyer claiming he/she has yet another solution.Etc,etc,etc. These are political/democratic problems that need political/democratic solutions. The law is there to enforce what society has agreed. If society can't agree, the law is almost useless. Except for boosting lawyers egos and bank accounts.

 

So is leaving on the 31st with no deal now the most likely option?

Eta...Should have said outcome.

Edited September 30, 2019 by ICTJohnboy

[welshbairn]

Just now, ICTJohnboy said:

 

 

So is leaving on the 31st with no deal now the most likely option?

I think there's still a chance of Parliament voting for May's deal with cosmetic changes to the backstop. Or Parliament forcing an extension for a GE/Referendum. Odds slightly in favour of the latter.

[Pet Jeden]

5 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

They have been making preparations to boost ferry capacity direct to the continent so point 1 isn't insurmountable, 5-1. Agree that point 2 is something that could have been explored in technical terms but it is about as palatable to Irish nationalists as checks at Larne have been for the DUP.

I know. But surely the grown-ups can persuade them both to accept a slight detachment from their beloved EU and UK? This is a microcosm of the whole problem in Ireland (imho). It's in the genes of the Irish and the Scots. Too similar - could  start an argument in an empty house, too much fondness for the drink and can both nurse a grievance for centuries. Not that I approve of stereotypes or anything.

[Pet Jeden]

6 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

 

So is leaving on the 31st with no deal now the most likely option?

My guess is more likely that EU/RoI give a wee bit and Boris gets it through Parliament, maybe with an agreed short extension to implement it. tbh if EU/RoI just accepted that after x years the backstop can - in theory - be unilaterally exited by the UK, then in practice everybody would be so unwilling to get back into the big argument (except a small Peoples Front for Proper Brexit) that the whole thing would go into a long, deep sleep. And then we would worry about something else for the foreseeable. ..like climate change.

[ICTJohnboy]

3 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

My guess is more likely that EU/RoI give a wee bit and Boris gets it through Parliament, maybe with an agreed short extension to implement it. tbh if EU/RoI just accepted that after x years the backstop can - in theory - be unilaterally exited by the UK, then in practice everybody would be so unwilling to get back into the big argument (except a small Peoples Front for Proper Brexit) that the whole thing would go into a long, deep sleep. And then we would worry about something else for the foreseeable. ..like climate change.

 

It would make so much more sense to be considering climate change as part of the EU rather than as a separate entity - especially in these times, when Trump Mk2  is at the helm.