Daily Archives: May 2, 2020

The U.K. argues it isnt prepared to consent to demands the EU hasnt made of other countries -- including measures to stop U.K. businesses undercutting their European rivals and continued access for EU fishing boats to U.K. waters.

Photographer: Annie Sakkab/Bloomberg

Photographer: Annie Sakkab/Bloomberg

Sign up to ourBrexitBulletin, follow us @Brexitandsubscribe to our podcast.

Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove complained that the European Union isnt treating Britain like a sovereign state in talks about the two sides future relationship, underscoring the risk of an economic shock at the year-end if they cant reach a trade deal.

He told a committee of lawmakers in London that in areas such as fishing and the future influence of EU institutions the bloc is asking for more of the U.K. than it does of other independent countries, something that is unacceptable to the U.K. The government has called for political movement from the EU if the talks are to avoid failing.

The EUs stance is particularly difficult and challenging, Gove said to the House of Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU on Monday. Im confident the EU will want to operate in a constructive way.

Goves emphasis on sovereignty exposes the disconnect between the two sides as time runs out for them to seal a deal. The EUs chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, last week dismissed the idea that the U.K. is the equal of the EU, saying the reality of this negotiation is that it is one between a market of 66 million consumers and the EUs 450 million.

Barnier also attacked the U.K. for failing to engage substantially in several key areas of the negotiations and for refusing to extend the deadline to reach a deal.

With the two sides at loggerheads, the U.K. looks increasingly likely to crash out of the bloc at the end of December without a trade deal, spelling disruption for businesses already grappling with the coronavirus pandemic.

Brexit Talks Marred by Accusation U.K. Is Running Down the Clock

Gove said he hoped the coronavirus crisis would focus the minds of EU negotiators on the importance of reaching a deal. He said the two sides would take stock of the talks in June. Asked about the chances of an agreement, the minister said they are now better than 50% -- but he also said he is a terrible predictor.

Earlier, Prime Minister Boris Johnsons spokesman called for the EU to modify its demands in two key areas: continued access for European fishing boats and the so-called level playing field.

The U.K. argues that the current fishing system is unfair because it allows EU boats to catch more in British waters than domestic vessels. The EU argues that it needs to include measures to stop the U.K. undercutting the blocs economy in any agreement because of the countrys geographical proximity.

All we are seeking is an agreement based on precedent, James Slack told reporters on Monday. The British government is ready to keep talking, but that doesnt make us any more likely to agree if Brussels doesnt change its position, he said. There will need to be a political injection on the EU side.

Failure to strike an accord by Dec. 31 would mean the return of tariffs and quotas as well as the imposition of bureaucratic barriers for businesses.

(Updates with Gove comments from first paragraph.)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Here is the original post:

Gove Complains EU Not Respecting Sovereignty in Brexit Talks - Bloomberg

PUBLISHED: 10:37 28 April 2020 | UPDATED: 10:45 28 April 2020

Anti-Brexit demonstrators wave European Union and Union flags outside the Houses of Parliament in London. Credit: Yui Mok/PA

PA Wire/PA Images

A group of campaigners have filed a court case with the General Court of the European Union that argues EU citizenship is permanent status regardless of Brexit.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

The pro-EU activists believe legally all 66 million continue to hold the status, even when the transition period ends, allowing them to freely move and work in all 27 countries of the bloc.

As The New European reported last month, the legal case acknowledges that not all rights will applicable to UK residents - such as the right to vote or stand in European elections - but believe freedom of movement rights can still be preserved.

The campaigners argue that such status cannot be removed without their consent.

If successful it would allow UK citizens to remain EU citizens.

Dr Alexandra von Westernhagen, one of the lawyers behind the case, explained to The London Economic: Our case is formally an action partially to annul the decision of the EU Council of Ministers of 30 January 2020 which approved the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, insofar as it deprives the applicants, without their consent and without due process, of their status as EU citizens and their rights resulting from that status.

MORE: Support your pro-European newspaper with a 13 digital or print subscription

MORE: Or make a donation to help grow our journalism

The case asks what is the nature of the EU itself: is it a Union for its member states only? Or is it also a Union for and between the people of Europe? This is a fundamental question for all 515 million EU citizens and everybody else who believes in the idea of an international, value-based citizenship.

The European Commission denied to comment further, but said: We take note of the intention to begin legal proceedings.

Remain campaigners had hoped associate EU citizenship would allow those that did not support Brexit to retain links with the EU after the end of the transition period at the end of the year.

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Go here to see the original:

Campaigners file case that argues EU citizenship is permanent regardless of Brexit | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

Boris Johnson has repeatedly refused to extend Brexit any further as the Prime Minister has vowed to get trade talks done by December 31, 2020. But Mr Johnson is facing calls to delay following the coronavirus pandemic which have made trade negotiations challenging. The Conservative Party's leading donor, Alexander Temerko, has said to extend for at least one year.

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Temerko said: "We need a lift. It might be very slowly but very bravely.

"We definitely need to open businesses, maybe restaurants and hotels and return business to construction.

"That is very important today.

"On May 7, we need to start lifting the lockdown."

READ MORE:Labour crisis: Starmers brutal Brexit snub to Corbyn exposed

He added: "Michael Gove, Boris and Alok Sharma totally agree that we need to use our national business to create new capacity for fighting this virus."

Mr Temerko went on to give his advice on Brexit.

He said: "We don't know what kind of rule will be when we leave Europe.

"If we leave Europe, the situation will be tougher.

"My advice is to extend for one year. It's not to continue the Remain idea, I think it would be better for the economy."

Zoom drinks and informal chats could be the way of breaking the post-Brexit trade deadlock, according to insiders.

The first two rounds of trade negotiations between the UK and European Union teams have so far been conducted online via video-conferencing due to the coronavirus pandemic.

But insiders said that while there were efficiency benefits to online working, the ability to "take people off for a coffee and talk stuff through" had been lost without face-to-face contact.

DON'T MISS

Tony Blair's shock claim about Gordon Brown exposed[INSIGHT]Brussels power grab: EU demands control over Northern Ireland fishing[LATEST]British fishermen FURIOUS at trawlers Covid or not, this must stop'[COMMENT]

And with social distancing measures likely to be in place until a COVID-19 vaccine is discovered, both sides are said to want to find "new ways" of establishing informal conversations in a bid to break the current deadlock.

Briefing reporters on Thursday about the progress of the virtual talks, a source close to the UK negotiating team said: "The downside is you can't take people off for a coffee and talk stuff through and have the informal discussions.

"We'll have to find ways of replicating that. We'll have to do it by video-conference, by phone and by other ways and we're going to have to be tolerant of each other.

"Obviously it is still possible to have the conversations, what's more difficult to replicate is the atmospherics.

"But that doesn't mean you can't do it and we will aim to do it over the next couple of months."

See original here:

Boris Johnson must extend Brexit talks for another YEAR, major Tory Party donor demands - Express

PUBLISHED: 12:46 30 April 2020 | UPDATED: 12:46 30 April 2020

David Edgerton

Workers in the assembly area of an aircraft factory in the Midlands, building spitfires. (Photo by Hudson/Fox Photos/Getty Images)

Archant

Historian DAVID EDGERTON on the cynical fantasies about innovation and exceptionalism providing a common strand.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

The governments response to Covid-19 and Brexit are intimately connected. Recognising this is vital to understanding the politics of both. Indeed as the trade expert David Henig has noted, we will know that the UK is really serious about Covid-19 at the moment in which is prepared to say that a Brexit extension is needed. That moment has not yet come, indeed it has been ruled out.

On the face of it there is a very great difference between the two policies. In the case of Brexit the government has consistently rejected the advice of economists, including its own.

In the case of Covid-19 it constantly reiterates that it is following the science. But there is an underlying connection which is important. Brexiteer arguments are centred on fantasies about British scientific and inventive genius. The government has sought to address Covid-19 at least in part on this deluded basis.

At the beginning, Boris Johnson stood behind the science to justify a UK-only policy of delay of the Covid-19 virus. This involved minimal intervention in what Johnson took to reminding us are the freedom-loving proclivities of the British people. Too late, what looked like a cunning plan to exemplify the virtues of the British way collapsed utterly.

The UK is now, broadly-speaking, following Europe and much of the rest of the world. Following the science now sounds like a way of not answering legitimate questions.

But when it comes to ventilators, a Brexiteer innovation-fixated logic applies. The current crisis has been an opportunity to illustrate the argument that the UK was a powerful innovation nation that could do very well without the EU.

The government launched a programme, the details of which are still murky, to create new emergency ventilators. First off the blocks in the PR blitz was the Brexiteer Sir James Dyson, who was teaming up with another Brexiteer capitalist, Lord Bamford of JCB, to make many thousands of the devices.

This, it turned out was just one of many projects to design new ventilators, and to modify others for mass production. There were lots of allusions to the Second World War, as if Spitfires had been conjured out of thin air in the heat generated by patriotic enthusiasm.

It is telling too that the government decided not to take part in the EU ventilator procurement programme. This had to be a British programme for PR purposes, even though many of the companies making the components in the UK are European, like Siemens, Airbus, Thales

That wartime analogy was deeply misleading the UK was a world leader in aircraft before the Battle of Britain. It had been making Spitfires since the late 1930s, and had huge long-planned specialist factories making them.

What is clear is that we are not in 1940. The UK is not a world leader in ventilator manufacture, far from it. Furthermore, the NHS (and this is a scandal) has been under-supplied with them. The high-end ventilators the NHS now needs will and are coming from abroad.

It looks as if the British emergency ventilators will generally be low-end ones, and one at least has already been rejected. The ones that seem to be going into production are based on simple machines long in production in the UK.

Indeed, there may be a wartime analogy which could become pertinent. Churchill did attempt to conjure up new weapons in a hurry in the face of expert advice. They included anti-aircraft rockets, spigot mortars, and indeed a trench-cutting machine. They were universally late, did not work well or at all, and represented a huge waste of resources.

We should not be fooled into believing that there is a coherent industrial strategy emerging out of the epidemic, a determined move to national self-supply.

For if there were the government would not be throwing manufacturing in Britain to the winds, as its Brexit plans certainly would. For they involve the breaking up of the regulatory and customs market in which they exist, and furthermore, would open the British market not only to European producers, but those from all over the world. That is what being a global champion of free trade means.

What we need to understand is the centrality of a mythical picture of British innovation to Brexit. Brexiteer arguments for a hard Brexit hinge on the UKs supposed leadership in creativity and innovation, which was just waiting to be unleashed.

Dominic Cummings got his 800 million in the budget for a UK version of the US Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). The wonderful thing about invoking science is that it suggests action, drive, modernity.

Yet what Johnson and other Brexiteers have rediscovered was a great British liberal tradition of making a lot of noise about science in order to cover up deliberate inaction, in the face of demands for a national and imperial strategy for agriculture and industry.

Before the Great War, faced with calls from the Tories for tariffs on imports, not least food, which he vehemently opposed, David Lloyd George funded agricultural research to help farmers instead.

Of course any help they might receive would be years in the future and trivial by comparison with tariffs. Similarly, in the 1920s, the government resisted protection and imperial preference by creating an Empire Marketing Board, one of whose major functions was research. It had minor impact, as intended, and was wound up the moment tariffs came in the 1930s.

The strategy has been in action for a while. After 2008 there was much talk about the march of the makers, and the northern powerhouse. One of the very few initiatives was the support, with 50m, of the Graphene Institute. Graphene, made by two Manchester University scientists, was seen as a wonder material, which would transform the fortunes of the university, its region and the whole country. It was trumpeted the key to a vibrant new future. It has not arrived. Sums like 50m can buy a lot of media coverage; they cannot buy you a real industrial strategy. Innovation capacity in batteries has been a favourite for some years. Yet there is no significant British battery industry, nor the prospect of one. Electric cars, and batteries for them, are very much more advanced in Europe, in China and in Japan. One cannot magic an industry out of thin air, whether high-end ventilators or batteries, but by referencing innovation one can pretend, for a while.

And that is where the politics of Covid-19, and Brexit, are stuck, in cynical fantasies about innovation.

David Edgerton teaches at Kings College London, where he is Hans Rausing professor of the history of science and technology and professor of modern British history; this article also appears at his blog, http://www.davidedgerton.org

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

See the original post here:

DAVID EDGERTON: Where Brexit and Covid-19 collide | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

Politicians, scientists, environmentalist and campaigners say the deal struck between EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan and the Mexican Minister for Economic Affairs Graciela Mrquez Coln yesterday will trigger human rights abuses and crimes against the environment. A collective of so-called civil society European organisations which took part in the so-called Toxi Tour in Mexico demand the trade deal is scrapped. The group undertook a high-profile so-called Toxi Tour of Mexico just before Christmas touring some of the nations most polluted areas to raise awareness about environmental problems and denounce companies they blamed for causing them.

On paper the deal includes measures to fight corruption and money laundering as well as investment protection, sustainable development in line with the Paris climate accord and simpler customs rules to boost exports.

But Latin-America news site Amerika21 said though the trade agreement was supposed to cover areas of human rights and the environment it actually gave more power to big business to side-step government regulations.

They added the civic society group also felt all political energies in Mexico should be focused on fighting the coronavirus pandemic.

The paper wrote: The updated trade agreement could lay the foundation for further human rights violations by European companies in Mexico.

Although it fundamentally includes the protection of human rights, while the protection of investments is characterised by the application of binding standards, the EU has always pursued a non-binding "soft law" policy with regard to human rights.

Civil society organisations believe that changing this approach is long overdue.

The new trade agreement between the European Union and Mexico should not be ratified or signed. In doing so, they are joining the global demand that the only commercial priority at the moment must be to remove obstacles to access to medical care and other resources, to strengthen public health systems and other social measures to deal with the current crisis.

But Mr Hogan said: While most of our efforts have been focused lately on tackling the coronavirus crisis, we have also been working to advance our open and fair trade agenda, which continues to be very important.

Openness, partnerships and co-operation will be even more essential as we rebuild our economies after this pandemic. I am very pleased, therefore, that together with our Mexican partners, we share similar views and that our continued work could now come to fruition.

"Todays agreement is clear evidence of our shared commitment to advance our agenda of partnership and co-operation. This agreement once in force will help both the EU and Mexico to support our respective economies and boost employment.

READ MORE:EU to cave as Brussels will give up fishery demands - UK says

The free trade contract will also trigger the interest of Brexiteers as the contract is intended to enable duty-free trade of goods between the EU and Mexico and is part of the global agreement that entered into force in 2000. In addition to political cooperation, development cooperation and human rights are also covered.

Some commentators have pointed out this is largely what Britain is asking for in the Brexit deal.

The biggest complaint from the Toxi Tour critics is it would be the first trade agreement between the EU and a Latin American country to include investment protection clauses.

Amerika21 wrote: This would strengthen the ability of transnational corporations to assert themselves against governments in both Europe and Mexico.2

The Toxi tour through Mexican industrial areas in December 2019 showed the downside of the increase in the number of multinational companies based in Mexico due to free trade agreements.

DON'T MISSNigel Farage erupted in a furious Brexit rant[VIDEO]Brutal warning 'Labour is done for' under Keir Starmer revealed[ARCHIVE]How Nicola Sturgeon was dubbed 'world's most dangerous woman'[ANALYSIS]

The rest is here:

EU free trade deal with Mexico (started at same time as Brexit) is AGREED - Express.co.uk

The UK formally left the EU in January, belatedly implementing the result of the 2016 referendum. But clearly this is far from being the end of the road. The UK is bound throughout the transition period by all the obligations of a full member state. There is a great deal of disentangling to be done, and evidently a wide gap between the UKs stated intentions and what the EU appears to have in mind.

The Foundation for Independence, a fully cross-party organisation, has been established to monitor these developments and to hold the government and the opposition to account. Brexit does not belong to one party, and Labour must now fully engage in delivering on the decision of the British people to leave the EU.

The UK governments view, as set out in a recent speech by David Frost the UKs chief negotiator is that the UK should become fully independent of the EU, except in so far as we reach agreements with the EU on an intergovernmental rather than an integrated political basis, covering all the many matters on which we have a common interest.

The EUs view, on the other hand, is that in return for access to the EU market the UK should have to comply with large sections of the single market and customs union obligations to provide a level-playing field for UK-EU trade. This would entail the UK being obliged to follow EU precepts on issues varying from state aid to environmental standards, and from employment conditions to regulation on financial services.

It is the foundations view that it is right to aim for full independence, as is the position for many other countries including such varied economies as those of South Korea, Japan, Israel and Mexico with which the EU has negotiated trade deals. All such deals entail some degree of compromise on total sovereignty but none of them involve anything like the detailed interference and control that the EU is proposing in the UKs case.

The EUs main argument for its stance is that the UK is a large economy very close to Europe, and therefore in a different relationship to the EU than other countries. The foundations view is that this is not a relevant consideration provided that there is agreement on equivalence. This means that the UK and the EU both accept that trade has to be conducted to agreed standards and outcomes but that how these are reached should be up to each of the contracting parties to determine and not laid down by one side, giving the other no option other but to comply.

Labour lost many of its Red Wall seats in December last year precisely because we lost a lot of Leave voters. If Labour is to win back the trust of these voters, it must work to hold the government to account on delivering upon the commitments made in the 2016 referendum namely that Brexit would ensure that we fully take back control of our laws, borders, money and trade.

It is in this context that the independence approach is surely the fairest way to interpret the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum. This was not a vote to remain in the EU in all but name, by formally leaving but staying within the single market and the customs union as some people have proposed. That would leave us with the worst of all worlds: with all the obligations of EU membership that the UK electorate voted against, but without us having a vote on the future direction which the EU may decide to take. The UK voted to have sovereignty over our affairs, and this is what the current negotiations ought to try to achieve.

Success will depend on the resolve of the UK negotiators and on the support that they have, which is partly where the foundation comes into play. Labour also has a key role to play here, and we have some strong cards in our hands. One is the huge balance of payments deficit we run with the EU about 110bn in 2018. The EU sells far more to us than we do to them, putting them in a position where they have much more to lose than we do by the imposition of tariffs. Our huge payments deficit with the EU, incidentally, contrasts with the surplus 26bn in 2018 that we have with the rest of the world. We also pay into the EU budget some 11bn more than we get out of it every year.

The EU badly needs us to continue to pay something towards the provision of common shared services, albeit much less than we pay now. The danger is that we get pushed into making concessions on fishing, as a prime example in order to secure any kind of deal because of a fear that the alternative is another cliff edge. This is the scenario that we must avoid.

The foundation believes that a reasonable deal is in our own, as well as the EUs, interest but not if it is one-sided, in favour of the European bloc. To get there, we may have to be willing to walk away from a bad deal, and Labour should be prepared to support this. There are high stakes, and we will need strong nerves and determination to emerge with a deal that both the UK and the EU are prepared to accept.

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList

Continue reading here:

Brexit does not belong to one party, and Labour must play its part - LabourList

The UK has said it will refuse any request to extend the Brexit transition period beyond December 31 even if the EU wants that to happen.

This means that as it stands the UK will fully leave the EUs Single Market and Customs Union by January 1, 2021.

This is also the cut-off for Britons to have established French residency to benefit from the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (WA) deal and obtain a new residents card.

The WA came into force after the UK left the EU on January 31, and one of its sections allowed for the current transition period.

During this year, the UK temporarily keeps most of the benefits of EU membership and Britons can still move overand establish the right to maintain many rights of an EU citizen, with limited exceptions such as voting or standing in French local elections.

Britons wanting to stay long term in France and benefit from the WA will have to apply for new Brexit deal residency cards. A new French website is due to open for applications in July.

The final cut-off to apply will be six months after the transition ...

Continued here:

Post-Brexit carte system 'will be easy', France says - The Connexion

PUBLISHED: 10:38 30 April 2020 | UPDATED: 10:38 30 April 2020

Home Secretary Priti Patel delivers a speech in London. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA.

PA Wire/PA Images

Allies of Priti Patel are demanding that critics apologise to the home secretary as she is expected to be cleared of bullying allegations.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

The Daily Telegraph reports that an investigation into the Tory MP, overseen by cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, found no evidence to support claims she had bullied staff in three different departments.

The report follows the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam, who is suing for constructive dismissal after accusing Pate of bullying staff.

Labour has called on Michael Gove, Cabinet Office minister, to release the findings of the inquiry into the public so they could be completely assured over the conduct of government ministers.

But Brexiteer allies of the home secretary have called for an apology to Patel before the report had been released or concluded.

Mark Francois, current chair of the European Research Group, said he was glad she has been completely exonerated.

Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative Party, said that the government should jump on the issue and bring to account those with an ulterior motive.

Former Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said those who briefed against Patel owed her an apology.

Patel made headlines earlier in the month for a lack of sincerity in her apologies to those who felt that there had been failings in the government handling of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

More:

Priti Patel allies to 'demand apology' over bullying allegations | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European

Text Size:A- A+

Among the many reactions to actor Rishi Kapoors cremation Thursday, one caught my attention. Ritu Rathaur, whocalls herself a Himachali Thakurian and Civilizational Hindu, criticised Ranbir Kapoor for wearing torn jeans to his fathers cremation.

Two things stand out. One is the obvious poor taste of the tweet and how it ignores that the Kapoor familywas asked by the authoritiesto go straight from the hospital to the crematorium in view of the lockdown, so obviously Ranbir couldnt change his clothes, even in the unlikely event that clothes were uppermost on his mind on the day his father died. The second is the word deracination.

Deracination means a removal or separation from ones native environment or culture, especially in terms of racial or ethnic identity, but the way it is used in India, it is less about race and far more about religion, language andclothes.

In India, if you dont engage with religion and religious customs (and particularly the majoritarian ones), you are called deracinated, because you obviously dont understand your culture and roots.

The use of the word in India assumes that anyone who is liberal, who speaks and thinks in English, who dresses in Western clothes and isnt concerned with a narrow and surface-level concept of Indianness, is deracinated. Anyone who talks about global issues and human rights instead of muscular nationalism is not in touch with real India. Never mind that there are many Indias, each of them equally real and valid the English-educated liberal elites Indianness doesnt get invalidated because of their privilege, and the white kurta-wearing funeral attendee isnt more desi than someone who wears jeans, ripped or not.

Also read: Loverboy, brat, troubled star, outspoken patriarch Rishi Kapoor was all of these and more

It is also a lazy pejorative because, as sociologist Shiv Visvanathan told ThePrint, When we in India talk about deracination, we are talking of a very superficial way of looking at a persons Indianness. Its a failure of our use of language, we didnt look at the root of the word before using it to describe someone who is just more cosmopolitan.

It is the same narrow logic that compelled many people, in June 2015, to make snarky comments aboutwhy Indians were celebratingwhen the US Supreme Court legalised gay marriage, and the same argument that is dredged up every four years when someone questions on social media why Indians care who becomes the US president. Because, you know, real Indians should only be concerned with what happens in our country.

It is also the same narrow logic behind Prime Minister Narendra Modis use of the term Khan Market gang to describe the capitals elite class, epitomised by the Nehru-Gandhi family, whose ideas of secularism and diversity, and cosmopolitan, outward-lookingways are at odds with the Rights obsession with the glories of our (Hindu) past.

In a 2017 article, the BJPs National General Secretary, Ram Madhav (who also, in 2019, criticised the pseudo-secular/liberal cartels of Khan Market), wrote that Indias native genius is rooted in its religio-social institutions like state, family, caste, guru and festival, adding that at the time of Independence, conflict arose between a colonised Nehru and a Gandhi more attached to native wisdom. Nehru sought to take the country in the direction of the ideas he had inherited from the colonial masters and from his personal experience in Europe. The crucial formative years after independence were thus dominated by a western liberal discourse that had very little Indian content, Madhav wrote.

Incidentally, after the BJPs victory in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Madhav took party workers out for a celebration to Khan Market.

R. Jagannathan, editorial director of Swarajya magazine, says a deracinated Indian is someone whose mind is almost entirely driven by the English language. He told ThePrint, When you think and express yourself in a regional language, you are far more rooted. Not that one can paint everyone with the same brush, but yes, someone who is mentally colonised by the English language is broadly what I would call deracinated. Of course, English is an Indian language, but it should be used only for looking outward. Forcing it as the language with which to look inwards, at regional issues, is problematic.

Also read: Time Modi & Amit Shah stop abusing Lutyens Delhi. They are the new power elite in Capital

In his book,The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and The Future of Politics, British writer and social commentator David Goodhart divides people into Somewheres (those who are deeply rooted in a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious, geographical community and geography, typically conservative, often not well-educated, and wedded to homogeneity) and Anywheres (urban, well-educated, well-travelled, at home anywhere in the world).

Goodhart uses these terms to explain, and justify, the demand for Brexit in the UK, citing the sense of threat to their identity that the Somewheres feel due to immigrants, despite the fact that they are in a majority over the Anywheres.

The terms can easily be transplanted to India, with the whole Hindu khatre mein hai narrative of the BJP. In India, the Anywheres are also in a minority, but they do hold some sway over public thought, be it in the media, in cinema, literature, big business or the civil services. And yes, they do need to confront the fact that there is a disenchantment with them that has led to Narendra Modis consecutive landslide electoral victories.

It is not enough to just call all the Somewheres bigots and cocoon oneself in a bubble. It is also not enough to call all the Anywheres deracinated and out of touch with reality and cocoon oneself in that bubble.

Also read: Why does the Right-wing want to occupy Delhis liberal hotspot Khan Market?

It is similar to the fear that the institutions of marriage and family are breaking down but why is every change seen as bad? Marriage as it stood, as a patriarchal construct,wasin need of a breakdown and overhaul to accommodate a changed gender dynamic. Familywasa very narrow idea, and the nuclear unit, and now live-in partners, are changing that and its a good thing. These upheavals are not threats. These are signs that something that needed to change is finally changing.

To go back to the attack on Ranbir Kapoors clothes, Visvanathan says that theKapoor family actually carries the tradition of the deracinated Indian, what with bringing to India the idea of Charlie Chaplin, the proletariat and clown, as the hero. Rishi Kapoor also always carried himself with ease, didnt take himself too seriously, and its the same with Ranbir. The Kapoors did not adhere to standard nationalist models,they brokestereotypes.

Views are personal.

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Read this article:

Theres something common in reactions to Ranbir Kapoors jeans, Brexit and Khan Market gang - ThePrint

There are few concepts in Ireland that evoke an emotional response from a population known for their propensity to be easy going, but one thats sure to get some kind of reaction is the notion of a United Ireland.

When it comes to the issue of a united Ireland, everyone and their dog seems to have an opinion or three.

These opinions vary depending on who youre talking to, how old they are, what part of the country theyre from and very often what family they come from.

The very question of whether there should be a 32 county Ireland has resulted in fighting, death, political movements, political careers and is often the deciding factor on how people vote on this island, north and south and south of the border, although more so in the North.

Its undeniable that since Britain voted to leave the European Union almost four years ago, this issue has made its way into the public political discussion in a way it hadnt been in a long time.

This can partly be attributed to the fact that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Its clear Brexit has thrown gasoline on the quenched fire that was the idea of a United Ireland.

Id argue that immediately before the Brexit referendum Northern Irelands place in the United Kingdom was as safe and secure as ever.

In the 2015 British general election, the combined Unionist vote (DUP, UUP & TUV) held up at 44% which was nearly the exact same as what they collectively achieved in the previous election in 2010.

Crucially, once you include the Eurosceptic UKIP party and Northern Irish Conservative party who both actively support Northern Ireland remaining in the United Kingdom, this number jumps to 47.9%.

On the opposite end of the spectrum the combined Nationalist Vote (Sinn Fin & SDLP) performed poorly, only achieving a 38.4% vote share. This was a decrease of 3.6% from 2010.

The gap between the combined Unionist vote and combined Nationalist vote stood at nearly 10%. In addition to this, out of the 18 Northern Irish Westminster seats 11 of those were filled by Unionists while only 7 were filled by Nationalists.

To make matters worse for Nationalists, the Fermanagh South Tyrone seat held by Sinn Fin was lost to the Ulster Unionist Party.

What was even more worrying for Nationalism in 2015 was Sinn Fins performance in the Nationalist heartland of West Belfast.

Although Sinn Fins Paul Maskey was comfortably returned as MP, the Sinn Fin vote share in the constituency was reduced from 70.6% in the 2011 by-election to 54.2%. This was a reduction of nearly 17% of the Sinn Fin vote share.

The 2015 Westminster election was undoubtedly a high point for Unionism.

This was profoundly illustrated during a Prime Time Special that year entitled Irelands Call. During the show, it was revealed that merely 13% of people in Northern Ireland wanted a United Ireland.

A greater number of people (24%) favoured direct rule from the British Government.

The findings came as a result of a cross border survey conducted by Behaviour & Attitudes over a period of two weeks in October 2015.

Mere months before the Brexit Referendum Northern Ireland went to the polls again for the 2016 Northern Ireland Assembly elections. This was yet another poor performance for Nationalism.

The Unionist vote once again held up. The combined first preference Unionist vote share was 46.1%. The addition of the Northern Ireland conservatives and UKIP brought this vote share to 48% which is nearly the exact vote percentage Unionism obtained in 2015.

Nationalism continued its downward spiral in this election as the combined vote share amounted to 36% which was down over 2%.

To make matters worse the SDLP returned 2 less seats to the assembly and Sinn Fin returned one less seat while both the UUP and DUP managed to return the exact same amount of seats they had obtained five years previously.

The combined number of Unionist seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly amounted to 55 seats compared to 40 seats held by Nationalists.

The difference between the combined Nationalist and Unionist vote now stood at 12%.

The infamous West Belfast constituency once again acted as a portrait showing Nationalisms struggles.

The reliable nationalist epicentre voted in droves for People Before Profits Gerry Carroll who topped the poll with an impressive 8,299 votes.

The socialist People Before Profit party obtained 22.9% of the first preference vote share.

The last party to obtain this vote share in West Belfast apart from Sinn Fin was the SDLP in 1998.

Although People Before Profit does not designate itself as a Nationalist party its vote primarily comes from traditional Nationalist areas.

What their growth seemed to show us was that there was a change in priority for a substantial proportion of traditional Nationalist voters.

Although Sinn Fin was still by far the biggest party in West Belfast with a 54.5% vote share, it was a big decline of nearly 17% from the 2011 assembly election.

They had also gone from 5 MLAs in West Belfast to 4.

It was also very telling that the Foyle Constituency (Derry City) had returned one less Nationalist MLA as the SDLP lost out to People Before Profits Eamonn McCann.

The 2016 Assembly Election made it clear that the constitutional question of a United Ireland was starting to be put on the back burner as far as the Nationalist electorate were concerned.

The electorate was becoming increasingly more concerned with social issues such as health and housing.

The fact these issues were leading people to not vote on constitutional lines showed how a period of normalisation was beginning to take place.

There was very little immediate appetite for a United Ireland and the Nationalist turnout was lowering with each election.

The disappointing Nationalist result had come off the back of the centenary of the 1916 rising which was hoped to galvanise the nationalist electorate.

In contrast to this, it was the Unionist vote which had been holding up and increasing in certain areas which showed us the status quo was sailing smoothly in Northern Ireland.

In June 2016 a political tsunami took place which engulfed the status quo in Northern Ireland.

This was the UKs vote to leave the European Union.

Crucially, Northern Ireland had voted to remain in the EU by 55% to 44%.

A total of 11 of the Norths constituencies voted to remain while 7 voted to leave.

This provided the surge of adrenaline that Nationalism needed to get a United Ireland back on the agenda.

Suddenly, the idea of a United Ireland was now equipped with a strong economic argument.

A United Ireland could now be seen as the saviour Northern Ireland needs to remain in the European Union and retain economic stability.

If there were early signs of Nationalism beginning to flat line, Brexit was the defibrillator which revived it wholeheartedly.

Within a few hours of the result of the Brexit vote, Sinn Fin had already called for a border poll on Irish Unity.

The possibility of Brexit leading to a hard border on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and the Republic could be seen as a logical possibility.

This possibility would spook a large number of Nationalists who had seemed to become content with the status quo in Northern Ireland.

In March 2017 the voters in Northern Ireland went to the polls for the first time since the Brexit referendum.

This Assembly election occurred as a result of the Sinn Fin Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness resigning in protest due to the RHI scandal accompanied by Arlene Fosters refusal to down stand pending a public inquiry.

This election was a massive success for Sinn Fin who nearly obtained an increase of 4% in their first preference vote share.

Furthermore Sinn Fin came within .2% of the DUP in terms of first preference votes.

Sinn Fins revival could be seen in its fortress of West Belfast where Orlaithi Flynn topped the poll followed by Alex Maskey, Fra McCann and Pat Sheehan respectively.

Sinn Fins first preference vote share increased by over 7%.

This was in contrast to People Before Profit whos vote share decreased by 8%.

There was a clear swing in preference from People Before Profit to the two main Nationlalist parties in the constituency.

The combined Nationalist vote share had increased to 40% (41% if you add People Before Profit) while the combined Unionist vote share shrunk to 44.8% which was a decrease of almost 4% from the previous year.

In what was a historic election the Unionists were no longer the majority in Stormont.

The number of Unionist seats in the assembly now stood at 39 while the number of Nationalist seats in the assembly also amounted to 39.

The Legislative Assembly which was once a bastion of the Unionist majority was now unrecognisable.

A few months later, the Norths electorate were back to the polls to vote in the 2017 Westminster General Election.

The snap election was called by Theresa May and the beneficiaries were Sinn Fin and the DUP.

The fact there was more movement to the staunchest elements of Nationalism and Unionism to an extent not seen before illustrated how the electorate was now thinking along constitutional lines now more than ever.

The DUP returned 10 seats which was an increase of 2 while Sinn Fin gained 3 seats returning 7 in total.

The combined Unionist vote share stood at 47.2% while the Combined Nationalist vote share was at nearly 42%.

Although the Unionist vote share was up from the Assembly election a few months prior, it was still down slightly from its 2016 high.

The combined Nationalist share of the vote had somewhat increased (41.1%) from the Assembly election (39.8%) while the Unionist Fermanagh South Tyrone Seat had returned to Sinn Fin.

In addition, Sinn Fin had knocked the SDLP off their perch in the Foyle constituency while also defeating them in South Down.

The decline of the moderate nationalist party in favour of Sinn Fin showed how much of a priority a United Ireland was becoming from an increasingly energised Nationalist electorate.

Nationalism had obtained its highest vote percentage since 2011 and finally had some momentum behind it.

In West Belfast Sinn Fin enjoyed a 12.5% increase in their vote share in the constituency while People Before Profits Gerry Carroll was hammered with a decrease in 9% of the vote share.

In December 2017 a poll by the Belfast based polling and market research company LucidTalk showed for the first time ever that a majority of people in Northern Ireland were in favour of a United Ireland (48% to 45% with 7% undecided).

It is critical to note that in this poll the respondents were asked about their preference for a United Ireland in the specific event of a hard brexit.

Unionism was dealt a devastating blow last December when the most recent Westminster Election returned more Nationalist than Unionist seats for the first time ever.

Nationalism obtained 9 seats while Unionism attained 8 seats.

Three out of four of the Belfast seats now belong to Nationalist parties.

North Belfast, which had been a safe Unionist since 1905 is now in the hands of Sinn Fin.

In addition, the combined Unionist vote share was a historic low of 43.1%.

It must be acknowledged that the combined Nationalist vote was lower at 38.9%.

Nationalism once again failed to break the glass ceiling and amass a higher vote percentage than Unionism.

Furthermore, to add to this complication Nationalisms vote percentage was down compared to 2017.

This can be attributed to the rise of the Alliance party.

The cross community party who is agnostic on the question of the Union reached a breakthrough in the 2019 local elections winning a substantial amount of seats.

This was followed up by Naomi Long winning a seat in the European Parliament at the expense of the Ulster Unionist Party.

The Alliance Party completed its run of good results with a stellar performance in the 2019 Westminster Election.

They managed to increase their first preference vote share by 8.8%.

This occurred while both the DUP and Sinn Fin parties simultaneously decreased in their vote share.

There are many possible explanations for this. One theory is that despite Brexit, there is a sizable increase in those not concerned about the constitutional question first and foremost.

It can be reasonably inferred that voters are more concerned with issues on the ground rather than whether the country is in the UK or not.

This could be good for Unionism in the long run as a sizeable proportion of people voting this way reinforces the status quo of the state of Northern Ireland.

The more people are voting on issues which pertain to Northern Ireland locally, the less transfixed they are on the question of a United Ireland.

A key thing to consider is the Alliance Party draws more of its votes from the Unionist Community than the Nationalist Community.

This can be seen at local council level where the vast majority of their seats come from the Unionist heartlands to the East of the Bann.

This could be good news for Nationalism if a higher proportion of Unionists are switching to Alliance.

It shows us that some Unionists may be getting more flexible to the idea of a United Ireland.

In a straight 50%+1 Referendum these margins may be crucial.

All in all, although Nationalism has made some strides in the last few years on the back of Brexit there are still ailments affecting the movement for a United Ireland.

Among these is the fact that despite changes in demographics, Nationalism has never obtained a higher vote share than Unionism.

View post:

Crunching the numbers, could Brexit really lead to a United Ireland? - Galway Daily