Should we stop bullying the United Kingdom?

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 1:00pm

It reminds me of some of the arguments made by ultra conservatives generally.
"Stop bullying me flaunting your (insert characteristic of group they don't like) all over the place!!"

I mean it was awful they way Ireland bullied them during the famine. We really did make such a fuss about starving to death. Have you any idea how uncomfortable that made some members of the establishment?!

DEFTLEFTHAND · 21-02-2018 1:05pm

Bullying them? My opinion of Britain has sky rocketed since Brexit. Who would have ever thought it eh? Britain the rebels, I'm so proud of them and what they've set in motion.

See we come at from a completely different perspective as a net drain and insignificant EU member.

lawred2 · 21-02-2018 1:07pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Bullying them? My opinion of Britain has sky rocketed since Brexit. Who would have ever thought it eh? Britain the rebels, I'm so proud of them and what they've set in motion.

See we come at from a completely different perspective as a net drain and insignificant EU member.

:rolleyes:

righto chap

ohnonotgmail · 21-02-2018 1:13pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Bullying them? My opinion of Britain has sky rocketed since Brexit. Who would have ever thought it eh? Britain the rebels, I'm so proud of them and what they've set in motion.

See we come at from a completely different perspective as a net drain and insignificant EU member.

we are now net contributors to the EU.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 1:25pm

The irony is that many countries spent decades and centuries trying to get independence from the UK having been taken by force during the colonial period and now the Tories have pillaged that narrative and used it against a voluntary, cooperative organisation they applied to be a member of.

It's a bizzare distortion if a colonial victim's narrative being applied to a grown up arrangement between states on an entirely voluntary basis.

The UK voted to leave the EU and the EU said: OK! Bye. Here's your share of the bills.

The UK then said : listen up (insert list of derogatory terms for EU nationalities) : OMG that's soooooooooo unfair. Also we demand to be able to use all of your facilities for perpetuity at no cost and screw your rules! If you don't grant us this, you're bullying us!! Omg it sooooo totally unfair! You're fascists!! Aghhh!!

It then spent months shouting at itself and in deep negotiations with tabloid newspapers for some reason. Meanwhile the EU keeps asking what the UK wants and the UK keeps making meaningless statements about a big and beautiful Brexit.

jooksavage · 21-02-2018 1:31pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

The irony is that many countries spent decades and centuries trying to get independence from the UK having been taken by force during the colonial period and now the Tories have pillaged that narrative and used it against a voluntary, cooperative organisation they applied to be a member of.

Wait until Scotland's next independence campaign. All this talk of national sovereignty from the likes of Rees-Mogg will dry up pretty quickly.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 1:41pm

jooksavage wrote: »

Wait until Scotland's next independence campaign. All this talk of national sovereignty from the likes of Rees-Mogg will dry up pretty quickly.

That's dangerous use of logic which may be outlawed under the Control of Heretics and Thought Crimes Against Brexit Act.

RoboRat · 21-02-2018 1:46pm

Herb Powell wrote: »

They're literally occupying over a fifth of the country, so the "bullying" claim is completely laughable.

I haven't been a big fan of Varadkar for various reasons, but to be quite honest I'm happy with how he has been handling Brexit. A no bullshhit approach.

Have to agree re Varadkar, past politicians would have been happy to sit on the fence and try as usual to appease everyone, except the inhabitants of this island. He is standing up for the country and laying a marker in the sand and whilst I was extremely skeptical when he took office, he has changed my opinion.

Billy86 · 21-02-2018 1:48pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in fairness, they didn't vote to have May as Prime Minister. The Tories got 42% of the vote in the 2017 election, the only one they have fought with May as leader. 58% of the voters seem to want someone else. It's just the vagaries of the quaintly crapulous UK election system that has put her in office.

Still, I don't see how they can blame Irish bullying for that. Unless you consoder the DUP to be a manifestation of Irish bullying, of course. Which I suppose is at least arguable!

That doesn't hold weight though, since 1970 the only PM to get more than May's 42.4% were Blair in 1997 (43.4%) and Thatcher in 1979 (43.9%). The last time anyone got an outright majority in a UK election was Stanley Baldwin in 1931 by the looks of things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections

The Tories vastly under-performed last year in what was supposed to be a 'power grab' election for them, but they will wound up a percentage of voters that has only twice (and barely at that) been bested in almost half a century. I think almost all of us wish they weren't making the decisions they have been in the last few years, but since they have done so the benefits of democracy dictate they get to live with them.

Meanwhile we're probably one of the most pro-EU nations out there, so we'll stick with our wishes and they can have theirs.

21-02-2018 1:48pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

That's dangerous use of logic which may be outlawed under the Control of Heretics and Thought Crimes Against Brexit Act.

although it is kind of ironic that when the SNP used the same argument, it was considered a bonafide one.

Billy86 · 21-02-2018 1:55pm

jooksavage wrote: »

Which politicians?

Unless they start repoulating places like St. Kildas and Scarba...

Got some laugh out of that considering St. Kilda in Melbourne is maybe the biggest area for Irish migrants in Australia. :pac:

Billy86 · 21-02-2018 2:10pm

jooksavage wrote: »

Wait until Scotland's next independence campaign. All this talk of national sovereignty from the likes of Rees-Mogg will dry up pretty quickly.

As much as that would be the result, there will be no second referendum. Why? Because that would be the result.

10000maniacs · 21-02-2018 2:33pm

doolox wrote: »

They do not have an opinion either way and neither should we.

Uk or their great pals the US can do us a lot of economic damage if we get too uppity as a country and start making life difficult for them. The US could influence a sharp reduction in FDI and tourist spending and really screw us over.

The UK are responsible for 45% of our foreign trade and we cannot afford to lose that.

The reality is that a lot of people in the US and UK are not in favour of Brexit and only are doing it to get votes from the ordinary xenophobic, anti foreigner voter.

The real powers that be would prefer harmony and unity in Europe and the US would prefer to deal with a UK in the EU. The Conservatives and Labour are looking to maintain as much advantage by keeping as close as possible to full membership but they realise that to say so will cost votes and they would sell their mother for votes.

45% of our trade is both ways.
Easy to remedy if need be. We don't need the UK.
Bovril, Weetabix, Cocoa, Steak and Kidney pie. Just about everything in Marks and Sparks, Steel rail tracks, coal, pothole covers, Lyons Tea, Toys, etc.
Every one of those examples is available somewhere else in the world at a similar price.
And produce less farm products and comsume it ourselves.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 2:43pm

Aegir wrote: »

although it is kind of ironic that when the SNP used the same argument, it was considered a bonafide one.

By some. The Scots are a lot more pragmatic about nationalism than the Brexiteers. It's actually unlikely at present that Scotland would go for independence. It's also hard to know whether the Tories would grant it, or whether they'd turn on Scotland like Spain's conservative PP did on Catalonia. I'm not saying sending in the army, but just refusing to grant the results of a referendum.

jimgoose · 21-02-2018 2:43pm

I think we should pull their jocks up over their heads from behind and steal their lunch money. Then call it all quits and be mates, like.

21-02-2018 3:26pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's also hard to know whether the Tories would grant it, or whether they'd turn on Scotland like Spain's conservative PP did on Catalonia. I'm not saying sending in the army, but just refusing to grant the results of a referendum.

that's just daft.

if there was a referendum and that was the result, then that is what would happen.

As it is, the SNP aren't being pragmatic about a referendum, they know it is pointless to call one.

topper75 · 21-02-2018 4:45pm

There are two separate questions:

-Are the British doing what is right for Britain?
-Are the British doing what is right for Ireland?

They are getting conflated in the thread into one, "Are the British doing what is right?"

The answer to the two questions above are Yes and No respectively. But why should we expect them to do right by us.

The real soreness in Europe, and indeed Ireland, about this move is the financial aspect. The Brits leaving will hole the EU budgets below the waterline. In addition, tarriffs/customs mean that Irish exporters and thus employment is about to take a hit that no starry blue flag will save us from despite the hopes of the Fine Gael leader. The low growth in the EU and utter paranoia of the Weimar grandchildren in Frankfurt regarding inflation means something in time will have to give here in Ireland. We are about to find out how small we are over the next ten years in a way that we have denied up until now. EU apron strings will choke us just like British strings choked us 150 years ago.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 5:35pm

Aegir wrote: »

that's just daft.

if there was a referendum and that was the result, then that is what would happen.

As it is, the SNP aren't being pragmatic about a referendum, they know it is pointless to call one.

I'd have my doubts. There's no constitutional basis for forcing them to actually grant Scottish Independence. The status of Northern Ireland is actually agreed by the GFA. If the population of the North were to vote to change to the Republic, they could do that and that's already agreed.

The situation in Scotland's far muddier.

Ipso · 21-02-2018 5:45pm

topper75 wrote: »

There are two separate questions:

-Are the British doing what is right for Britain?
-Are the British doing what is right for Ireland?

They are getting conflated in the thread into one, "Are the British doing what is right?"

The answer to the two questions above are Yes and No respectively. But why should we expect them to do right by us.

The real soreness in Europe, and indeed Ireland, about this move is the financial aspect. The Brits leaving will hole the EU budgets below the waterline. In addition, tarriffs/customs mean that Irish exporters and thus employment is about to take a hit that no starry blue flag will save us from despite the hopes of the Fine Gael leader. The low growth in the EU and utter paranoia of the Weimar grandchildren in Frankfurt regarding inflation means something in time will have to give here in Ireland. We are about to find out how small we are over the next ten years in a way that we have denied up until now. EU apron strings will choke us just like British strings choked us 150 years ago.

The one big question is, do the Tories even know what they are doing?
How long has it been since the Yes vote?

21-02-2018 5:49pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

I'd have my doubts. There's no constitutional basis for forcing them to actually grant Scottish Independence. The status of Northern Ireland is actually agreed by the GFA. If the population of the North were to vote to change to the Republic, they could do that and that's already agreed.

The situation in Scotland's far muddier.

there is a constitutional basis, its called an act of parliament.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 5:56pm

Aegir wrote: »

there is a constitutional basis, its called an act of parliament.

That's not a constitutional basis. That's a legislative basis.
It would have to be approved by Westminster and that may not happen. If Scotland were to unilateraly launch a vote, it could well go unrecognised.

It's also an advisory referendum. A completely different concept to an Irish constitutional referendum, which carries serious legal weight, entirely independent of government or parliament once passed

If NI were to initiate one, it's covered by the Belfast Agreement / GFA which is an international treaty lodged with the UN.

21-02-2018 6:25pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

That's not a constitutional basis. That's a legislative basis.
It would have to be approved by Westminster and that may not happen. If Scotland were to unilateraly launch a vote, it could well go unrecognised.

It's also an advisory referendum. A completely different concept to an Irish constitutional referendum, which carries serious legal weight, entirely independent of government or parliament once passed

If NI were to initiate one, it's covered by the Belfast Agreement / GFA which is an international treaty lodged with the UN.

you need to read the Belfast Agreement more closely. NI and Scotland can only become independent from the UK if it is voted for by Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign.

That is the constitutional way.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 6:35pm

Aegir wrote: »

you need to read the Belfast Agreement more closely. NI and Scotland can only become independent from the UK if it is voted for by Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign.

That is the constitutional way.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Irelandüs status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

2. The participants also note that the two Governments have accordingly undertaken in the context of this comprehensive political agreement, to propose and support changes in, respectively, the Constitution of Ireland and in British legislation relating to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Effectively, it binds both governments (who would normally have a legislative majority - the current two minority governments with confidence and supply arrangements are actually exceptional) to introduce and support legislation to implement it.

Effectively, it reduces their role to a rubber stamping exercise.

In a normal parliament scenario without the DUP, it would be automatic.

With the current minority government, the DUP could effectively override the GFA on this matter.

It's a pretty unambiguous agreement.

21-02-2018 6:44pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

Effectively, it binds both governments (who would normally have a legislative majority - the current two minority governments with confidence and supply arrangements are actually exceptional) to introduce and support legislation to implement it.

Effectively, it reduces their role to a rubber stamping exercise.

In a normal parliament scenario without the DUP, it would be automatic.

With the current minority government, the DUP could effectively override the GFA on this matter.

It's a pretty unambiguous agreement.

you are confusing a government and a parliament.

The government will introduce and support the legislation, but parliament is under no obligation to pass the legislation.

it isn't a rubber stamping exercise, making it so is unconstitutional.

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 6:48pm

Aegir wrote: »

you are confusing a government and a parliament.

The government will introduce and support the legislation, but parliament is under no obligation to pass the legislation.

it isn't a rubber stamping exercise, making it so is unconstitutional.

Yes but you are getting into arguing pedantics. In the normal course of a British parliament, this Government being a highly unusual situation, the government has an automatic majority which is also whipped. Effectively it would be an automatic process in normal times. With a minority government with a confidence and supply arrangement from one or the NI parties, this aspect of the GFA is basically not workable.

Even in a normal coalition government there would be a majority. This confidence and supply setup, particularly with the Fixed Term Parliament act in place, in the sense that it makes a dissolving parliament and least slightly less straight forward, is very odd.

However, if a normal majority British government were to block it, it would be ripping up the GFA.

It is a very different situation to the Scottish one.

The current situation actually renders the GFA rather impotent on this issue in a way that was definitely not considered in the 1990s.

Opinion polling in the North however doesn't show any likelihood of any such moves and there's no Northern Ireland Assembly to even ask the question.

Effectively, Northern Ireland is currently being run by the DUP by proxy.

21-02-2018 7:10pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

Yes but you are getting into arguing pedantics. In the normal course of a British parliament, this Government being a highly unusual situation, the government has an automatic majority which is also whipped. Effectively it would be an automatic process in normal times. With a minority government with a confidence and supply arrangement from one or the NI parties, this aspect of the GFA is basically not workable.

no, you misunderstand how a parliament works and the difference between a parliament and a government.

an MP can vote however they like, no one can force them to vote a certain way, all they can do is to put pressure on them.

Skedaddle wrote: »

Even in a normal coalition government there would be a majority. This confidence and supply setup, particularly with the Fixed Term Parliament act in place, in the sense that it makes a dissolving parliament and least slightly less straight forward, is very odd.

However, if a normal majority British government were to block it, it would be ripping up the GFA.

it makes no difference if it is a minority government or a majority one. The Conservative Party is in government, it is not the government.

Skedaddle wrote: »

It is a very different situation to the Scottish one.

not really, although that depends on the wording of the legislation put in place at the time of a referendum. If the legislation states that the government will introduce legislation and support it, then the two situations are exactly the same.

Skedaddle wrote: »

The current situation actually renders the GFA rather impotent on this issue in a way that was definitely not considered in the 1990s.

not really, there are the same number of MPs who will be voting on the legislation and they will vote as they see fit.

one of the key tenants of UK constitutional law is that no parliament can bind a future parliament to any legislation. I would hazard a guess and say the same also applies to Ireland. You can bind a government to do something, but not parliament.

Gonad · 21-02-2018 7:17pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A British friend of mine told me today he felt Ireland was bullying the UK (I know!)over Brexit.

We can only do it with the help of our gallant allies of course now the UK is leaving and they despise them.

I do feel we may regret it down the road and that the Irish are somewhat awestruck with the sudden power they seem to have over the old foe, the tables turned etc.

It's a mirage - they'll fight on the beaches etc.

But aside from self interest maybe we should be supporting them? Sometimes I feel we are more British than Finchley.

They are our friends.

https://youtu.be/43L4dQETxxA

Skedaddle · 21-02-2018 7:36pm

I'm not misunderstanding it, I said multiple times that in normal parliamentary sessions, the Government has an automatic majority and the majority is subject to the whip.

So, in the normal scheme of things, the British Government would implement the GFA as per its agreement and it would automatically have a majority to do that. If a load of backbenchers were to vote against the Government, they'd likely loose the whip which I can't really see happening as most British-based MPs have very little opinion on Northern Ireland other than they'd rather it doesn't get all explody.

The framers of the GFA knew this was the case and it was very much part of what made it acceptable to Republicans.

The current situation, with the DUP propping up a minority government, without actually being in Government, is creating a very odd situation where the GFA is in all likelihood unworkable.

However, it's irrelevant without the Northern Ireland executive in power and it's also irrelevant if you look at opinion polling in Northern Ireland, which would currently reject a United Ireland.

It would not be based on a all-island poll. You'd have to separate referenda, one north and one south and the final say would be down to Northern Ireland, not the Republic and not an all-island single constituency.

The only reason the GFA is being mentioned at all in debate in the UK is because resolving the Northern Ireland border is making Brexit more complicated than they would like, because they'd rather pretend they have no EU land borders and that the troubles weren't an issue. However, reality is a cruel mistress when you are a fantasist.

99% of the time, most British politicians don't really consider Northern Ireland at all, because it effectively operates as a system-within-a-system, voting for parties that nobody in Britain's ever encountered or heard of before, even if they sit (or don't sit) in the same parliament.

The best solution from a Northern Irish perspective right now would be a UK general election that restored the normality of a majority British government or at least a coalition that does not involve a confidence and supply agreement, and particularly one that does not involve the DUP!

Also, when it comes to international treaties, yes of course the British parliament, or any sovereign entity that signed up to them can vote to / decide to unilaterally ignore them or withdraw from them. However, you can't vote to remove the international consequences of that. They're only binding because there are consequences to casting them aside.

If the UK were to go around willy nilly just ignoring agreements it signed up to and going off on a rant about the sovereignty of parliament, it would effectively end up being unable to do any international trade deal, or partake in any international body, ever again as it would be completely untrustworthy.

Also, on the basis that May has no majority in parliament, it is questionable as to whether she actually has any authority to sign up to anything at all in terms of EU agreements. As they could all be overridden / ignored anyway.

For Forks Sake · 21-02-2018 7:54pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

45% of our trade is both ways.
Easy to remedy if need be. We don't need the UK.
Bovril, Weetabix, Cocoa, Steak and Kidney pie. Just about everything in Marks and Sparks, Steel rail tracks, coal, pothole covers, Lyons Tea, Toys, etc.
Every one of those examples is available somewhere else in the world at a similar price.
And produce less farm products and comsume it ourselves.

Don't know why , but this just came to mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGbWJoZAsCs

Kermit.de.frog · 30-03-2018 7:53am

Theresa May has accepted the backstop of the north being in alignment with us here - something she said no British PM could ever agree to only a few weeks a go.

Time to stop the bullying now? We don't want to be thought of as a nation of BULLIES telling others what to do surely even unstable nations like the UK?

Should we stop bullying the United Kingdom?

Comments