https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/16/bes...irst-deal/
May doesn't know how to negotiate.
"...Brexiteers have instead advocated leaving the EU without a deal and continuing to trade with EU countries under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules that include modest reciprocal tariffs. They argue correctly that the UK can rely on already concluded “micro-deals” with the EU—covering visas, border checks, trucking, financial derivatives, air travel and Irish power generation—to minimize possible disruptions associated with a no-deal exit.
Even so, the UK has a better option than either May’s deal or a straight no-deal exit. Call it “leave, then deal” or “leave and deal.” Here’s how it would work...."
First, Affirm Brexit
The biggest sticking point with Brexit is the Irish border.
Not imposing a border makes a mockery of Brexit, because companies and immigrants can use Ireland to bypass any EU-UK border.
But imposing a border in any way (border checkpoints, economic border, immigration restrictions) risks reigniting The Troubles. 40% of Northern Ireland is Catholic and 20% of residents hold Republic of Ireland passports. Rural Ireland is still IRA territory on both sides of the border.
I don't see this as a solvable problem.
(05-20-2019 11:13 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest sticking point with Brexit is the Irish border.
Not imposing a border makes a mockery of Brexit, because companies and immigrants can use Ireland to bypass any EU-UK border.
But imposing a border in any way (border checkpoints, economic border, immigration restrictions) risks reigniting The Troubles. 40% of Northern Ireland is Catholic and 20% of residents hold Republic of Ireland passports. Rural Ireland is still IRA territory on both sides of the border.
I don't see this as a solvable problem.
Well Ireland and the EU don't want to solve it.
(05-20-2019 11:13 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest sticking point with Brexit is the Irish border.
Not imposing a border makes a mockery of Brexit, because companies and immigrants can use Ireland to bypass any EU-UK border.
But imposing a border in any way (border checkpoints, economic border, immigration restrictions) risks reigniting The Troubles. 40% of Northern Ireland is Catholic and 20% of residents hold Republic of Ireland passports. Rural Ireland is still IRA territory on both sides of the border.
I don't see this as a solvable problem.
One or the other (return of The Troubles, or mockery-of-Brexit) will have to happen.
It’s a painful dilemma, yes. But if the ROI and the EU and the UK were
*ALL* serious about it, the IRA could be decimated and crushed. If they are not serious about it, then I think that tells you which one of the two options it will turn out to be.
For centuries, the UK tried to crush Irish independence movements with no success. There's enough Catholics in Northern Ireland that they don't even need support from the Republic of Ireland.
But they'd probably have support from citizens on the Republic of Ireland side. Because I doubt any prominent ROI politician will move to crush the IRA. Dubliners, the intelligentsia, and new immigrants might support it, but rural Ireland would vote his party out of power so fast his head would spin. Even if he somehow maintained his hold on power, Ireland does not have the army/police strength to go against the hardened will of a significant minority of its people.
In 2012 I went to rural Ireland with my wife. Republic of Ireland, not near the border. It was June and we were only the 4th people to stay at the B&B that year, so it was not a place with many tourists. We went to a pub and when we told the guy next to us we were from Ohio, he started telling us about his great buddy Dennis Kucinich (congressman from Cleveland). He knew a lot about Ohio and claimed that 1 million Clevelanders are descended from people from that province of Ireland. He even showed us a picture on the wall of the pub of his "friend Dennis" (it was actually a picture of JFK, so that tells you how sober he was). After a couple hours we asked if there was anyplace in town with live music that night. He paused and said, "well, there's the IRA pub" and gave us directions. We went to the IRA pub and as soon as we walked in, it was very clear we weren't wanted. It was like a mix between an Irish pub and a 50s diner, and the "music" was an Elvis impersonator. They were having a charity raffle or split-the-pot or something that was to support the IRA's political arm. So it was crowded, but it still felt like everyone was staring at us. We sat in a booth, ate quickly, and left.
Anyways, that experience convinced me that there's lots of Irish who will support the IRA to the end.
If The Troubles do come back, I don't think there will be as much American support for the IRA. For decades it was fashionable for Irish Americans to support the IRA, much the same as it's fashionable for liberals to support Palestinians today. Congressman Peter King (R-Long Island) was a very vocal supporter. But many American IRA supporters were blind to the deaths their support caused, and I don't think they would support the IRA in a post-9/11 world.
(05-22-2019 10:18 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]For centuries, the UK tried to crush Irish independence movements with no success. There's enough Catholics in Northern Ireland that they don't even need support from the Republic of Ireland.
But they'd probably have support from citizens on the Republic of Ireland side. Because I doubt any prominent ROI politician will move to crush the IRA. Dubliners, the intelligentsia, and new immigrants might support it, but rural Ireland would vote his party out of power so fast his head would spin. Even if he somehow maintained his hold on power, Ireland does not have the army/police strength to go against the hardened will of a significant minority of its people.
In 2012 I went to rural Ireland with my wife. Republic of Ireland, not near the border. It was June and we were only the 4th people to stay at the B&B that year, so it was not a place with many tourists. We went to a pub and when we told the guy next to us we were from Ohio, he started telling us about his great buddy Dennis Kucinich (congressman from Cleveland). He knew a lot about Ohio and claimed that 1 million Clevelanders are descended from people from that province of Ireland. He even showed us a picture on the wall of the pub of his "friend Dennis" (it was actually a picture of JFK, so that tells you how sober he was). After a couple hours we asked if there was anyplace in town with live music that night. He paused and said, "well, there's the IRA pub" and gave us directions. We went to the IRA pub and as soon as we walked in, it was very clear we weren't wanted. It was like a mix between an Irish pub and a 50s diner, and the "music" was an Elvis impersonator. They were having a charity raffle or split-the-pot or something that was to support the IRA's political arm. So it was crowded, but it still felt like everyone was staring at us. We sat in a booth, ate quickly, and left.
Anyways, that experience convinced me that there's lots of Irish who will support the IRA to the end.
If The Troubles do come back, I don't think there will be as much American support for the IRA. For decades it was fashionable for Irish Americans to support the IRA, much the same as it's fashionable for liberals to support Palestinians today. Congressman Peter King (R-Long Island) was a very vocal supporter. But many American IRA supporters were blind to the deaths their support caused, and I don't think they would support the IRA in a post-9/11 world.
Those Americans who support the Palestinians don't care about the deaths that the Palestinians cause, so why would they care about the deaths that the IRA would cause?
The Irish I know are pacifists. They wonder why Ireland even has an army.
(05-23-2019 06:48 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]The Irish I know are pacifists. They wonder why Ireland even has an army.
Yep, that's another reason they won't crack down on the IRA. Because they can't.
The Irish Army only has 7,300 troops, with 1,800 reserves. About 500 of them are currently deployed overseas on 12 peacekeeping missions (mostly in Lebanon and Syria). The police force is also small for a country of its size. All police and military forces combined are about 27,000 people, including reserves and civilian paper pushers.
How can a group that small be effective against a guerrilla terrorist organization?
(05-23-2019 06:48 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]The Irish I know are pacifists. They wonder why Ireland even has an army.
Ireland doesn't really have an army. Not one of any significance anyway. As long as they are an island, and UK provides some measure of area protection, and both they and UK are under the US umbrella, they don't really need one.
Quick update: the British government under Boris Johnson (“BoJo” according to some tabloids; “BoZo” or “Bozo” according to some other) is very clear that the UK will withdraw from the EU on 31st October (11pm London time), deal-or-no-deal. And since the EU evidently doesn’t wish to revisit the deal that got voted down in Parliament on three (3) separate occasions, it looks like no-deal for time-being.
Only possible hitch is that Johnson’s government basically has a majority of one (1) vote out of ~643 members of the House of Commons. So the idea that the Government could lose a Vote Of No Confidence and be replaced before 10/31 cannot be completely discounted.
I still say if I were running things, I would try to establish a free trade deal with UK, to take effect upon Brexit. I would be open to some sort of associate membership with the Commonwealth, including a free trade agreement. Since Canada is in NAFTA, maybe we just glom the Commonwealth onto NAFTA. I think it would be a huge advantage for American businessmen to be able to travel freely around the Commonwealth countries, and I think it would open up huge markets to American businesses.
The other place that I see the Commonwealth as offering a huge advantage is that there has been some talk among at least UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and India about forming a united Commonwealth military. With potentially 5 carriers (2 UK, 3 India), 11 SSBN's (4 UK, 7 India), 17 SSN's (7 UK, 10 India), and large numbers of amphibs and surface combatants based worldwide, a Commonwealth navy would be well placed to take over a lot of the US Navy's current world policeman responsibilities, and armies, air forces, and marines could make similar contributions.
I see potentially huge benefits to us from such a deal.
(08-07-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]there has been some talk among at least UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and India about forming a united Commonwealth military.
Owl, I know you made some reference to this possibility on a different thread. Do you believe that either NZ or Canada brings anything of value to the table in such an arrangement?
(08-07-2019 01:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]there has been some talk among at least UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and India about forming a united Commonwealth military.
Owl, I know you made some reference to this possibility on a different thread. Do you believe that either NZ or Canada brings anything of value to the table in such an arrangement?
The Australian currency, and the Euro are in trouble. The Pound Sterling not as much. And Canada still has natural resources not the least of which is water.
I like Owls' idea. I'm not sure that the ANZUS group offers us much but faithful allies. So from a historical perspective they are fine, but as substantive trading partners probably not so much, though for different reasons in each case.
But the concept of instituting a new trading alliance could prove a useful work around to the Northern Ireland question. Maybe it would even help England grow a pair when it comes to dealing with the Islamic issues within their own country. France and Germany will go nationalistic over these issues at some point in the not too distant future and when that happens "Deutschland will again be walking to a new faster pace." The UK and its former colonies have much more in common, at least when England decides that PC and Islam don't mix.
(08-07-2019 01:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]there has been some talk among at least UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and India about forming a united Commonwealth military.
Owl, I know you made some reference to this possibility on a different thread. Do you believe that either NZ or Canada brings anything of value to the table in such an arrangement?
If you mean militarily, not much. UK and India, and possibly Australia, offer more there.
But economically, quite possibly. And the Commonwealth as a whole, definitely economically.
(08-07-2019 05:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2019 01:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]there has been some talk among at least UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and India about forming a united Commonwealth military.
Owl, I know you made some reference to this possibility on a different thread. Do you believe that either NZ or Canada brings anything of value to the table in such an arrangement?
If you mean militarily, not much. UK and India, and possibly Australia, offer more there.
Yeah “militarily” is what I mean. And from a military standpoint, “not much” was my opinion of those 2 nations’ current capabilities, too.
Canada, like the UK overall, paid an enormous price in WWII. I think the generations which came after just kind of silently vowed they were done with that.
(08-07-2019 07:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah “militarily” is what I mean. And from a military standpoint, “not much” was my opinion of those 2 nations’ current capabilities, too.
Canada, like the UK overall, paid an enormous price in WWII. I think the generations which came after just kind of silently vowed they were done with that.
With UK, I think there is a point past which they will not allow themselves to be pushed. I think the Falklands proved that. And they don't have the angst that the Germans have. They just sent the best of two generations off to be slaughtered in two world wars, and it has taken a while to recover. Somewhere down inside, they still believe very firmly that, "Britons never, never, never, never shall be slaves."
I'm not sure Canada has the same resolve. I do think Australia does.
(08-07-2019 07:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2019 07:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah “militarily” is what I mean. And from a military standpoint, “not much” was my opinion of those 2 nations’ current capabilities, too.
Canada, like the UK overall, paid an enormous price in WWII. I think the generations which came after just kind of silently vowed they were done with that.
With UK, I think there is a point past which they will not allow themselves to be pushed. I think the Falklands proved that. And they don't have the angst that the Germans have. They just sent the best of two generations off to be slaughtered in two world wars, and it has taken a while to recover. Somewhere down inside, they still believe very firmly that, "Britons never, never, never, never shall be slaves."
I'm not sure Canada has the same resolve. I do think Australia does.
Canada is too divided culturally and politically to have resolve. Old Australia had resolve (think Korea and Viet Nam). New Australia still has some real men but the government, like that of England, has anything but resolve. I think you overestimate British resolve. If they had any left they wouldn't be caving to the Islamists at every turn. I think the IRA has more resolve. Our old allies will stick with us, but they don't bring much to the table.
I like rearming the Japanese and we need stronger ties with India.
I do think the another trade alliance could regulate trade with the EU without costing the UK sovereignty of their Pound Sterling and without revisiting the Irish problem.
Well. It’s been an “interesting” (in the Chinese-curse sense of the word) 7 weeks in British politics.
Something I thought was impossible started happening on a regular basis: the Government lost several important, high-profile votes on the floor of the Commons, and yet the Opposition did *Not* seek a Vote of No Confidence and made no real attempt to replace the PM. Because then the Opposition would have to take charge of this mess, and they don’t want to be in charge of this mess. Because they have no idea of what to do.
A law has been passed which purports to require the PM to take a certain action — i.e., to seek an extension from the EU so the Brits can have more time to thrash this out — but the PM insists he won’t do that.
The situation is incredibly fluid/murky, but with each passing day that it doesn’t get resolved, you’d have to say the odds of “No-Deal” are going up, for good or ill.
(09-23-2019 12:28 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]Well. It’s been an “interesting” (in the Chinese-curse sense of the word) 7 weeks in British politics.
Something I thought was impossible started happening on a regular basis: the Government lost several important, high-profile votes on the floor of the Commons, and yet the Opposition did *Not* seek a Vote of No Confidence and made no real attempt to replace the PM. Because then the Opposition would have to take charge of this mess, and they don’t want to be in charge of this mess. Because they have no idea of what to do.
A law has been passed which purports to require the PM to take a certain action — i.e., to seek an extension from the EU so the Brits can have more time to thrash this out — but the PM insists he won’t do that.
The situation is incredibly fluid/murky, but with each passing day that it doesn’t get resolved, you’d have to say the odds of “No-Deal” are going up, for good or ill.
Saw an article a few weeks ago. Suggested UK should just withdraw like they can from any other treaty. Use that 39 billion pounds May was trying to give away for domestic use.
None of what she was doing made any sense. There was no hard border with Ireland before the EU. Why should they pay to leave?
The only reason there is any trouble is if the EU goes out of its way to create trouble. And since the UK has a trade deficit with the rest of the EU, the EU should be more in need of a deal.
I still think we cut a trade deal with Britain as soon as Brexit is done. I might even favor cheating a little bit and having the nuts and bolts in place before. The easiest way may be just to let them into NAFTA or whatever we are calling the new NAFTA.
I’d give very serious consideration to doing some sort of deal with the whole Commonwealth, maybe even some kind of associate membership, although I would never ever consider recognizing the Queen as having any rule over us. We fought and won that war 240 years ago.
I can see where a trade deal with the whole Commonwealth could be very much in our self-interest. I could also see a defense treaty. We are pretty much stuck in the world policeman role until somebody steps up to take over at least part of it. There has been some discussion in professional military journals about uniting the Commonwealth armed forces—basically recreate what existed prior to WWII. A united Commonwealth navy would easily be the second strongest in the world, and in overall military terms no worse than third or forth. That would be a force that we could hand off some commitments to—UK in Europe, India in the IO, Australia and Singapore and Canada in the Pacific. I think it would be worth pursuing.
Plus it would be fun for our athletes to get to compete in the Commonwealth Games.