What's in the news?

[surrifox]

36 minutes ago, davieG said:

Brexit: Tory resentment of Irish power within EU
Nicholas Watt
Newsnight political editor

11 December 2018

A Tory grandee recently sidled up to me to express grave reservations about the Brexit process.

"We simply cannot allow the Irish to treat us like this," the former minister said about the negotiating tactics of the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar.

The Conservative MP was exasperated that the Republic of Ireland (population: 4.8m) has been able to shape the EU negotiating stance that has put such pressure on the UK (population: 66m).

"This simply cannot stand," the one-time moderniser told me. "The Irish really should know their place."

The remarks explained why Conservatives from both sides of the Brexit divide are so troubled by the negotiations. They also explain why Theresa May might find that any concessions from the EU over the Northern Ireland backstop may fall short of the demands of Tory MPs.

Over the last few months Tory MPs have asked in private how the Irish Republic can believe its relationship with the EU trumps its relationship with the UK.

They cite economic reasons (the Irish Republic's strong trading links with the UK) and the historical relationship.

The MPs do of course acknowledge that left a troubled legacy.

One minister familiar with Anglo-Irish relations points out that these Tories should bear in mind one date and one word to explain both the Irish and the EU's approach.

The date is 1973: when the Irish Republic joined the EEC at the same time as the UK and Denmark.

That was the moment when Ireland took a giant political leap at the same time as the UK.

But it turned out to be arguably the biggest unilateral strategic move since Partition in the 1920s - a move that defined the modern Irish Republic as an independent state within Europe, with a wholly different approach to its larger neighbour.

The word to bear in mind, according to this minister, is "smalls".

That defines how the EU makes a point of looking out for the interests of smaller member states, as long as they tally with the wider interests of the EU.

 

Seeking assurances
And so the EU has stood by the Taoiseach after he insisted on a definitive and legally binding assurance that there would be no hard border in Ireland after Brexit.

That is how the EU ended up demanding that the UK sign up to the backstop - a customs union for Great Britain and thecustoms union for Northern Ireland - in the event of a failure to agree a new trade deal by the end of the transition period.

The Northern Ireland backstop is the single most troublesome element of the deal and forced Theresa May to postpone the meaningful vote.

The view of the European Research Group: cast out the backstop and most Brexiteers will swallow their doubts in other areas and accept the deal.

The view of more supportive voices: soften the backstop with some legal assurances and a significant number of middle ground Brexiteers will sign up to the deal.

And so Theresa May took to the skies on Monday night to seek what she called 'assurances' from the EU.

She knows that renegotiating the withdrawal agreement would be perilous, because the likes of France would table even more difficult demands.

One senior cabinet minister told me the prime minister is therefore looking for a legal codicil, in the form of a letter, to provide a legally binding commitment on the limits of the backstop.

One supportive MP said this would need to guarantee that the backstop could last no more than a year if it is triggered.

The EU is saying it wants to help but in a very limited way. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, said before his meeting with the prime minister that the EU would provide "further clarifications and interpretations".

But there would be "no room whatsoever for renegotiation".

As the minister familiar with Anglo-Irish history said, the Irish Republic is standing by its decision of 1973 and the club is looking after its own.

And that is what alarms so many Tories: after centuries of troubled Anglo-Irish relations it is the smaller of the two islands which appears to be exercising greater power for the first time.

their attitude is hardly surprising is it . Their infrastructure has been transformed by EEC money and one of the bigger net contributors is taking their ball home.

Oh and don't bother thanking us (UK) for the 20 billion pumped in  when you mismanaged your economy to ruination because of a housing and banking boom and the vaunted  Celtic Tiger turned out to be a dead moggy   - you're more than welcome 

Edited 12 December 2018 by surrifox

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Last I saw, about 110 Tory MPs had proclaimed their support for May & only 4 had said they'd vote against her.....but clearly at least 48 intend to do so, and 110 still leaves 205 who've said nothing.

I wonder how much of that betting is informed betting and how much ill-informed?

 

If she does win big, that will represent monumentally incompetent politics by the ERG, calling for a confidence vote that secures May in power for a year and strengthen's her position.

 

If her deal is put to the Commons, unchanged bar a few warm words from the EU27, surely a lot of the Hard Brexiteers would still oppose it, along with a few Centrists who want a referendum? 

I think the ERG have already shown their total incompetence when Rees-Mogg did that impromptu press conference which they must have assumed got them over the line - they looked ridiculous a couple of days after when it already hadn't. 

 

The betting money is anyones guess - over the years I remember the Tories going to 1/2 in 2010 and not winning, going out to 5/1 in 2015 and winning, losing majority when about 1/6 in 2017.

 

Remain was 1/16 on the night of the referendum before crashing to 1/2 after Sunderland, Clinton was 1/10. John Kerry hit about 1/4 in the early hours in the 2004 US election.

 

Could have paid a mortgage off backing against the consensus over the last twenty years. 

[Jon the Hat]

More than likely she wins, but that could just mean a vote of no confidence in parliament and a whole, and her odds there are not that great either.  

 

Tory MPs will vote her out if they think about her leading them into a General election in the next year, which I think is highly likely to happen.

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think the ERG have already shown their total incompetence when Rees-Mogg did that impromptu press conference which they must have assumed got them over the line - they looked ridiculous a couple of days after when it already hadn't. 

 

The betting money is anyones guess - over the years I remember the Tories going to 1/2 in 2010 and not winning, going out to 5/1 in 2015 and winning, losing majority when about 1/6 in 2017.

 

Remain was 1/16 on the night of the referendum before crashing to 1/2 after Sunderland, Clinton was 1/10. John Kerry hit about 1/4 in the early hours in the 2004 US election.

 

Could have paid a mortgage off backing against the consensus over the last twenty years. 

 

BBC lunchtime news said that 172 Tory MPs have now publicly backed her.

 

Even if a few are telling porkies, that suggests she'll definitely win, so seems to be just a matter of whether it's a big or a narrow win.

 

Less than 100 voting against her could strengthen her (and weaken the ERG crew). Much more than 100 against her would undermine her authority, I'd have thought.

[Bobby Hundreds]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Tory MPs will vote her out if they think about her leading them into a General election in the next year, which I think is highly likely to happen.

 Replaced by who?  

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

BBC lunchtime news said that 172 Tory MPs have now publicly backed her.

 

Even if a few are telling porkies, that suggests she'll definitely win, so seems to be just a matter of whether it's a big or a narrow win.

 

Less than 100 voting against her could strengthen her (and weaken the ERG crew). Much more than 100 against her would undermine her authority, I'd have thought.

Winning is an absolute certainly I think now.

 

I think anything less than 100 and she's OK - if it's down at 60-70 it's a total embarrassment for those who want her gone. 

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Knowing Corbyn he'll probably start with climate change or something today.

"Wendy, a mother of 4 from Southend wrote to me, expressing her concerns about climate change.."

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

"Wendy, a mother of 4 from Southend wrote to me, expressing her concerns about climate change.."

His finest was one early last year when he opened up with a concern about the closing of a local bus stop

 

He was crap again today even with all this hanging over May (one Tory even heckled "give him another six"), I suppose he can't really go on too much about it as 180 odd of his own MP's voted to have no confidence in him.

 

Problem is he doesn't really care about PMQ's - his only target during it is to sneak in a 45 second rant about austerity/tory cuts they can then put on Social Media and share among his supporters to show how much "he cares".

[AKCJ]

What a ****ing mess.

[Jon the Hat]

25 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

 Replaced by who?  

There are dozens of MPs who would perform better in an election campaign.  Much like in the opposition.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, surrifox said:

their attitude is hardly surprising is it . Their infrastructure has been transformed by EEC money and one of the bigger net contributors is taking their ball home.

Oh and don't bother thanking us (UK) for the 20 billion pumped in  when you mismanaged your economy to ruination because of a housing and banking boom and the vaunted  Celtic Tiger turned out to be a dead moggy   - you're more than welcome 

 

European money certainly helped the Irish to transform their infrastructure - and their whole economy. That's only part of the picture, though.

 

The Irish economy was transformed to such an extent that Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU - and set to see those contributions rise.

 

That national economic success was also due partly to low corporate taxation and low public spending (apart from education). Low corporation tax, combined with high educational levels & the English language, has allowed them to attract a lot of big multinationals. The other side of that coin is that spending on public services in Ireland is very low, personal taxation is quite high - and Ireland has exceptionally high levels of inequality, poverty, drug problems etc.

 

Ironically, the national economic model that has proved such a great "success" is precisely what right-wing Tories would like to do to this country.

 

I'm not sure what the 20 billion is that you're referring to (post-crash funds injected by EU?). Anyway, I think the Irish people paid plenty for the mismanagement of their economy (as the British people did) in the form of austerity policies introduced by their national govt - again, a great success in Ireland, if you look purely at the national economy overall; rather less so if you look at the impact on Joe Public (or Seamus Public)....

[Foxxed]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

 

Could change / can raise.

 

This is as much "scare" tactics as before the Brexit vote. they could decrease tariffs, thay can change systems for the better.

 

I find it hard to believe that the EU are going to hurt their own exporters and importers. Sure things may not be as good for UK business but I doubt they will be that much worse people need to get a grip. 

A successful Brexit encourages other anti-EU movements in Europe. Brexit is an existential crisis to the EU.

 

The EU won't want to see the UK nose dive into a crisis. But they won't want to give to the UK better economic terms.

 

The EU would either prefer a no-brexit crisis that forces the government to call a GE and which the EU can reverse in emergency talks. Or the current deal that reduces our economic power and influence.

 

But the fact the single market's power is so great they can force this is something that some will forever deny - since it involves accepting some painful economic facts.

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

She shouldn't stand in the leadership election, she's finished and needs to accept it 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

She shouldn't stand in the leadership election, she's finished and needs to accept it 

 

If she loses the confidence vote, she's not allowed to stand in any leadership election.

 

If she wins it, there's no leadership election (unless she chooses to resign despite winning the vote).

[Jon the Hat]

The irony being we have a PM which well over half of our elected representatives don't think should be PM, but who will likely remain as PM.

[Foxxed]

I reckon the Tories will force May to call a GE. The Tories know she, or whomever, will probably lose and the other party hopefuls can attempt to lead the party in the election afterwards.

 

Labour can then deal with the mess. And Labour will either:

 

1) Mess it up. Then the Tories can say: "We asked the public to allow us to continue. But they said no. And we accept this and we have changed. But now Labour must take responsibility for their mess. Britain deserves better. Britain deserves a new Tory government."

 

2) Take the EU's deal. Then the Tories can say: "We wanted to perform the will of Britain's people. But the people voted Labour. And now Labour have betrayed Britain by ignoring the referendum. Vote Tory."

 

3) Call a second referendum, reverse Brexit and both parties can go back to arguing about social services, crime and the economy. 

 

Brexit is a poison, a poison the Tories want to give to Labour.

[The Horse's Mouth]

11 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

I reckon the Tories will force May to call a GE. The Tories know she, or whomever, will probably lose and the other party hopefuls can attempt to lead the party in the election afterwards.

 

Labour can then deal with the mess. And Labour will either:

 

1) Mess it up. Then the Tories can say: "We asked the public to allow us to continue. But they said no. And we accept this and we have changed. But now Labour must take responsibility for their mess. Britain deserves better. Britain deserves a new Tory government."

 

2) Take the EU's deal. Then the Tories can say: "We wanted to perform the will of Britain's people. But the people voted Labour. And now Labour have betrayed Britain by ignoring the referendum. Vote Tory."

 

3) Call a second referendum, reverse Brexit and both parties can go back to arguing about social services, crime and the economy. 

 

Brexit is a poison, a poison the Tories want to give to Labour.

I doubt it, the hard brexiteers just want to have a leadership election to run the clock down so it looks as if no deal is the only option. You can't put brexit onto labour now when they've been dealing with it for 2 years, if brexit is a disaster whether a Labour government is the one to pass it through or not it still reflects on the Tories. I reckon it's the other way round, the remainers of the Tory party probably want a second referendum with the outcome being remain because it's the only chance they've got of redeeming the party somewhat 

[Foxxed]

1 minute ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I doubt it, the hard brexiteers just want to have a leadership election to run the clock down so it looks as if no deal is the only option. You can't put brexit onto labour now when they've been dealing with it for 2 years, if brexit is a disaster whether a Labour government is the one to pass it through or not it still reflects on the Tories. I reckon it's the other way round, the remainers of the Tory party probably want a second referendum with the outcome being remain because it's the only chance they've got of redeeming the party somewhat 

Perhaps. I'm not sure how many remainers there are in the Conversations tbh. I can't only remember one woman and the MP for the City of London. Perhaps there are enough to side with Labour in a vote of confidence. But even Boris has backed away from Brexit now. I think there are plenty of Brexiteers who want rid of Brexit tbh.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Perhaps. I'm not sure how many remainers there are in the Conversations tbh. I can't only remember one woman and the MP for the City of London. Perhaps there are enough to side with Labour in a vote of confidence. But even Boris has backed away from Brexit now. I think there are plenty of Brexiteers who want rid of Brexit tbh.

Not a single thing stated here is true, most of the Conservative party backed remain in 2016 - now most want to honour the referendum result.

 

Boris hasn't backed away from Brexit at all.

[Leicester_Loyal]

May will win the vote unfortunately.

[RoboFox]

*record scratch*

 

*freeze frame*

 

"Yup, that's me. Ed. You're probably wondering how this one bacon sandwich caused the entire country to descend into utter chaos."

 

[Nick]

32 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

I reckon the Tories will force May to call a GE. The Tories know she, or whomever, will probably lose and the other party hopefuls can attempt to lead the party in the election afterwards.

 

Labour can then deal with the mess. And Labour will either:

 

1) Mess it up. Then the Tories can say: "We asked the public to allow us to continue. But they said no. And we accept this and we have changed. But now Labour must take responsibility for their mess. Britain deserves better. Britain deserves a new Tory government."

 

2) Take the EU's deal. Then the Tories can say: "We wanted to perform the will of Britain's people. But the people voted Labour. And now Labour have betrayed Britain by ignoring the referendum. Vote Tory."

 

3) Call a second referendum, reverse Brexit and both parties can go back to arguing about social services, crime and the economy. 

 

Brexit is a poison, a poison the Tories want to give to Labour.

The tories would never make a conscious decision to hand over power, if she wins and doesn’t resign they risk Corbyn beating May in the next General Election. If she loses it gives the Tories an arguably greater chance of staying in power.

[Foxxed]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not a single thing stated here is true, most of the Conservative party backed remain in 2016 - now most want to honour the referendum result.

 

Boris hasn't backed away from Brexit at all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-46498827/brexit-i-feel-deep-sense-of-responsibility-says-boris-johnson

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/09/uk/boris-johnson-resignation-letter-intl/index.html

 

These aren't the words of an enthusiastic man. These are the words of a man who's accepted defeat.

 

And the MP for the City of London is remain.

 

If there are tons of Tories who will vote against her I'll take your word for it.

Edited 12 December 2018 by Foxxed

[surrifox]

51 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

European money certainly helped the Irish to transform their infrastructure - and their whole economy. That's only part of the picture, though.

 

The Irish economy was transformed to such an extent that Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU - and set to see those contributions rise.

 

That national economic success was also due partly to low corporate taxation and low public spending (apart from education). Low corporation tax, combined with high educational levels & the English language, has allowed them to attract a lot of big multinationals. The other side of that coin is that spending on public services in Ireland is very low, personal taxation is quite high - and Ireland has exceptionally high levels of inequality, poverty, drug problems etc.

 

Ironically, the national economic model that has proved such a great "success" is precisely what right-wing Tories would like to do to this country.

 

I'm not sure what the 20 billion is that you're referring to (post-crash funds injected by EU?). Anyway, I think the Irish people paid plenty for the mismanagement of their economy (as the British people did) in the form of austerity policies introduced by their national govt - again, a great success in Ireland, if you look purely at the national economy overall; rather less so if you look at the impact on Joe Public (or Seamus Public)....

The 20 billion is my recollection of the financial support provided in the form of soft loans and outright grants to prop up their banking system . I'm not denying that it was in our interests to prevent it collapsing but the support came from individual states not the EU (and fair play they have addressed the issue and made restitution after rebuilding the economy).

One of the big multinationals , Apple has been using Ireland as a base for evading Corporation Tax. The EU has rightly ruled against such anti- competitive practice and ordered Ireland to assess CT on the company which would stick them with a bill running into billions and sending them shuffling off to the next tax haven. Ireland are reluctant to comply with the EU ruling and appear to have ignored it, having realised there's nothing they can say to mitigate such a breach of EU rules.

 

Sooner or later someone will ask the question why are Cyprus allowed to operate virtually their entire growing financial services industry on the back of a massive Russian based money laundering operation which adds legitimacy to  the operation as its happening in plain sight. If you are a foreign  buyer for some of the high priced apartments and other properties ( mostly foreign owned )  in Central London  an incentive offered is EU citizenship (via a Cypriot passport). Pretty sure that whoring your citizenship must breach EU rules (haven't checked) and I'm not proud that we tolerate such practices happening here. It does demonstrate that we don't have the monopoly on hypocrisy when the EU are also in the game.

[Kopfkino]

Reckon it will be 200-90 based on what I've seen with a few abstentions but secret ballot could make it closer. It shows the absolute mess we are in. Unless enough MPs realise the right thing is to push the deal through, where do we go from here