It seems like the UK is heading towards the March 29 deadline without any real progress towards a deal with the European Union. If no deal is reached by then and no extension has been negotiated, then the UK will crash out of the EU and there are fears of massive disruptions as suddenly border controls will have to be imposed at least across the English Channel, one of the main routes for commerce between UK and Europe. There are fears that this will lead to loss jobs due to businesses shifting operations to Europe and all manner of shortages, and people are stocking up on food and medicines in fear.
One of the major sticking points is what to do about the currently open border between Ireland (which is in the EU) and Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK). Everyone seems adamant that there should be no hard border reintroduced there. In a BBC interview with Ireland’s Europe Minister Helen McEntee, the presenter John Humphrys made the (to me at least) highly surprising suggestion for why Ireland doesn’t also quit the EU and join up with the UK, asking “There has to be an argument, doesn’t there, that says instead of Dublin telling this country that we have to stay in the single market etc within the customs union, why doesn’t Dublin, why doesn’t the Republic of Ireland, leave the EU and throw in their lot with this country?”
McEntee could have been excused for laughing out loud at the idea that Ireland, after being treated so atrociously by England for so long, should now sacrifice its own interests in order to bail out the UK from its own self-inflicted wounds, another sign of English arrogance. But she seemed to have restrained herself, simply replying, “To suggest that we should leave? Ninety-two per cent of Irish people last year said they wanted Ireland to remain part of the European Union and in fact since Brexit that figure has gotten only bigger.”
I am curious if Humphrys was simply being provocative or whether people in the UK are seriously thinking that this is a possible solution.
I am curious if Humphrys was simply being provocative or whether people in the UK are seriously thinking that this is a possible solution.
There’s so much opposition to every solution that wishful thinking abounds.
Wishful solution one: there will be a no-deal Brexit. As many have said, this would be a catastrophe for Britain, and even though the saner heads are the ones most likely to give ground, it won’t be to the point of madness.
Wishful solution two: there will be a second referendum. This is tantamount to an admission that the much lauded UK democratic system is dysfunctional. Such a thought is as likely to be accepted in the UK parliament as one that the US is not the greatest country in the world in the US congress and senate. And the nutters would go berserk.
Wishful solution three: Ireland will reunify, making the Northern Ireland problem much easier. Whether or not Ireland would choose to go with Britain is moot because (without saying never) Ireland will not reunify in the foreseeable future.
Wishful solution four: Britain will rejoin the EFTA countries for a Norway-style Brexit. That horse has well and truly bolted and Norway wouldn’t consent to have Britain back in anyway, since if they did it would be Britain, as the new biggest player, that would call the shots. Also, it would take Britain years to agree to the agreements that the EFTA already have in place.
Wishful solution five: if only it would all just go away…
What does that leave? Chaos. Also May’s solution, which everyone hates.
I think the only solution is another referendum, as there’s no majority in Parliament for any of the options. Even if a second referendum didn’t return the result I’d like to see (cancelling Brexit), at least we’d have some clarity.
I really don’t see Corbyn’s idea of leaving the EU but remaining in the Customs Union makes any sense at all. Cancelling Brexit entirely is much better than having no say at all in our non-EU trade negotiations.
May’s plan isn’t much better, since it also seems likely to leave us permanently in a Customs Union with the EU, but now with no say in external trade negotiations.
Having watched this train wreck in slow motion somewhat in detail, this isn’t the least bit surprising. Tge sheer arrogance displayed by parts of the UK establishment has been baffling. Many of them still seem to think that they are the Empire and that they can call the shots.
Whenever the EU has announced the withdrawal of one EU institution or other from the UK, there has been howling and wailing and calls about how the EU is just being unfair and cruel and trying to punish the poor brave Brits. That’s like kicking out your lover and then being upset when they take their car.
file thirteen:
Why do you think that? It was made very clear before the fact that the referendum was non-binding, it has become very clear after the fact that most voters were badly uninformed or even misinformed. And even then it was only a slim majority of those who bothered to vote, not of the voter pool, which itself is only a portion of the population.
Labour MP Kate Hoey had already made the same suggestion, so it’s possible Humphreys was just putting forth her ideas. Of course, the BBC is pro-Tory biased, and the little-spoken but actually documented (by Michael Gove in 2004) Tory position on Ireland that the island really should be united, but they want it united under British rule. They are diplomatic enough, however, not to say that out loud.
This is all according to the plan of our genius leader, the peerless Theresa May. I hope.
Are they though? I don’t know a single person who is. Not a representative sample, I’ll grant, but still…
I’m honestly surprised that wasn’t the response. “Ludicrous” would be a generous description of that suggestion.
The man is an asshole and a clown. Even his colleagues think so. He’s a laughing stock within the BBC, regularly lampooned on their comedy shows as an out-of-touch misogynist, which would be funnier if it wasn’t true.
@filethirteen, 1:
No, it wouldn’t. It would be a catastrophe only for those people in Britain who depend for their income on a salary, or even a wage, or Bod forbid government benefits.
For the independently wealthy, those whose income comes primarily from investments (e.g. basically every single person who fronted the Leave campaign, including but not limited to Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage), a no-deal Brexit will be an opportunity to, to put it crudely, take a short position on UK plc, and make a(nother) bundle of cash. ANY form of Brexit is GREAT, if you’re a multi-millionaire.
@Gilliel, 3:
Allow me to de-baffle you: the establishment is not being arrogant. They’re under no illusions as to what cards they hold in their negotiations with the EU (hint: the only card we have in our hand is that one you get that tells you some of the rules of bridge). They’re not trying to get a deal. What you see as their arrogant attitude is not aimed at their EU interlocutors, it is aimed at the horde of dullards who fell for their lies during the Leave campaign. Only by a campaign of faux-patriotic lies and fear-mongering about immigration were they able to swing the vote their way, and only by maintaining that attitude can they keep the plebs onside, angry and fearful. Right now, their absolute priority is to prevent another referendum, because on demographics alone, as of a week ago, enough old, bitter and stupid Leave voters will have died, and enough young, forward-looking and hopeful Remainers will have turned 18 that Remain would win, even if nobody voted any differently than they did in 2016.
It is absolutely vital for the aforementioned independently wealthy to keep the wage-slave dimwits frothing about the importance of “respecting the result” and maintaining “faith in politics” long enough to prevent another plebiscite. That’s the only reason they’re posturing in the ridiculous fashion that baffles you so. When you look at it like that, it makes sense, no?
sonofrojblake @#6,
I took the liberty of correcting what seemed like an obvious boldface format error in your comment and closing it. I hope you don’t mind.
Also, the stocking up of supplies has been reported in so many news reports such as this one that I assumed that it was well-known and did not bother to provide a link.
So…
A catastrophe for Britain, then.
@John #4
All true. It would be my personal wishful solution of choice, fwiw. However there seems to be no end of sticklers describing how holding a second referendum with Remain as one of the options would be the end of democracy as we (well, the UK) know it. Instances here and here (the cases against, at the bottom).
In fact imo May’s solution suffers from the same problem in that it’s already been voted down. But that will be dealt with by polishing the deck chairs slightly, rearranging them, and offering it again. It’s a lot more difficult to offer the same options disguised in another referendum though, because there’s no wiggle room when it comes to remain.
You know, I always thought that one of the main points of a democracy was that you get the chance to confirm or reverse your opinion periodically.
@Mano: thanks for fixing the borked bolding. And yes, I know there is stockpiling going on, it’s just… not, I think, anywhere near as prevalent as the Daily Mail would have its readers think. Whether that will prove to be wisdom or complacency, only time will tell.
@Holms: yes. That was precisely the point I was making, in a nutshell. Thanks for spelling it out.
@John Morales/file thirteen: “slim majority” -- that “slim majority” was over a million people. In a nation of 70m, yes, but a million people. And yes, since 2016 most of them have died. But a million people!
sonofrojblake, @11, maybe, but (data from Wikipedia):
Total votes:Registered voters/turnout :: 46,500,001:33,577,342So, 13 million people did not particularly care to bother to vote.
If you add up the “don’t cares” to the “remainers”, they exceed the “leavers” by 12 million.
So, basically, most enfranchised people either wanted to remain or didn’t mind either way. And not caring either way is not the same as wanting to leave.
(What’s the “will of the people, again”?)
Idea: In the interests of fairness, surely there should be a supplementary referendum exclusively for those who have become enfranchised only since the original referendum was held. After all, they’re now eligible voters, but they have not yet had their say.
John @#14,
Fairness? To ordinary people? Where do you get these strange ideas?
It’s true that voters in Vauxhall will have seen (Labour) after Hoey’s name, but it’s long been clear that as far as the EU and Ireland are concerned she is in effect the “D”UP member for that constituency (she is an Ulster Protestant by upbringing). many of her other views would place her in the Libertarian Party in American terms.
Further to #15, her Labour constituency association have called for the Labour whip to be withdrawn from Hoey, along with a ban on her standing for the party at any future election.
It really seems that in a matter of such national import, the yes vote should have been required to beat the remain voters and non-voters combined.
The Guardian’s page on Brexit developments contains a lot of important vote results. Very pertinent:
-- MP’s turned down amendments to stop no deal or delay Brexit, but did pass one showing (non-legally binding) opposition to no deal on principle
-- MP’s voted to accept May’s deal if the backstop was removed, but the EU says that’s part of the deal and is non-negotiable
So it looks like parliament’s current intention is to frighten the EU into negotiating on the backstop by threatening no deal. I guess it’s possible enough that the EU might buckle, to preclude that being added to my “wishful solution” list above, but I still wouldn’t put money on it. And I still think despite developments that no deal is not going to happen.
If and when the UK finally accept that the EU won’t budge on the backstop, then we’re back to what I said in comment #1: chaos. And May’s deal, with backstop, that everyone hates but what else is there?
file thirteen @#18,
It seems to me that the UK has very little leverage in their negotiations with the EU. If the UK leaves, the repercussions will be much greater for them than for the EU simply because the EU economy is so much larger that it can absorb the disruption more easily. That would explain their tough ‘no renegotiation’ stance.
So I am puzzled by the idea that the UK thinks it can ‘frighten’ the EU into renegotiating. Or am I wrong in making the above assumption and that in reality the UK leaving with no deal will cause the EU massive problems?
@Mano #19
I agree it isn’t a promising negotiating tactic, but it is a way of playing hardball. The EU have a responsibility to their citizens everywhere, including the ones currently in Britain, and don’t want to see them suffer hardship if they can avoid it.
It’s always difficult to deal with a maniac who threatens hurt and doesn’t care if others get hurt, or even they themselves get hurt more, and sometimes the toughest negotiating tactic is to be that maniac.
Similarities with Trump’s shutting down of the government spring to mind.