Brexit: Now What? Part III

[The Don]

Up until the signing of the GFA it was mainstream Labour party policy to be in favour of a united Ireland by consent, so I don't think you paid attention to the small print back when you were a member.

Dupe - derp

 

[The Don]

Up until the signing of the GFA it was mainstream Labour party policy to be in favour of a united Ireland by consent, so I don't think you paid attention to the small print back when you were a member.

And the highlighted is the key part.

(and then that disappeared once the Blairites had their hands on the tiller)

 

[Strawberry]

Neither state has an internal border. You seem to be proposing creating one. Are there any actual examples of a state with such a thing?

You've moved the goal posts from a country to a state in order to get the answer you want. The UK is about to become the first state to leave the EU, so it can be the first state to have an internal border while its at it since the alternative is to wreck the economy and the lives of me and people all around me. If you don't like that, then a united Ireland, and if you don't like that then stop Brexit.

Wrecking NI in order to pander to the Brexiters is completely unjust especially since we voted against it.

 

[Strawberry]

And the highlighted is the key part.

(and then that disappeared once the Blairites had their hands on the tiller)

It disappeared because the GFA was signed up to by everybody in NI, and the GFA has unity by consent written into it as an option. At no stage has it been a Labour party aspiration to keep NI in the UK, that's why they don't stand for election there and leave it instead to their nationalist sister party the SDLP.

 

[Information Analyst]

I accept the logic, and I do indeed differentiate these two polities. One of them consisted of Great Britain plus all of Ireland and it was dully called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Its core area was Great Britain, which had existed itself as a viable imperial state (Ireland then being a dependency thereof) in the years 1707 to 1800. Thereafter Ireland was incorporated into this polity. When most of Ireland seceded, leaving behind only six northern counties, the imperial state duly changed its name to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So far so good.

Its main core area had not been affected by this change. A change of name was required, and was performed. When Ireland was added the name was changed. When part of Ireland seceded, the name was changed. But the core element of the state is a Union of England (at the time of union including Wales) and Scotland. Now it is my contention that the dissolution of the core element of the state (to which Ireland was later added and then substantially subtracted) is of more significance than the annexation and secession of a dependency.

Consider France. When Algeria was annexed the name of the state was not changed, and when Algeria seceded no name change was therefore required. But the French republic's core territory was not affected. Britain's would be if Scotland seceded. The UK would cease to exist because its core component GB would cease to exist, unlike in the case of the changes in the status of Ireland.

Scotland is not defined as a Union including Berwick upon Tweed. Great Britain (as the name of a polity, not an island, is defined as a Union of England and Scotland. In the event of a secession of Scotland these two countries will remain, but the name of their union will become obsolete along with the union it defines. There is no longer anywhere called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for example, because the union of its two component countries has been dissolved. Similarly with Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. But their former member countries are still there on the map, and on the ground.

If Scotland leaves, it is the "GB" element which becomes obsolete, not the "UK" element, as long as NI remains. It is the union that is the core element, not any one of the components, and that won't change even if a minority part of one of the components removed.

If eventually it gets reduced to just E&W, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an argument for "UK" being retained simply on the basis of long-standing use, but it's not something I'd lose sleep over, either way.

 

[The Don]

It disappeared because the GFA was signed up to by everybody in NI, and the GFA has unity by consent written into it as an option. At no stage has it been a Labour party aspiration to keep NI in the UK, that's why they don't stand for election there and leave it instead to their nationalist sister party the SDLP.

Not quite, the reunification position was dropped in 92 or 93, the GFA wasn't signed until 98 I think.

 

[Strawberry]

Not quite, the reunification position was dropped in 92 or 93, the GFA wasn't signed until 98 I think.

Was it? The change in policy was never acted on, Labour retained their links with the SDLP throughout that time and never stood for election in NI. I think they even have a policy of not allowing residents of NI to join their party or they did have at one stage.

 

[The Don]

A long time ago there was a VW advert with Paula Hamilton about some poor sod who "bet on red but it came up black" and so on



...seems like the UK is Brexiting just as EU growth is starting to pick up...

The European Central Bank (ECB) has raised its eurozone economic growth forecast for this year to 2.2%, the fastest growth in 10 years.

D'oh !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41186368

 

[ddt]

Are there other examples either present day or historically of the kind of thing suggested here? That one part of a country is sectioned off and an internal border put in place in order to preserve links to a foreign nation?

Hong Kong, when it was still British-ruled, was leased by the UK from China. So both parties acknowledged it was part of China. Yet it was definitely easier to fly from Hong Kong to London than to Peking.

I'm not sure if it qualifies the "preserve" in your description but otherwise I can think of a host of such areas: Macao, Gitmo, Panama Canal Zone, Akrotiri and Dekeleia, Diego Garcia (not even the natives can come there).

There are some funny Swiss villages that lie on the wrong side of the Rhine or an Alps range and count as EU (German resp. Italian) territory for EU rules, like customs and using the Euro. I think the "preserve" there certainly applies.

 

[ddt]

Are there other examples either present day or historically of the kind of thing suggested here? That one part of a country is sectioned off and an internal border put in place in order to preserve links to a foreign nation?

Yes, oddly enough I can think of an historical example where one part of a country was sectioned off and an internal border put in place to preserve links to a foreign nation.

Its called the partitioning of Ireland.

The Irish Free State of 1922 was not a sovereign state. It was a British dominion.

Archie did a bit of sloppy writing, but I assume that his "country" and "nation" both actually should be read as "sovereign state".

ETA: I invite Archie to clarify the intended meaning of these words in his question.

 

[ddt]

Well the latter is true, but on what do you base the assertion that Eire wants unification as things stand? perhaps one day when the demographic shift towards Catholics has done its work, but right now? I doubt it.

Within a united Ireland, the protestant part of nowadays NI would only be a small minority.

But nothing better than giving them a common enemy. NI protestants and catholics are united in their condemnation of the atheist, Alliance mayor of Belfast because she didn't lead in saying grace at the annual mayor's dinner.

 

[Strawberry]

The Irish Free State of 1922 was not a sovereign state. It was a British dominion.

Archie did a bit of sloppy writing, but I assume that his "country" and "nation" both actually should be read as "sovereign state".

You can assume what you like, I will respond to what is actually posted.

Not that your point makes any sense anyway, creating an Irish State as a British dominion was also creating an internal border by partitioning Ireland, you're just describing it from the opposite angle.

 

[Strawberry]

Within a united Ireland, the protestant part of nowadays NI would only be a small minority.

But nothing better than giving them a common enemy. NI protestants and catholics are united in their condemnation of the atheist, Alliance mayor of Belfast because she didn't lead in saying grace at the annual mayor's dinner.

Really? I haven't heard any Catholics condemning it, and not many Protestants either, two or three Protestant ministers is all.

 

[ddt]

Really? I haven't heard any Catholics condemning it, and not many Protestants either, two or three Protestant ministers is all.

I have misread that. The Belfast Telegraph has three protestant ministers on record condemning it plus some others annoyed.

(and frankly, personally, I think it's silly. You can say your own prayers if you like. And I thought protestants had done away with the priest as intercessor, so why would they need someone else saying their grace?)

 

[Strawberry]

I have misread that. The Belfast Telegraph has three protestant ministers on record condemning it plus some others annoyed.

(and frankly, personally, I think it's silly. You can say your own prayers if you like. And I thought protestants had done away with the priest as intercessor, so why would they need someone else saying their grace?)

Yeah, most people in NI also think its silly or more likely have better things to do than think about it at all.

 

[Vixen]

Anecdotally that may be what has happened (or you feel has happened) to you but looking at the salaries for skilled people, in the economy as a whole that doesn't seem to be the case - they have outpaced inflation. In part this is because the ready availability of skilled employees has resulted in expansion in many industry sectors.



Which does not benefit the economy as a whole - higher wages leading to higher costs and inflationary pressures which in turn makes UK goods and services less competitive at home and abroad - or for the individuals with those skills - companies will seek to expand in markets where there is a ready supply of those skills so there will be fewer of those jobs.

That sentence does however nicely summarise the selfishness (I want higher wages and **** the rest of you) and economic illiteracy (not understanding the wider implications of a skills-constrained economy) which together with xenophobia underpinned the Brexit campaign and the Leave process.

It is not economic illiteracy in my case. Of the many business case studies I have had to analyse, one was to do with a manufacturing company in an industry which customarily outsources production to China. As of the time, Cost of Sales (price of labour and production costs) of this product was just £0.56p.

This coincided with a programme on TV (Horizon?) about a factory in Kirby, Lancs which specialised in goods produced by machinists having to sew up the soft goods for widespread wholesale distribution to retail outlets.

The owner of this factory was filmed visiting his factory outlets in China which did all this seamstress work, as it was much cheaper than paying British labour.

As you know, in recent years, China has been one of the BRIC economies*, and this chap began fretting about the rise of the Chinese middle classes demanding better middle class wages.

So he terminated his contracts with the Chinese producers and set up his factory back home in Kirby, giving jobs to the local ladies for much the same price as before (roughly £0.56 per completed item).

So, this is a clear demonstration that employers will go for the cheap labour options. So yes, higher wages may not benefit 'competitiveness' in the short term, but on an international market, it all levels out. The poorer countries in the EU, such as Romania, used to an average salary of just £200 pcm will come to the UK and consider £13K pa a fortune, but ultimately, they will soon be demanding a par with their British colleagues (and discrimination on the grounds of nationality is technically illegal). So things in the long-term do reach an equilibrium.

One very good reason people set up trade unions was to have a closed shop so that only persons of the right skill level could join, and the rates for the job were kept at a premium to keep out the cheaper undercutters.

And I guess that is what professional bodies - including my own - try to do.

*In economics, BRIC is a grouping acronym that refers to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, which are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. It is typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries" or "the BRIC economies" or alternatively as the "Big Four".

 

[The Don]

It is not economic illiteracy in my case, as I studied Economics to A-Level and beyond. Of the many business case studies I had to analyse, one for my final accountancy exam was to do with a manufacturing company in an industry which customarily outsources production to China. As of the time, Cost of Sales (price of labour and production costs) of this product was just £0.56p.

This happened to coincide with a programme on TV (Horizon?) about a factory in Kirby, Lancs which specialised in goods produced by machinists having to sew up the soft goods for widespread wholesale distribution to retail outlets.

The owner of this factory was filmed visiting his factory outlets in China which did all this seamstress work, as it was much cheaper than paying British labour.

As you know, in recent years, China has been one of the BRIC economies*, and this chap began fretting about the rise of the Chinese middle classes demanding better middle class wages.

So he terminated his contracts with the Chinese producers and set up his factory back home in Kirby, giving jobs to the local ladies for much the same price as before (roughly £0.56 per completed item).

So, this is a clear demonstration that employers will go for the cheap labour options. So yes, higher wages may not benefit 'competitiveness' in the short term, but on an international market, it all levels out. The poorer countries in the EU, such as Romania, used to an average salary of just £200 pcm will come to the UK and consider £13K pa a fortune, but ultimately, they will soon be demanding a par with their British colleagues (and discrimination on the grounds of nationality is technically illegal). So things in the long-term do reach an equilibrium.

One very good reason people set up trade unions was to have a closed shop so that only persons of the right skill level could join, and the rates for the job were kept at a premium to keep out the cheaper undercutters.

And I guess that is what professional bodies - including my own - try to do.

....and yet the vast majority of garment manufacture is done overseas. As China becomes too expensive it moves to Vietnam and Bangladesh and other low cost locations.

If the UK wants to try to compete with the developing world on the cheapness of our labour then I don't think that's really a benefit of Brexit and if, as you seem to be advocating, we should instead restrict the inflow of labour then those industries will become cost-prohibitive in the UK.

You may think that "it all levels out" but it really doesn't at least on a human lifetime scale. As individual countries see a rise in wages then low cost manufacturers move onto the next low cost destination.

That said, IMO the UK needs a high skill, high added value economy. We should be competing with the Northern Europeans, Japanese and North Americans on innovation and quality, not with the developing world on price. To do that we need access to the widest pool of talent. Restricting the flow of skills in order to locally drive up wages artificially is not IMO the answer and will have the effect of driving those industries to places like the EU, US and Japan where there are more workers and more skilled workers.

 

[ddt]

You can assume what you like, I will respond to what is actually posted.

People often sloppily use the words "country", "state", "nation" interchangeably as if they're synonyms.. So yes, I'd like some clarification on the issue.

A "nation" is a group of people with a common culture, language, heritage. It is definitely not synonymous with a polity.

The word "country" is often used instead of "sovereign state", but it can also refer to a subdivision, with more or less self-governance. Pre-1922 UK was a sovereign, unitary state with four (home) countries, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Sint Maarten, half a Caribbean island, is a self-governing constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a sovereign state, which on the world stage is represented by another constituent country, The Netherlands. Et cetera.

A "state" can either be a sovereign state or a sub-polity of a (federal) sovereign state, e.g., the US states.

Even the word "sovereign state" has problems. Under the constitutive theory, you need to be recognized by all other members of the club of sovereign states; under the declarative theory, you just need the capacity to act as a sovereign state. Both lead to problem cases, e.g., Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, Western Sahara.

Not that your point makes any sense anyway, creating an Irish State as a British dominion was also creating an internal border by partitioning Ireland, you're just describing it from the opposite angle.

I didn't view it from any angle yet. I assumed Archie meant "sovereign state" in both instances, and then it fails because the 1922 treaty did not create a new sovereign state. The 1937 Irish constitution did.

But let's analyze it as Archie wrote it:

That one part of a country is sectioned off

OK, the "country" being Ireland (as one of the home countries of the UK), and the "part" being Northern Ireland.

and an internal border put in place

Fair enough, there was an actual border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.

in order to preserve links to a foreign nation?

What here is the "foreign nation"? Presumably, these would be in Britain. Scottish, Welsh, English are nations. The Cornish for my part. But "British unionists" do not count as a nation.

 

[Strawberry]

People often sloppily use the words "country", "state", "nation" interchangeably as if they're synonyms.. So yes, I'd like some clarification on the issue.

A "nation" is a group of people with a common culture, language, heritage. It is definitely not synonymous with a polity.

The word "country" is often used instead of "sovereign state", but it can also refer to a subdivision, with more or less self-governance. Pre-1922 UK was a sovereign, unitary state with four (home) countries, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Sint Maarten, half a Caribbean island, is a self-governing constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a sovereign state, which on the world stage is represented by another constituent country, The Netherlands. Et cetera.

A "state" can either be a sovereign state or a sub-polity of a (federal) sovereign state, e.g., the US states.

Even the word "sovereign state" has problems. Under the constitutive theory, you need to be recognized by all other members of the club of sovereign states; under the declarative theory, you just need the capacity to act as a sovereign state. Both lead to problem cases, e.g., Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, Western Sahara.


I didn't view it from any angle yet. I assumed Archie meant "sovereign state" in both instances, and then it fails because the 1922 treaty did not create a new sovereign state. The 1937 Irish constitution did.

But let's analyze it as Archie wrote it:

OK, the "country" being Ireland (as one of the home countries of the UK), and the "part" being Northern Ireland.

Fair enough, there was an actual border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.

What here is the "foreign nation"? Presumably, these would be in Britain. Scottish, Welsh, English are nations. The Cornish for my part. But "British unionists" do not count as a nation.

The foreign nation here is Britain and the internal border is between two parts of Ireland. You seem incapable of viewing it from an Irish perspective, and frankly I'm a bit sick of it from you and others. We all know what the de jure status of Ireland was at the time, but that doesn't give you the right to start arguing and rolling your eyes at me when I call my country a country.

 

[ddt]

The foreign nation here is Britain and the internal border is between two parts of Ireland. You seem incapable of viewing it from an Irish perspective, and frankly I'm a bit sick of it from you and others. We all know what the de jure status of Ireland was at the time, but that doesn't give you the right to start arguing and rolling your eyes at me when I call my country a country.

Is there such a think as a "British nation"; I'm sure our Scottish posters will deny that. And I'm frankly surprised at the rest, as I did acknowledge there's such a thing as an Irish country and I think in the long term, political reunification of Ireland is the only sensible solution.