Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[Jason]

The new Housing minister is Brokenshire, moved from Northern Ireland. There's now a new vacancy for NI minister. There is a certain logic in a new face there to try to break the deadlock. I struggle however to see who would be a good choice. The wild choice would be a DUP MP, though that crosses so very many red lines. If there isn't an announcement of the new NI Minister in the next hour or so I will begin to think this is seriously being considered.

 

[Perados]

The new Housing minister is Brokenshire, moved from Northern Ireland. There's now a new vacancy for NI minister. There is a certain logic in a new face there to try to break the deadlock. I struggle however to see who would be a good choice. The wild choice would be a DUP MP, though that crosses so very many red lines. If there isn't an announcement of the new NI Minister in the next hour or so I will begin to think this is seriously being considered.

The best choice is to stick to the agreement that London won't prefer any party of NI... so, end the coalition

 

[southeastone]

The best choice is to stick to the agreement that London won't prefer any party of NI... so, end the coalition

Probably all coalition governments have to hold their nose sometimes, I seem to remember some happening in your neck of the woods recently.

 

[Jason]

The best choice is to stick to the agreement that London won't prefer any party of NI... so, end the coalition

The electoral arithmetic provides no other credible alternative. At the moment we have:

Con + DUP v Lab + LibDem + SNP + PC + Green

Con + LibDem would work, so arguably avoiding NI involvement is up to LibDem. For that matter so would Con + SNP. In Italy we've seen the Northern League transform themselves from a separatist party to a whole-Italy political party, so in theory it could be done. However no solution is something that the government can themselves manage. There would have to be an initiative from LibDem or SNP.

The idea of DUP joining the opposition parties in six-party coalition against the Conservatives is a non-starter. A six-party coalition would be unworkable. Additionally the DUP have religious objections to the sympathies of Corbyn and could not possibly work with Labour under the leadership of an IRA supporter. Remember, Corbyn was actually arrested for his support of an IRA terrorist.

A new election needs three changes:
1) We have to get rid of the constituencies which are now close to a gerrymander. These should have been changed in the late 1990s. There has been delay after delay. The changes should go through in autumn this year.
2) We have to get rid of massive voter fraud. We need voters to show ID to vote. We need much stiffer penalties for political parties that promote double voting (ie Labour, who have a convicted election fraudster on their team).
3) We have to resolve the issue of Putin's interference. This has to be done by government IT specialists as a matter of national security, but right now the systems are not in place.

The seat loss to the Conservatives of each of these is significant:
1) Probably 15-20 seats - this is a major issue.
2) Hard to measure. SDLP and LibDem are almost certainly victims in 2017 (London/Derry and St Andrews seats). The Conservatives may have lost in the region of 10 seats.
3) Make up your own figure! There are suggestions of 20-80 out in the shady parts of the internet.

Once these changes are made I think an election becomes sensible.

Bradley is of course the NI secretary. I had forgotten she had already replaced Brokenshire, so no further changes.

 

[Perados]

Probably all coalition governments have to hold their nose sometimes, I seem to remember some happening in your neck of the woods recently.

It may took a while, but the difference is, both parties are allowed to run a coalition, without creating any trouble. Your coalition creates triuble just by existence... and in a situation where you already created border problems, it probably was the worst desition May could make.

 

[Jason]

It may took a while, but the difference is, both parties are allowed to run a coalition, without creating any trouble. Your coalition creates triuble just by existence... and in a situation where you already created border problems, it probably was the worst desition May could make.

I don't think it is causing problems.
Its a pact, not a coalition. DUP are certainly doing what they said they would do.

The border between Switzerland and EU is open, though Switzerland is outside the CU.
The border between Turkey and EU is closed, though Turkey is in the CU.
The NI border issue has nothing whatsoever to do with a customs union.

 

[dandelion]

Javid is basically pro Brexit. Rudd will not oppose May from the back benches. In effect Brexit now has another firm ally in the Cabinet, as opposed to Rudd who was sympathetic to Remain.

Well we shall see.

what I see is remainers leaving the government so they can attack it from the back benches. This is a necessary step if they are to defeat it in a way which causes the minimum problems for the tory party.

We are getting to end game, where the cabinet no longer needs to be balanced to discuss what to do. It has been decided. What they now need is front men with conviction to argue for Brexit, and back benchers to vote against it and defeat it.

The idea is to appear to support Brexit, but actually to conspire to defeat it.

And in the process, if May adopts the labour party manifesto policy on Brexit, she may even keep her seat in the next election. That is, respect the referendum result but not agree any form of Brexit which will harm the economy (which is all of them in the view of most voters)

 

[dandelion]

The border between Switzerland and EU is open, though Switzerland is outside the CU. The border between Turkey and EU is closed, though Turkey is in the CU. The NI border issue has nothing whatsoever to do with a customs union.

No.

May has signed up to far closer integration with the EU than just belonging to the CU. She has agreed either the CU or something which the EU agrees amounts to the same thing. Plus all the other elements of the current open border. Its far more comprehensive a deal than is currently being admitted by the tories.

And the DUP insists it will apply to the entire UK.

The electoral arithmetic provides no other credible alternative.

Tory rebels plus opposition is one clear possibility. It is entirely possible for the rebels to defeat the government on Brexit but keep it nominally in power. This might suit everyone. but otherwise, if the arithmetic says there is no stable government, then what happens is an election. I'd say no one should be surprised by another election this year.

Quite possibly Amber Rudd thinks there will be one, and the only way she might save her seat is by dissociating herself from the Brexit government.

 

[Perados]

I don't think it is causing problems.
Its a pact, not a coalition. DUP are certainly doing what they said they would do.

the point is to treat all parties equal... but you don't. That's why i understand the trouble.

The border between Switzerland and EU is open, though Switzerland is outside the CU.
The border between Turkey and EU is closed, though Turkey is in the CU.
The NI border issue has nothing whatsoever to do with a customs union.

Turkey is not, I repeat NOT, in the CU. Agricultural products just as services aren't free to enter the EU.

Swiss has a free trade deal with the EU and therefore free movement.

Gotcha


-

Will reply to the longer post later

 

[Jason]

Turkey and Customs Union. Information is here: https://www.avrupa.info.tr/sites/default/files/2016-09/Custom_Union_des_ENG_0.pdf

 

[Jason]

The UK is not looking for a deal with the EU that is identical to that of Switzerland, Norway, Turkey or Canada. However it is looking for a deal that is similar to these. The EU's idea that somehow it cannot be done is a morally shocking negotiating stance when the EU is deliberately exploiting tensions in Northern Ireland. Legal experts in the UK are looking at the possibility that the EU may be supporting an insurgency, which is a crime in international law.

The shape of any deal is that the UK/Ireland border will remain open, just as the Switzerland-EU and Norway-EU borders are open. There is also a de facto open border between Romania and Ukraine (with a complex border framework), and the whole of the southern and eastern EU border is so frequently breached that it is often best regarded as open. The EU needs to grow up. There will be an open border. The UK will be outside the customs union.

The muddles in UK politics don't help. However I think it is quite possible that we will have an election around May next year (during the transition phase) and that the government will get a mandate for a clean-break Brexit, which will mean all previous agreements must be renegotiated.

 

[Perados]

Turkey and Customs Union. Information is here: https://www.avrupa.info.tr/sites/default/files/2016-09/Custom_Union_des_ENG_0.pdf

But you know that free trade in agriculture and services never has been realized? Turkey has no total free access to the EU market... you really should inform yourself. PLEASE because I don't have time today.

Btw Germany is blocking further free trade (because of Erdogan and all the NAZI bs he was talking)

 

[southeastone]

But you know that free trade in agriculture and services never has been realized? Turkey has no total free access to the EU market... you really should inform yourself. PLEASE because I don't have time today.

Btw Germany is blocking further free trade (because of Erdogan and all the NAZI bs he was talking)

I agree that agriculture is not included in the CU but it is covered by a bilateral deal I think and as the EU pushes EUROMED it seems there will be free trade with all Mediterranean countries? Seems churlish that the EU gives free trade deals under this to Algeria and Morocco but says it is not possible to give it to the UK

Incidentally is processed food not included in the Turkey CU deal, I think it is.

 

[Drifterwood]

The electoral arithmetic provides no other credible alternative. At the moment we have:

Con + DUP v Lab + LibDem + SNP + PC + Green

Con + LibDem would work, so arguably avoiding NI involvement is up to LibDem. For that matter so would Con + SNP.

Basically you are saying that democracy has delivered a complete bugger's muddle, just as is the case with Brexit.

Not having been in the UK for a while, and looking back from a distance, the UK seems to be lurching from one cock up fudge to another.

Is this really how you run a fairly major country?

And yes, this is common in the West at the moment. You need to get your acts together before someone else does.

 

[dandelion]

The electoral arithmetic provides no other credible alternative.

Tory rebels plus opposition is one clear possibility. It is entirely possible for the rebels to defeat the government on Brexit but keep it nominally in power. This might suit everyone. but otherwise, if the arithmetic says there is no stable government, then what happens is an election. I'd say no one should be surprised by another election this year.

The UK is not looking for a deal with the EU that is identical to that of Switzerland, Norway, Turkey or Canada. However it is looking for a deal that is similar to these.

Then why didnt it say it wants a deal like Norway, rather than starting negotiations by saying it doesnt?

This means arbitration by the ECJ. Isnt there freedom of labour to move in the Norway deal? The EU makes the rules and can change them as it wishes? Norway doesnt have a banking industry like the Uk, which is under threat from Brexit, and so forth?

The EU's idea that somehow it cannot be done is a morally shocking

The EU has always been happy for us to take the Norway deal. Less happy about the swiss deal, which was negotiated treaty by treaty with slight variation, and they have said I think they do not want another 'one off'.

I dont understand why you use over the top descriptions like 'morally shocking'. It isnt the least bit morally shocking. if the Uk thinks the EU is being tough in negotiations it is in for a huge shock (moral or otherwise) when it starts negotiations in earnest with other countries, They will be far far harder. The EU is being nice to us.

negotiating stance when the EU is deliberately exploiting tensions in Northern Ireland.

The EU is doing what its foundation treaties say it should do. Which means looking after the interests of its members. Ireland is a member and is directly affected, so their interests are paramount. Quite honestly, I think the best solution for the whole of ireland would be a form of federal reunification, and that is de facto what we have now. The EU is only looking out for the interests of both north and south Ireland as one people.

Many English I suspect are more than happy that the EU does this, both for the sake of the Irish, for the sake of the English taxpayer, and for their own sake because if this results is either a soft brexit or no Brexit, then that will be better for all of us.


The big majority of Brits and even a narrow majority of leavers reject all forms of Brexit which are currently on offer and prefer remain.

 

[Jason]

Basically you are saying that democracy has delivered a complete bugger's muddle, just as is the case with Brexit.

Not having been in the UK for a while, and looking back from a distance, the UK seems to be lurching from one cock up fudge to another.

Is this really how you run a fairly major country?

And yes, this is common in the West at the moment. You need to get your acts together before someone else does.

Yes, "bugger's muddle" sums it up. I think the Con+DUP pact is in effect a "there is no alternative" pact, and both parties are doing well to make it work. I also think that the opposition statements that Con and DUP should not have a pact (because it is against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement) is simply unhelpful. It could be resolved if LibDem offered a pact or coalition. It could even be resolved if SNP agreed not to vote on most issues (which have only minimal effect in Scotland) or if Labour agreed some sort of supply (ie so many MPs routinely abstaining). These are oppositions opposition parties could propose.

The worst electoral "bugger's muddle" is surely Italy. If you can see a good outcome from this, tell the world!

The story that is getting very little media attention but a lot of chatter behind the scenes is Putin's interference in the 2017 election. This is going to be very hard to prove in a court of law (so the Conservatives arenot shouting about it) though the academic evidence is very strong indeed. This is the explanation of why the polls got it so wrong in 2017. They did not take into account the factor of foreign interference in the election. The UK might not be good at polls but we are not that bad either! Had Putin not interfered we would now have a Conservative majority, quite a good one. We wouldn't have a DUP pact, and we would have a much stronger hand in dealing with the Brexit negotiations leading to a better deal for the UK. Putin has seriously damaged the UK. The solution is security. Javid's first statement on becoming Home Secretary was that he will put security first, and I think this is what he meant. We have to ensure that Putin cannot interfere with future elections to support his poodle Corbyn and to damage the UK. Once we are confident that the security framework is in place it may be that another election becomes the logical next step.

"Getting our act together" means stopping Putin interfering in elections.

 

[Jason]

The EU is doing what its foundation treaties say it should do. Which means looking after the interests of its members. Ireland is a member and is directly affected, so their interests are paramount.

1) The UK is a member of the EU. The EU should look after the interests of all its members. Lisbon sets out that there are rights for members who have left.
2) There is an inter-play of interests around economics and interests around preventing an insurrection in Northern Ireland. International law prioritises the second.
3) There is a difference between legality and legitimacy. The atrocities of 2WW Germany were legal. They were not legitimate. The argument "I was only following orders" was not regarded as a defence. In the issues around NI the EU (and the UK and Ireland) should have an eye on legitimacy, not merely on legality. The EU's use of the threat of insurrection as a bargaining tool is not legitimate.
4) "paramount interests" is a problematic concept. It suggests taking someone side in preference to someone else's. This is not acceptable. The EU should aim to do what is right.

 

[Drifterwood]

"Getting our act together" means stopping Putin interfering in elections.

Very You, Jase, to be up in arms about Putin and the General Election, but silent on the manipulation of the Brexit vote by the same man.

There is no way that the Lib Dems will support a Brexit imposing government. Really not worth going there.

 

[Jason]

Very You, Jase, to be up in arms about Putin and the General Election, but silent on the manipulation of the Brexit vote by the same man.

There is no way that the Lib Dems will support a Brexit imposing government. Really not worth going there.

Yes I know LibDems will not support the government. My point is that the Con+DUP pact is one of "there is no alternative". Curiously I don't think LibDem could support a Corbyn government. Their decision in 2010 was that they couldn't support a government as economically dodgy as Gordon Brown.

I know the chatter is about Putin interfering in the Brexit referendum, but academic scrutiny certainly doesn't support the thesis that Putin intervened to support Leave. There is some (weak) evidence that he intervened to support Remain. There is very strong evidence (overwhelming evidence?) that Putin interfered to support Corbyn in 2017. What is yet to emerge is whether Corbyn knew of this support at this time, and therefore what he had offered Putin.

 

[Perados]

Yes I know LibDems will not support the government. My point is that the Con+DUP pact is one of "there is no alternative". Curiously I don't think LibDem could support a Corbyn government. Their decision in 2010 was that they couldn't support a government as economically dodgy as Gordon Brown.

I know the chatter is about Putin interfering in the Brexit referendum, but academic scrutiny certainly doesn't support the thesis that Putin intervened to support Leave. There is some (weak) evidence that he intervened to support Remain. There is very strong evidence (overwhelming evidence?) that Putin interfered to support Corbyn in 2017. What is yet to emerge is whether Corbyn knew of this support at this time, and therefore what he had offered Putin.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...fluence-brexit-vote-detailed-us-senate-report
Investigative journalists have also raised questions about the sources of sudden and possibly illicit wealth that may have been directed to support the Brexit ‘Leave’ campaign.

its English-language media outlets RT and Sputnik covered the referendum campaign extensively and offered ‘’systematically one-sided coverage’’.

They reference University of Edinburgh research showing more than 400 Russian-run Twitter accounts that had been active in the US election had also been actively posting about Brexit.

identified 150,000 Twitter accounts with various Russian ties that disseminated messages about Brexit.

It records how the Metropolitan police noted that a total value of £180m in properties in the UK had been put under investigation as possibly purchased with corrupt proceeds by secretive offshore companies.




And it's just the first article that popped up. I guess I could have found something better if I would have searched more than 5 sec.

If you believe in Russian influence on elections, you may should believe in influence in Brexit as well