U.K. Politics: Nadine Dorries resigns her post as MP - or does she?

[Thriller]

A deal is obviously better than no deal but the proof will be in the pudding over the coming years as to its impact. Boris gloating that he delivered on the referendum promises... we’ll see. I doubt the NHS will be getting £350m a week any time soon.

[Wayne]

Not at all surprising.

[Thriller]

What’s surprising is that the Tory rating isn’t even lower.

[SholasBoy]

Wow. I hope all those (insert choice word) that voted for conservative rather than their usual labour vote to try and get Brexit done can see why that was such a mistake now. Surely nobody can be happy with the governments handling of 2020.

[Wayne]

Even though I cannot stand Jeremy Corbyn, I voted for Labour under his leadership as I knew a Boris led government would not be good or productive for the U.K. This was the first time I had ever voted for Labour - under Keir, I will vote for Labour again (providing my local candidate isn’t a tit). Sadly, there were not many people like me - the Tory party decimated the famous red wall in the North and presumably, these very same people are now lamenting the day they switched to Tory.

I personally think these numbers are soft - I think the gap is even greater than this.

[SholasBoy]

When is our next chance to kick the buffoon out?

[DnBLover]

Honestly British politics seems to be in shambles

[Wayne]

When is our next chance to kick the buffoon out?

Under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the next general election can be expected to take place on Thursday 2 May 2024.

So, we have at least another 3.5 years of Boris et al unless for some other extraordinary reason he decides to call an election early, or he resigns and his replacement calls for an early election (which would be a total surprise, given the Tory have a mandate supported by the largest parliamentary majority since Thatcher).

[SholasBoy]

Oh

[Thriller]

I’m astounded the Tories have allowed Boris to see 2020 out as Leader... maybe they wanted him to be responsible for the poison chalice that is Brexit and once covid is under control (lol) we will see a leadership contest.

[KEY9481]

Honestly British politics seems to be in shambles

I think it is in every western country tbh.

[Michiel]

Just generally speaking I still feel very sad that this is happening, for the UK itself but for the EU also. I do experience some type of grief tbh. It's a loss for everyone, and especially in times where social problems are gradually more being approached on a global level to look for solutions (e.g., climate crisis, racism, etc.). I guess this is probably also one of the reasons why these populists and national movements are so attractive for a certain branch of the population (not saying Brexist is populist or nationalistic an sich). Fragmantation and falling back to the nation state will bring us, in my opinion, nowhere. And no, I am not pro an international supranationalist government or whatever, but it has been clear for decades now that big unions of countries are the future of our world, current counterdiscourses are not gonna be able to stop it, especially when we move up a few generations. Just a hunch, which gives me the feeling that all of this is gonna be very contraproductive in the long run, especially for the UK. Obviously, the EU as an institute is lacking in significant areas, but I consider them growing pains. Even if people don't experience it on a day on day basis, the EU's political, economic and also lately its social power has been growing considerably huge since its inception, and will grow more important in tackling social issues like the ones we are seeing now... Of course, easy to say living in Belgium myself and receiving the most advantages... But the EU is here to stay, and I can see it becoming less West-European centric in time. I feel like the UK missed the train of the future at this moment, as its political power internationally is mostly based on a historical baseline that has been crumbling down for decades now. Curious to see where we will be in 50 years...

[jio]

I am not sure what you mean by this statement: "it has been clear for decades now that big unions of countries are the future of our world"? How is that clear? If history has taught us anything, it's the exact opposite

[Artoo]

I’m astounded the Tories have allowed Boris to see 2020 out as Leader... maybe they wanted him to be responsible for the poison chalice that is Brexit and once covid is under control (lol) we will see a leadership contest.

Similar to Brexit, there isn’t a single politician that wants to deal with Covid. Boris and co only staged their coup once May had done everything she was supposed to do (triggered the exit, agreed a deal) and had failed to achieve what they wanted from Brexit.

For all his faults and mistakes, it’ll be much easier to kick Boris out of the top job once the pandemic is over and have someone else deal with the fallout to help increase confidence in the party again. Although they might wait until after a tax increase before giving him the boot.

Either way, an inquiry into the handling of the pandemic is inevitable and legitimate questions need answering as to how effectively the government handled the situation, and if political decisions contributed or reduced the final death rate.

I mean the UK’s decisions from the get go were suspect (herd immunity, no masks, borders open etc) and Boris is screwed either way - history will not be kind to him.

However all of this comes down to one thing for me - we do not have any politicians worthy of the top job. Sir Kier has only been an MP since 2015 and as educated as he is, has no experience in government. Though I do think he has a decent head on his shoulders.

[Artoo]

I am not sure what you mean by this statement: "it has been clear for decades now that big unions of countries are the future of our world"? How is that clear? If history has taught us anything, it's the exact opposite

I don’t disagree, but in what way has history taught us the opposite? The EU is essentially a coalition of countries as oppose to an empire.

As a concept, the EU has admirable ideals but has become flawed in its execution. It’s response to global issues has also been questionable too. Ultimately I think the EU has failed but I’m not against a coalition of countries working together to achieve shared goals.

In principle it’s the right step towards achieving a real global community and most likely how we eventually achieve world peace.

[jio]

First of all an empire could work because empire is not a union of states but a nation state forcing its sovereignty and will on others. Union of states failing on the other hand...

Well because every union of countries that emerged in the past century or so has collapsed (be that the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or the Syria-Egypt union) with the original nation-states re-emerging from their ashes. The EU is the big exception of course but even in the EU the power is in the institutions and bodies that represent nation states (Council) and not so much in the ones that represent the Union as a whole (Parliament). There are common rules and such but those never threaten the existence of the independent nation state that can reinforce its presence easily when needed.

So in my view every effort done in the past century to overcome the nation state has failed.

[Michiel]

jio ^Absolutely. I really do not disagree with your assessment overall, I think I just framed it wrongly, especially in that specific sentence. It is more, like menime123 implied, about principle. It is true that the past does not give a lot of hope in that regard. Yet in principle, an union of countries is the only way to overcome current social and ecological issues, more dramatically put: basically to preserve humanity in the long run. At least that's what I believe, and that's also what different types of sciences point to. And I'm not only talking about the climate crisis, but also global economic inequalities and movements of emancipation, etc.

That being said, I think your assessment is also a bit flawed, as it seems like you are comparing Soviet Union with EU, which are two completely different unions. As such the fall of the Soviet Union is not that much of a lesson let's say for the EU, partly it is of course (just like any type of 'union' is in the broad sense), but it was something very different from the get-go. The EU was always about the mantra 'celebrate differences in unity' etc (their ideal, not their practice btw... One of the many issues of the EU). and the union is still alive exactly because the nation states still hold considerable sovereign power, but if you look where the EU comes from and where it is now, a lot has already changed, and the EU has gained considerable power throughout its course (albeit sitll mainly limited to the economic domain). Power that is accepted, yet I agree that this process has come to a hold or has slowed down, hence why the last years the discussion about an EU social policy and identity is growing, as its social fabric is too weak to make power gains at the cost of the nation state acceptable. Yet, I believe EU will survive this and come out stronger eventually, as the mondial scene is changing rapidly. The globalization, which was already present (but never really accepted) during the existence of the Soviet Union, is exploding and a lot of these consequences are just not yet clear to us. For example, the impact of having social networks that transcend national boundaries is something we don't fully capture yet, but it will only grow and it will change the political scene from the bottom-up (to the point that political changes in country x do not only significantly affect people in country x, but also in country y en z, something that already minimally exists). For now, these processes are mainly reserved for the privileged ones, but also that is changing rapidly. Our mindset is also very slowly adapting to this globalized mindset, I mean I can't explain to you how this paradigm shift impacted my line of work, the climate crisis or racial and social inequality really morfed from national issues to global issues in a matter of a decade, but yes the 'national methodologism' still holds on and is still very strong. I don't or I didn't expect anything else, since the formation of nation states is almost as old as humanity itself, whereas organizing political power on a more supranational level is quite recent, at least the political practices and its 'consciousness' not the idea obviously.

I also do not think the answer is a supranational organ that controls the world, not at all, I mean that's horrible and unfeasible, and probably not very smart. The nation states will continue playing their role, but I can see that, in the EU at least, more power will gradually be taken up by diverse supranational organs in different domains. Simply because national politics are too limited to tackle issues that are currently rising. There is no denying that this voice, this point of view is growing, especially in Western countries, counterdiscourses are the prove of just that. Hence, that's why I was so disappointed about the role of the EU in the COVID-19 pandemic, cause for the EU it was a chance to finally show what they can mean to us Europeans (that's also one of the main issues of the EU isn't it, its invisibility of impact on the national level and its lack of democratic power in its institutions). It will be very interesting to follow the discussion of the EU in the aftermath of the pandemic, since the failure of the EU can be attributed to a lot of very different causes (did it fail because it is too complex? Did it fail because nation states still hold too much power? Did it fail because its leadership is not as accepted? Etc.). Yet, the pandemic also showed us that a strong coalition of countries and a partly unified policy can also hold a lot of advantages, albeit unevenly spread at the moment. That's why I think the EU won't fall, and its progression will continue, of course with the necessary bends and bumps. Social issues won't become more national again, even though some states are retracting as turtles, they can try but they won't stop this trend of a globalized approach to a lot of social issues as much as some political leaders would like to see just that. People are generally less and less bound to their own nation state, hence why we have so many counterdiscourses to revive just that national identity. This polarization is exactly a prove of something bigger playing here.

The globalized approach to social issues, initiated and led by the climate crisis, will demand international political power, and that's where these coalitions already, but more so in the future, play a huge rule. Individual countries hold less political power and weight. At the same time I also recognize these other discourses, and I can also imagine revival of the nation state in some areas, as I don't think the one should completely exclude the other. If I think about the climate crisis for example, then you might even imagine that a revival of real communities, not per se national, is even beneficial. At the end of the day it will play out in a way that both, a retraction and a progression, will take place but probably in different areas. In general I feel like that your argument, the fact that the nation state has not been overcome, is a testament to just this: a nation state is among the oldest concepts or ideas we have about 'living together with people' which is also one of the main reasons why it is not falling, and also one of the reasons why it will probably remain, but the fact these international collaborations are happening (despite failing most of the time), and are still growing is also the prove that there is a need and a will to organize a portion of political power on a supranational level, albeit mostly restricted to certain issues, but I can imagine this list of issues growing. So I don't think the nation state will fall, I also don't think I implied that in my previous post? It can be both. And despite a lot of (mostly uninformed tbh) critiques, the EU is proving at the moment that it is possible to tackle a growing number of international issues combined with nation state sovereignty and respect for cultural differences. Is it doing a good job? Not really, that's why I used the notion of growing pains: this political progression will play out in the long run, slowly and uneven, mainly because the nation state is so much older and stronger, whereas these international tendencies, as we know them today, are relatively new (I am not talking about trade deals with your neighboring country obviously). It was never bound to take over in a century, and I don't think it ever will, and how would it have? The globalization of social issues is fairly recent, and we still mainly think in terms of nation states, or even regions. The latter is also not bad, both are needed. For example racism is a global and a local issue, racism in the US is not the same as racism in Belgium, but there are some shared feelings of victimhood and power imbalances. Both deserve our attention. The causes and the impact of the climate crisis are also very unevenly spread, which have to be taken into consideration if we want to formulate a solution. This specific attention to the local context for a social phenomenon is as old as the nation state, but the comparative view and especially the impact of international relations on a local outing of a social phenomenon are fairly new, but very enlightening and growing in a rapid manner. We are slowly realizing that social issues in one country cannot be solely solved by taking actions in that specific country, we are slowly realizing that social issues do not stop at a national boundary and we are slowly realizing the inherent failures of historically defined systems and structures, like capitalism, are at the base of national AND global inequalities. Black lives matter, for example, would have not spilled over as much internationally as it did this year if it is was not because of these societal trends. And it is just getting started.

[Wayne]

So, the U.K. is officially a sovereign state as of today trading on its own and charting its own course.

And I couldn’t be more displeased - I feel a bit bereft seeing all of the Brexiteers celebrating on Twitter. Very sad that we left.

[Leo]

NOMINEE for the 3rd Annual UKMIX Hot100 AWARDS as

Voting will start once all categories are announced! Stay tuned!

[Wayne]

UK firms told 'set up in EU to avoid trade disruption'

UK firms that export to the EU say they are being encouraged by the government to set up subsidiaries in the bloc to avoid disruption under new trade rules.

Firms have been hit by extra charges, taxes and paperwork, leading some to stop exporting to the EU altogether.

But several say they have been told that setting up hubs in Europe would minimise the disruption, even if it means moving investment out of the UK.

The Department for International Trade said it was "not government policy".

"The Cabinet Office have issued clear guidance, available at www.gov.uk/transition, and we encourage all businesses to follow that guidance."

The Cheshire Cheese Company said it had been advised by an official to set up in the EU after it was forced to stop its exports to the bloc due to trade rules that came in on 1 January.

'Only solution'

The firm, which sold £180,000 of cheese to the EU last year, found that every £25-30 gift box of cheese it sends to consumers on the Continent now needs a veterinary-approved health certificate costing £180.

"I spoke to someone at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for advice. They told me setting up a fulfilment centre in the EU where we could pack the boxes was my only solution," co-founder Simon Spurrell told the BBC.

The firm, which had been optimistic about Brexit, is now looking at setting up a hub in France where it would "test the water".

But it has also scrapped plans to build a new £1m warehouse in Macclesfield employing 20-30 people.

"Instead we might end up employing French workers and paying tax to the EU," Mr Spurrell said.

"I left the EU as a UK citizen but now they are suggesting I rejoin my company to the EU, so what was Brexit for?"

'Set up shop in Germany'

The issue, he said, was that the under the post-Brexit trade deal, a vet must approve every consignment of fresh food that his company ships to the EU.

It is a complex and costly process that has hit exporters of fresh meat and fish as well, and was partly why the government set up a £23m support fund for UK fishing companies.

UK retailers who export to the EU have also complained about being hit with unsustainable costs when customers in the bloc return goods bought online. This is due to new customs clearance charges incurred by shipping firms.

Some retailers have even warned they could burn clothes stuck at borders as it is cheaper than bringing them home.

Ulla Vitting Richards, who runs her sustainable fashion brand Vildnis from the UK, told the BBC last week she had stopped exporting to the EU, which was her fastest growing market, because of the new processes.

She also said that she had been advised - this time by a Department for International Trade (DIT) representative - that setting up a subsidiary distribution hub might help.

"He told me we'd be best off moving stock to a warehouse in Germany and get them to handle it," she said.

As early as last October, trade consultants Blick Rothenberg warned that thousands of UK businesses might need to set up an EU presence in order to keep exporting to European markets.

However, experts say EU firms exporting to the UK - which currently enjoy a grace period over the imposition of some rules - will soon face the same issues.

Indeed, some EU exporters have already stopped deliveries to the UK because of new VAT related charges.

The DIT said it was not government policy to advise UK firms to set up EU hubs and that it was "ensuring all officials are properly conveying" the right information.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55786974

You couldn't make it up...

[Thriller]

Hilarious... let’s leave the EU but encourage businesses to base themselves there!

[Rihab]

I had a credit card from a British bank, but late last year they notified me that they had moved to Lithuania.

[heppolo]

I had a credit card from a British bank, but late last year they notified me that they had moved to Lithuania.

it's just...unbelievable

[Wayne]

The EU is introducing controls on vaccines made in the bloc, including to Northern Ireland, amid a row about delivery shortfalls.

Under the Brexit deal, all products should be exported from the EU to Northern Ireland without checks.

But the EU believed this could be used to circumvent export controls, with NI becoming a backdoor to the wider UK.

NI First Minister Arlene Foster described the move as "an incredible act of hostility" by the EU.

The EU invoked Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol which allows parts of the deal to be unilaterally overridden.

In a new regulation the European Commission states: "This is justified as a safeguard measure pursuant to Article 16 of that Protocol in order to avert serious societal difficulties due to a lack of supply threatening to disturb the orderly implementation of the vaccination campaigns in the Member States."

The Northern Ireland Protocol is a special deal to prevent the re-emergence of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol, agreed in the original withdrawal agreement, is essentially a safeguard that would allow the UK or EU to act unilaterally if measures imposed as a result of the protocol are deemed to be causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties".

Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove has spoken to European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic to express the UK's "concern over a lack of notification from the EU about its actions in relation to the NI protocol", said a Downing Street spokesman.

Mr Gove said the UK would be "carefully considering next steps".

An Irish government spokesman said Taoiseach (prime minister) Micheal Martin was currently in discussions with European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen to express Dublin's concerns.

The move should not directly disadvantage NI as it gets its vaccine supplies through the UK procurement system.

Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said Northern Ireland's vaccine procurement was carried out through the UK-wide process.

"The Govt has contracts with AstraZeneca & others to ensure vaccines are delivered on schedule & guarantee reliable vaccine provision across the whole of the UK," he tweeted.

Louise Haigh MP, Labour's Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, said the move was "deeply destabilising and undermines the huge efforts being made to make the Protocol work".

DUP leader Arlene Foster said the EU had placed a "hard border" between Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland.

"By triggering Article 16 in this manner, the European Union has once again shown it is prepared to use Northern Ireland when it suits their interests but in the most despicable manner - over the provision of a vaccine which is designed to save lives," she said.

"At the first opportunity the EU has placed a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland over the supply chain of the Coronavirus vaccine. "With the European Union using Article 16 in such an aggressive and most shameful way, it is now time for our Government to step up.

"I will be urging the prime minister to act and use robust measures including Article 16 to advance the interests of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom."

Ulster Unionist Party leader Steve Aiken said the UK government should now invoke Article 16 in response to the EU's actions.

Alliance Party leader Naomi Long said what was needed was "maximum co-operation" not "this obstructive behaviour" from the EU.

Meanwhile, SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said the European Commission's decision to invoke Article 16 was "disproportionate".

Oh dear...

[Artoo]

... and people wonder why we left. The EU is nothing but a self serving dictatorship.