You can't be even a bit Irish and be unaware of the significance of the Easter 1916 rising for the history of the country. In the middle of WW1 more than 1,000 Irishmen rallied to a call that Ireland be a Republic, independent of the United Kingdom. The Rising failed, of course. Most of those who led it paid with their lives. But in 1922 the Free State was born.
That did not mean the stresses between the UK and Ireland went away, of course. If you were brought up in the 60s and 70s, as I was, and happened to have Murphy as a name, the Troubles were an issue that was hard to avoid. And the peace since since the Good Friday Agreement has, in that context, been something to celebrate. It's hard to recall when in the border regions of the Republic and the North now just how dangerous this region was to be in when I was in my twenties and thirties. No one should want to go back to the situation of that time.
Amongst too many politicians that recall is, however, either not there (maybe they've never been, and maybe they never knew) or it has seemingly been forgotten now. What else can explain the casual indifference of so many UK politicians to what might still, quite fairly, be called the Irish question? The fact that this now comes up in the context of Brexit in one sense changes nothing, and in another makes everything so much more urgent, precisely because that process has such absurdly tight timetables attached to it.
There is, of course, nothing 'natural' about Northern Ireland. It is not the Irish province of Ulster: that was of nine counties and three (Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan) are in the Republic. It was simply the expedient territory deemed to retain Unionist affiliation in 1922. Ireland fought a civil war at the time as a consequence. Many lives have been lost since as a result. And the fact that the border very largely disappeared from view post 1997 has been an enormous cause for relief for all those with concern for Ireland.
In that case to say that the issue of how that border might function in future is secondary to any decision on an overall trade deal with the EU that may, or may not, be agreed during 2018 is to scandalously miss the significance of this issue, which is quite rightly seen as absolutely fundamental by the Irish government, and will I suspect remain so even if that government does change in the near future. This is not just about ensuring that trade can flow freely across the border - important though that is to the Republic - but about ensuring that peace is maintained in the whole island of Ireland in the manner that has been very largely enjoyed for two decades now. The EU recognises this. It is apparent that Liam Fox does not. His dogmatic fervour that is devoted to ignoring this issue is as ill-placed as any that have ever fuelled the crisis in Ireland over the years, and is as likely to be as dangerous as a result.
I am unsurprised as a consequence that the EU backs the Republic. What else was to be expected? Of course it was going to side with a member state who feels threatened by Brexit, just as it has also sided with Spain on Gibraltar, and may well side against the UK on blacklisting British tax havens in due course. That's not picking fights as such; it is about doing what alliances of states exist to do, which is offer mutual support to those who feel their interests are at risk from an outside source, which for these purposes the UK now is.
The result is, though, that at present it is very hard to see what progress there can now be on any talks with the EU. Liam Fox says we will leave the customs union and single market, as a matter of fact. And as a matter of fact that requires a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
But as a matter of fact the DUP says it will not have that border.
And in reality it is perfectly obvious that such a border is not deliverable. Three hundred road crossings and the lack of any physical sign of where the border might be along most of its length makes that obvious.
Just as it is obvious that the DUP demand that Northern Ireland have no special status different from the rest of the UK is in any way consistent with the demand for no border with the Republic.
These are, to be blunt, issues that cannot be resolved by any amount of negotiation. There is no such thing as a non-border when the whole point of Brexit was that there should be one. And yet there is no way there can be a hard border. And there is no way there can be the arrangement the DUP demands.
And nor is there any way that border controls on flights and ferry crossings between the North and the rest of the UK cannot happen in future if there is no border between the Republic and the North, as the DUP demand. Like it or not that's because without controls between the North and the rest of the UK in that situation there would be no border for migration between the EU and the UK. In other words the DUP simply cannot say borders are unacceptable anywhere and leave Brexit in any sense meaningful in the eyes of all those who voted for it because they thought migration the issue it was meant to control.
What this means is that, like it or not, the Irish question is now at the core of the Brexit debate. And nor can it be deferred. No trade deal overcomes it, most especially if the UK is adamant about leaving the customs union and single market. Any such departure leaves both the Republic and the DUP in impossible situations. And that leaves not just the UK government in an impossible situation, but also without a majority since it is dependent upon the DUP for that. It leaves us, then, without a government at all.
As a result the fact is that the 2016 Brexit vote may have been as significant an issue for Ireland and the rest of the UK as the 1916 rising, one hundred years earlier. And in both cases, and just a few years later, a solution to a border issue has to be found or the consequences will, I fear, be very long lasting indeed.
Right now I have only one. That, of course, is the whole of the UK staying in the customs union and single market. That works. Peace in Ireland is maintained. Borders are not required within the UK, which as the DUP rightly notes would shatter the idea that there is a UK asunder, come what may. And we could agree a deal with the EU in the proposed timescales. Try anything else and I can see not only no favourable outcomes, whilst there will be some deeply divided and profoundly hostile borders within both Ireland and Great Britain in the very near future.
The fact is that what this means is that the UK has met its match. And it is Ireland. And this time it has to give ground. Not for Ireland's sake, but for its own.
But with Liam Fox in the equation, will it? I cannot answer that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for that post. Another ‘truth bomb’ as the saying goes. I recall being fascinated when I started looking at a map of Northern Island at the start of ‘the troubles’ about how the border meandered this way and that. It eventually dawned on me that it was purely a political construct as you say.
The more the Brexit process ‘progresses’ the more convinced I am that the government is quite capable of driving us over the cliff edge. This could be the disaster capitalism AKA Shock doctrine. This course of action can only be deliberate, they can’t be that stupid surely?
The question is: what can we do about it? Tapping away on Twitter etc will not change anything (apologies, no slight intended to your very informative blog Richard but I feel that I am wasting time online when disaster looms). I wish there was some co-ordinated action group – anybody know what can be done, please?
Suggestions please
For me writing is the answer
It clearly is not for everyone
Thoughts?
Suggestions please
For me writing is the answer
It clearly is not for everyone
Thoughts?
Ultimately I am of the opinion that there are only two ways to address major societal problems.
The first is to strive to change people’s opinion. Difficult where faith (religious or not) is the key component of that opinion, and some will never concede. Some people’s opinion can be influenced by narrative and others by ‘facts’, data and the like.
The second way is violence. Violence is always messy and it is almost inevitably the case that the people who get hurt are not the ones whom ideally one would eliminate. And the backlash creates tit for tat reprisals which can last for generations.
It is the principal function of propaganda to ensure that it is always the victims who occupy the front lines and the perpetrators of the fundamental injustice remain sanctimoniously aloof wearing an expression of innocent mystification tutting and shaking their heads with feigned sadness at the folly of their fellow creatures.
The pen is mightier than the sword and causes less bloodshed if it is wielded wisely.
Wield away Richard. We must all do what we can with our ‘God given’ talents.
This question has been ringing in my mind all day: what kind of stupid are the DUP which supported Leave without any thought of the consequences for NI?
Carol,
I wouldn’t expect principled thinking from the DUP, given their past record. Their core belief is support of the UK, right or wrong, especially when the Tories are in power.
I saw a post somewhere on the web recently in which the poster asked “who’d have thought that the DUP would be the least embarrassing partner in the UK Government?
I completely agree, Brexiteers think that the border is about trade, and so should be dealt with in phase 2, but it’s not about trade, it’s about peace. The statement “no regulatory divergence” concerns trade, but it’s not about trade — it’s about peace. Peace is more important than trade sovereignty, which is why the border should be dealt with first, in phase 1.
Both sides have essentially offered the other side an ultimatum. Ireland’s ultimatum is no border or no deal. The UK’s ultimatum is border or no deal (when they say they want no border and to leave the SM/CU that’s the same thing as saying there will be a border). So there are three possible scenarios: either side backs down or neither backs down and there is no deal. There is no middle ground between the two sides’ positions: there is either a border or there isn’t. Even though no deal would be as bad for Ireland as the UK, I cannot see Ireland backing down, because this is about peace and not about politics or economics.
If the UK parliament had to choose between no deal and staying in the SM/CU then I am certain they will choose the latter, so it seems unlikely to me that if Ireland hold their nerve that Parliament would allow the UK to leave the SM or CU. And I think Ireland knows this. I could be wrong about this, but my reading of the situation is Ireland knows that it essentially has the power to keep the UK in the SM + CU based on our Parliament being supreme over our government, and they are prepared to use this power. Or alternatively, to allow the UK to leave *the* SM+CU but keep them in *a* SM+CU that is essentially the same thing with a different name — this seems the more likely scenario to me, with the EU and Ireland not saying the UK cannot leave these things, only that it cannot diverge from them to the point where it would create a border, which is essentially the same thing (although it’s not clear what exactly would happen if, given the choice of no deal or stay in SM+CU, the government were to choose the former and Parliament the latter). This has been my view for around four months, since I started paying attention to what Varadkar was saying, so despite reports of UK officials being “blindsided by Ireland’s toughened stance”, of the “emergence” of this issue, Varadkar has been saying all of this for months.
I also think about all of the many concessions that our government has already given to the EU, including some “red lines” and, to my knowledge, I cannot think of a single concession that May has got from the EU (any Brexiteers please correct me if I am wrong on this), so the UK government has shown consistently that it will give in to the EU’s demands because it is in such a weak position, and again, Ireland has seen this.
What I am not sure about is how far the EU will support Ireland if it appears that the only thing blocking a trade deal is Ireland’s veto. There have been reports in the last few days of the UK coming up with a form of words to try and satisfy Ireland in order to move the issue onto phase two, and reports that UK officials believe Ireland will back down, and according to the Telegraph senior EU officials have told them that Ireland will not be allowed to veto progress onto phase 2 if money and citizens are sorted. There are also reports that the EU is fully behind Ireland on this, and Barnier and Tusk have both consistently publicly offered strong support for Ireland, including in the last few days. Ireland doesn’t want to be in a situation where it is alone against the other EU countries — it wants the other countries to support it in this, and it’s not clear how they would respond if the other 26 put pressure on them to back down (think about the pressure Wallonia was put under not to veto the Canada deal), i.e. Ireland would rather the EU issues a veto on this rather than Ireland issuing a veto. If it was only about politics or economics then I think Ireland would back down and accept a fudge if it was 1 v 26, but as it’s about peace I don’t think they will back down.
In the FT this morning Niall Fergusson of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce calls for ‘a customs union’ just not ‘the customs union’
It’s word play
He admits it has to be entirely EU compliant
“In the FT this morning Niall Fergusson of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce calls for ‘a customs union’ just not ‘the customs union’
It’s word play”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Excellent detailed article. I had been having difficulty understanding the detail of why this issue was such a problem.
One question: Can a soft border be “meaningful in the eyes of all those who voted for it because they thought migration the issue it was meant to control.”?
Why not? Sure it is not ideal, but why can’t we have a soft border reflecting the historical significance of the two Irelands. Migration can still be curtailed other ways through employer checks and checks on leases (and of course, since most people are honest, by it being law)
If EU want to cut of Ireland’s (their) nose out of spite and put up a border on their side, then that’s their problem.
Realpolitik means a bit of migration leakage to UK, and a bit of Single Market leakage to the EU, for the benefit of peace. Why not?
There are areas for what is called ‘soft law’. Those are areas where a degree of flexibility and negotiation assists and where precise agreement in advance on all issues is not needed. I am something of a fan of the idea because it can work. But not on a border. And not when the issue is so key to an issue as big as Brexit. I can’t see soft law working there precisely because there are too many who will not trust the other side, which is the pre-requisite of such arrangements working. On a border you have to know where you are, quite literally. And this is going to be one where we need to known very precisely we are if interests are to be reconciled. Or not, as is by the most likely outcome at present
There is a third option. Which also applies to Scotland.
Northern Ireland becomes Independent and joins EFTA, and preferably also the EEA.
No united Ireland – DUP happy.
Free trade and movement between the North and South.
The UK is a major trading partner for both Norway and Iceland. Add Scotland and Northern Ireland to EFTA and a bilateral trade agreement between EFTA and England/Wales becomes imperative.
Yes, there would need to be customs borders on the NI-Republic and Scotland-England crossings. The precedent is there on the long Norway-Sweden border.
Norway, EFTA, not in Customs Union
Sweden, EU, in Customs Union.
Both in EEA and Shengen.
The British Isles CTA would continue so probably both NI and Scotland would need to be out of Shengen
Ideally rUK would be in the EEA.
Thoughts?
For Scotland a way forward
But the DUP would find this utterly unacceptable
Their demand is that Northern Ireland be wholly British, have no border and yet be out of the EU. That this is impossible as I see it does not appear to trouble them
“Their demand is that Northern Ireland be wholly British, have no border and yet be out of the EU. That this is impossible as I see it does not appear to trouble them”
“When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Alice in Wonderland.
The further we get temporally towards Brexit the further we get from rationality.
We have no negotiators working for us to deliver Brexit. We have arrogant (and stupid) issuers of ultimatums. Most, if not all, of which are no more than bluster.
It is not comfortable to be in the position of wishing to see one’s own government humiliated by a ‘foreign’ power, but it is my increasingly fervent hope. Albeit under more extreme conditions I suspect this is how many Germans must have felt under Hitler’s Nazi reign during the thirties and forties.
My country right or wrong? Bollox!
A thoughtful and comprehensive exposition of the ‘Irish Problem’ Richard.
As you say another reason why the BREXIT process should be stopped dead.
And another example of just how badly the whole BREXIT business has been ‘thought through’.
I was reading Robert Peston’s interview in Saturday’s Guardian this morning. It reveals Peston as somewhat more radical and coherent than you might think. But at one stage he says that the problem with BREXIT is that it creates chaos and in doing so enables those with political views that do not chime with our democracy to get a foothold.
I think that unconsciously he was describing the whole of the Tory party from 2010. And possibly I think going back even further.
But this lot of charlatans (because in my view at least, this is what the today’s Tory party is really all about) really have taken Thatcherism too far.
The question for me is ‘What sort of system allows and enable politicians who do not believe in Government to be in Government?’
That last para is a neat summary of the opening chapters of my ‘Courageous State’
Forgive me returning to this point. I have just noticed in the Daily Telegraph website (ok, ‘surprise, surprise!’), Julet Samuel (who?) has written the following little gem, just in case nobody figured out where all this is really going:
““If Dublin follows through on a threat to veto Brexit progress in December, all it will achieve is to increase the risk that Britain leaves the EU with no deal whatsoever. ”
QED.
Alternatively, Fox’s intervention is not about Ireland at all (at least directly). It seems to me that the “chaos” that everybody sees in the British negotiations is, at least in part – deliberate. The logic of Fox’s position is, I suggest as a working alternative hypothesis, nothing to do with Ireland; it is to produce a “no deal” Brexit.
I think the last is the aim
Angi Lamb asks (on a different thread, but I think it appropriate ‘in spades’ here)
“What would it take for this government to save face? Is it possible?”
Well yes, I believe it is possible, but they will need ‘help’.
The first opportunity was thrown away when the GE result indicated that Theresa May did not have the mandate she had asked for and a wise resolution would have been to assemble a broader and more representative ‘coalition’ to negotiate Brexit. Water under the bridge.
What is required is to take the cup away from them so a new administration can start the process afresh and perhaps with a little less acrimonious attitude.
The remedy seems to lie in the hands of the DUP. If they are unhappy with the sort of thoughtless and destructive nonsense that this government is going to foist on them they can simply abstain from a confidence vote and we can have another go at assembling a government which may be capable of negotiation.
Otherwise someone needs to come up with another way of removing the Conservative majority in the commons. Personally I have not the skills, the courage, the organisational ability, cunning, conviction or stomach for a programme of assassinations. If somebody else has then so be it, but I venture to suggest there ought to be a more civilised way to go about it. I mean for heaven’s sake the Zimbabweans managed to depose Mugabi without bloodshed so we have an example to live up to.
Up until about 4 weeks before the referendum I intended to vote Leave. No doubts. Then there was a BBC radio programme summarising the substantial difficulties that would result from the UK leaving the EU. (? File on Four – wish I could listen to it again). There were a number of interviews with top civil servants who all emphasised the impossibility of satisfactorily resolving this NI border conundrum.
After that programme, I came to my senses and voted Remain.
I wish more had heard it then
Excellent warning article by Patrick Cockburn:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-ireland-border-good-friday-agreement-war-again-patrick-cockburn-a8074456.html
Agreed
Richard
I agree with all of that. My small contribution to this on Progressive Pulse last week is here:
http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/ireland-centre-stage-for-the-first-time-in-over-300-years
you have probably seen SWR’s blog last week:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/what-ignoring-ireland-tells-you-about.html
“There is a simple solution to the problem of the border. It is for the UK side to commit to only negotiate new trade arrangements that would be consistent with a soft border. That would mean staying in the Customs Union and parts of the Single Market, but it could leave open the possibility of negotiating over the remaining parts of the Single market and perhaps free movement. Anyone who tells you that this concession by the UK side does not respect the referendum result is once again lying: Leave won precisely because they ruled no arrangement out. Any red lines erected after the referendum carry as much weight as the Prime Minister currently has authority.”
You may not have seen this regarding the acceptance of an Irish Sea Border by the people of NI by QUB (as I only saw it last night):
https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exclusive-poll-unionist-supporters-content-with-east-west-post-brexit-border-controls/
“Our new survey sheds light on the views of the public. In September, we asked a representative sample of the Northern Ireland population to react to the statement that: ‘People should be prepared to accept border controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, if this is agreed in the Brexit negotiations between the Government and the EU’.
Overall, 49% agreed with this, and 39% disagreed (with 12% neither agreeing or disagreeing). But, perhaps surprisingly, willingness to accept such controls was stronger among Leave voters (64% agreed), supporters of unionist parties (59%) and Protestants (54%).
This probably reflects a willingness to live with east-west border controls as the price of a Brexit successfully negotiated by the British government. Lower levels of agreement from Remain voters (44%), nationalist supporters (47%) and Catholics (43%) imply, by contrast, reluctance to contemplate any kind of new border controls”.
That is interesting: some can be pragmatic
Send a memo to Dr Fox
And I agree with Simon. His logic is correct. But others are not willing to find the necessary common ground, incuding the customs union
Thanks Richard, for such an interesting take on ‘The Irish Question’ of our day.
As an Irish person living in the UK I have a vested interest in both countries’ success. I see Brexit as a terrible decision with lots of ways for the UK to lose out and very few, if any, ways to come out ahead of where it would be without Brexit. The Irish border is one way where I can’t see any way to do better than pre Brexit and lots of ways to lose peace, prosperity, trade and international relations between Ireland and its closest neighbour.
My ideal outcome would be that the UK sees that Brexit can’t really work and certainly not in the timescale proposed, so it would decide to postpone or cancel leaving the EU – not likely, I know. If the UK will leave, the biggest obstacle to a successful Brexit is the timescale.
Creating an artificially short Brexit timetable looks so much like cutting off your nose to spite your face, that I can’t help but wonder if it brings the possibility of the extremes much closer (either a disastrous Brexit at one extreme or postponing/cancelling Brexit at the other).
Part of me feels very sorry for the Brexiteers because they are constantly asked questions for which they don’t have answers. There is no overarching strategy and shared goal that everyone is trying to achieve. It’s a mess and I hope they admit it before it’s too late.
I agree: we could leave the EU given a decade and a lot of common sense to do it
Neither seems to be available and the time scale makes it all so much harder
Hi Colm
I’m another Irish person living in the UK and agree. Another blog I keep an eye on at the moment is the Brexit Border Blog. Their latest analysis is here:
http://brexitborder.com/get-ready-big-bang-april-fools-day-2019/
“The first line of defence, reiterated by Arlene Foster of the DUP this week, is that since they don’t want a hard border, if we get one then it is the EU that is at fault. The second and more subtle line is only just beginning to emerge: the border can only be addressed in the context of Phase II talks on the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK. In Dublin, Boris Johnson said it could be dealt with while they were discussing Dover/Calais.
On first reading, that proposition can seem almost reasonable, but look more closely. Trade talks can and should deal with the general economic nature of EU/UK borders, but our border has additional political dimensions that cannot be compared with Dover/Calais. That is why the EU ring-fenced it from the start.”
Sean Danaher says:
November 27 2017 at 11:42 am
“The first line of defence, reiterated by Arlene Foster…….. The second and more subtle line is only just beginning to emerge: the border can only be addressed in the context of Phase II talks ……. Boris Johnson said it could be dealt with while they were discussing Dover/Calais.”
I think Boris is trying to pull a fast one here. From what was being said by somebody or other last week the Eire veto will not be applicable once we enter Phase 2 talks. (if talks ever progress beyond Phase 1).
To suggest that Dover /Calais and North/South Ireland can be dealt with simultaneously, and are of similar and merely minor technical significance is tantamount to a lie I think. Given that Boris is the source of that gem of ‘thinking’ the word ‘tantamount’ may be superfluous in the context.
What is being played here is an unedifying game of chicken.
What happens if the UK leaves the single market and the customs union, which now looks very likely, and no deal is in place on the EU/UK land border in Ireland?
What contingency plan does the EU/Ireland have for this scenario?
What contingency plan does the UK have for this scenario?
Is any of this in the public or think tank domain?
A border between the EU and the UK has to be enforced somewhere.
Civil servants say they have not looked at any of these issues and I believe them
Some of us have thought about them, mainly to recoil in shock at the political attitude towards them; the apparent impossibility of getting a political compromise and the resulting nigh on impossible assumptions required to model anything
Which is the same problem the civil servants have
We are truly being lead by imbeciles and the resulting risk is staggering
I doubt if Brexiteers ever look far beyond the immediate interests of the Conservative Party, or at least how to use the Party to advantage; and within that dystopian world, the ‘hard’ Brexiteers think they can use the over-friendly media to silence all opposition to the “will of the people” (which many Brexiteers have decided means ‘no deal’, and which Brexiteers have also decided they, exclusively, own all the intellectual property rights to the ‘will of the people’ in perpetuity), and after a fast exit with no deal, they think (if they really think about it at all), they can solve the Ireland conundrum at their leisure.
Please note that I am not claiming that the above makes any sense whatsoever to anyone outside the ‘hard Bexit’ clique; but before my argument is dismissed, I ask two questions; who is leading the media Brexit ‘push’ that is clearly evident, and who is pulling the public’s strings (or at least all anyone can currently see of “public opinion”)?
Where is the opposition to all this? Who represents the 48% (quite possibly already over 50%)? Is there anybody there?
The SNP, LibDems, Plaid Cymru and Greenscseem to have their ducks in a row
As yet Labour is thrashing around,seemingly clueless
Only the Greens and LibDems operate where the vast majority of the electorate that have been manipulated or seduced by Brexit, actually lives and votes. If the SNP or Plaid had sufficient political leverage in the tottering ‘UK’, we wouldn’t be here.
As for Labour, I have a simple question. Is Labour pro-Brexit? Is it decisively against ‘hard Brexit’. I do not know the answer to either question, but I should not still be reduced to asking the question this far down the Brexit turnpike. This is not “clueless”; this is much worse. This goes to the heart of ‘representative’ democracy. The ‘elephant in the room’ – the very large constituency of pro-Remain electors, perhaps half the country, are effectively being (de facto) politically disenfranchised by the official Government Party AND the Official Opposition.
This is now a failure of a Parliament that no longer attempts to represent the people: and I do not have to resort to an abstract, 19th century concept of “Will” to make that claim. This is good old-fashioned representative democracy not only being by-passed by Parliament (from Henry VIII precedents, to all the other devious manipulations of Parliamentary procedure currently being deployed), but a representative democracy quite obviously being traduced by hard-line, ruthless political ideologues.
PSR asks: ” ‘What sort of system allows and enable politicians who do not believe in Government to be in Government?’ ” to which there are probably several answers, one of which is Party capture by money and the oligarchy of newspaper ownership, or in the case of the Mail, its editor. When the Mail can scream at the judges “Enemies of the People” you know where power lies. Their malign influence extends to the opposition as well, led by a confused “leftish” figure who should be leading the charge against Brexit, but instead is constrained by his own uncertainty over Europe and the nightmare vision of newspaper headlines.
But with polls showing a possible shift in public opinion against Brexit (and a lot of people didn’t even vote) I think, as was suggested by Mr Warren above and has been in the background since the start, the Tories are and have been planning to for a “no deal” which they can blame on an intransigent EU and May, like Boudica, will ride to a great victory.
G Hewitt
“opposition as well, led by a confused “leftish” figure who should be leading the charge against Brexit, but instead is constrained by his own uncertainty over Europe and the nightmare vision of newspaper headlines”
Not to mention a New Labour, neoliberal rump which is still influential in the party and which will not easily be led. (I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to describe Corbyn as ‘confused’. I don’t think he’s more confused by what’s going on than any one else apart from the Brexit headbangers – and that sort of clarity of ‘thought’ is something we’d be better off without)
The only trouble with staying in the ‘single market & customs union’ the UK CANNOT make trade deals with other countries. The very reason it is leaving the EU!
But it would be better off in anyway
And already has the best trade deals it will ever secure
What about the cheap wheat from Australia or cheap Lamb from New Zealand . . . for instance without the EU quota systems . . . Try not to be misty eyed… the reality is somewhere inbetween
Oh come on….first of all they’ve got to decide we’re worth the risk of making into a market again
And even then that hardly compensates
Serious food research shows that we lose badly on basic food prices from Brexit – 22% I believe
Allyd
I don’t even think that’s true. Are you saying we can’t trade with the US as we are now.? I think you’ll find we do, and a lot of other countries besides.
It is for the government of the UK to find a solution to the border conundrum. Only now have hey decided to give it some thought. They are confronted by its insollubility. Soon, hopefully, there will be another government, probably Labour. And Labour will be faced with finding a solution to the same problem. The Labour leader famously had his pic taken as he conversed with Gerry Adams and other Sinn Feiners back in the time of the Troubles. Then, he was full of rhetoric about British colonialism and the imperative of a united Ireland. Now, he is strangely silent. His support for a united Ireland – which would obviate the need for a border between the six counties and the twenty six – is dormant or dead. His insistence that the UK leave the EU and that there be no membership of the customs union or any FTA, is surely as much a declaration for incompatible policies re the border as anything said by the Tory government. One must recognise that avoiding the whole issue is a wise policy of avoiding controversy and anything that might jeopardise electoral success; but it is not a brave policy, and it merely defers the time to that future whn an unabiguous decision will have to be made. Meantime, we can only wonder what might be Labour’s Ireland policy.
If there were another election before Brexit and there was evidence that the majority would vote Remain next time the LP could campaign for that. As it is there is no election in sight and no clear sign of a wish to reverse. That’s politics, that is.
Carol
“If there were another election before Brexit and there was evidence that the majority would vote Remain next time the LP could campaign for that.”
Yes, but would they? The ‘The People have spoken” narrative has been well hammered in. The fact that nobody knows what anybody was voting for seems to be being ignored by both sides.
Nevva. In the field of political conflict …. have so many…… been conned by so few.
Into voting for a pig in a poke.
My real surprise is that this has only just become an issue – although I am sure the Irish government have been lobbying the UK government – which may well explain their thinly veiled (and thinning by the minute) frustration.
If the UK really had a handle on Brexit they would have been looking for solutions and working with the EU and Eire well before now.
Talk of the border map meandering around reminds me of an old Customs colleague who worked there in the 1960’s and had to deal with a farmer whose front room was in the North and the back room in the South – where he had an illicit still that British Customs could not touch !
🙂
Thanks for another thoughtful, interesting read. I always look forward to your blog posts.
I don’t know if you’ve read Brexit and Ireland by Tony Connelly. It was even recommended to BoJo on his trip to Ireland. The contrast between the diligent Irish and the superficial UK is stark. It follows Ireland taking the kind of diligent approach from the point of Cameron’s election through to today – the EU team has benefited greatly from the Irish research. It includes some shocking diplomacy from DexEU asking if DD can “see Kenny” that seems seems to sum up just how poor the UK side is (I am British btw).
Much detail in that book on how integrated the North and South are and the difficulties and nature of the border. It seems that the Irish also could find no solution, and the more they looked the more complexity they found. Moreover a recurring theme is the Irish side asking the UK side “so what do you want”? Something that should have been resolved by the referendum and clearly hasn’t been – the Irish didn’t find Brexit means Brexit illuminating.
There is the solution that dare not get mentioned of a United Ireland. Is this in any way plausible in your opinion?
I am not sure anyone outisde Sinn Fein wants a united Ireland right now
I see no chance of it
It may happen one day. But it will take a lot longer for people to acclimatise to it than they have had
Was it Chou en Lai who said the outcome of the French Revolution was too recent to assess.?
I think perhaps the Irish haven’t quite come to terms with the Battle of the Boyne yet….so yes, we need to give them time and Brexit is forcing issues that can not be quickly resolved…..especially by a UK government that doesn’t seem to have much grasp of what the issues are and would really like to ignore them.
From 1066 and all that: “Henry VII was very good at answering the Irish Question, and made a Law called Poyning’s Law by which the Irish could have a Parliament of their own, but the English were to pass all the Acts in it. This was obviously a very Good Thing.”
And more recently: “Gladstone…spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question[.]”
In the current case, courtesy of Brexit referendum, it is not the Irish who have changed the question but the English. It seems clear that the English don’t actually know what the new question is even though they were the ones to pose it.
And what if Brexit dissolves the UK yet leaves the kingdom of Great Britain intact? Then it’s quite conceivable that The Republic could abandon its satellite status and rejoin the kingdom!
Peace… at last!!!!!
There is not a hope of that and you well know it
Jock says:
November 28 2017 at 12:54 am
And what if Brexit dissolves the UK yet leaves the kingdom of Great Britain intact? Then it’s quite conceivable that The Republic could abandon its satellite status and rejoin the kingdom!
Peace… at last!!!!!”
What are you smoking, Jock? Can you get me some?
A few tokes of that stuff and you’ll have me believing the EU will feel so isolated at the UK departure they’ll all 27 of them want to come across to join the Brexit wonderland.
From the article
“according to the Telegraph senior EU officials have told them that Ireland will not be allowed to veto progress onto phase 2 if money and citizens are sorted.”
If EU officials have really said this then it is an example of the things that have turned me against the EU **AS IT STANDS AT PRESENT** but not for Brexit as fighting from inside is more likely to change matters.
However I also note that the phrasing may be the Telegraph deliberately distorting what they have been told, assuming they did not just make this up.
Will there be a hard border or not is like asking what is the outcome of the football match before the game has started then saying I want it in writing now.
This is all fuss and framed in a perverted way. Sadly the EU are avoiding like most other things dealing with the reality of the world and the consequences of the Eumeporers actions from their elite castles in Brussels.
The EU need a mirror to themselves and its quite simple turn the statement round and say the EU wont commit to an open border in Ireland why not get the EU to commit to that border now.
With respect, that’s wrong
First, it was agreed that this would be resolved before a trade deal because the issue is bigger than that
Second, the issue can be decided without a trade deal (it will be a hard border in that case with all the consequences that follow)
Third, you can’t commit to an open border if there will be tariffs and migration controls. The UK is insisting on the latter. The former follows
Your are, very simply, wrong
Quite as David Davis asked for at the start these issues need to be dealt with in parallel ie at the same time not sequentially.
Which came first the treaty or the business deals is the easy one – the business came first the trade deal announced later.
With this case the EU wish their cake first (money, fishing rights, money, unworkable Irish border non border, free movement in German products, freedom of movement) before avoiding answering the free trade in services, money, taxation, courts, uncontrolled immigration, exploitation and degradation of a wealthy state etc
I hope HM Govt Dr Fox and the general public realise this game plan.
PS I call it a game as otherwise humans get irrational, attached and emotional which doesnt allow the flow of life to continue normally and resolve the situation
He agreed sequentially in meeting one
Rewriting history is a troll pastime
There already is a border between england and Ireland the North Sea and so checks on movement can be done there as we are not in the Schengen agreement.
The same for Ireland because access is by boat or plane. Again border controls and checks.
For those that come in ‘illegally’ or without the proscribed jobs etc after 3 months then the UK can forcefully deport them a bit like the Dutch apparently do at the moment.
So given those border requirements there would be no need for a border in the middle of Ireland as long as the other natural ‘borders’ are properly checked and vetted.
Those that got to Northern Ireland would just be able to be more forcefully dealt with without the EU trying to make a mixed fruit punch of EU nationalities to create their super state.
Solutions are there if you want them IMO
Gavin
You are choosing to post a great deal and I am afraid much of it is nonsense, this included for all the reasons rehearsed here
I will be deleting without warning now
Gavin, Richard doesn’t seem to want to give you a good grade for your political economics and if you think the North Sea separates England from Ireland I don’t think you are going to get a pass mark for Geography either. 🙂
Gavin Palmer says:
November 28 2017 at 3:14 pm
“Will there be a hard border or not is like asking what is the outcome of the football match before the game has started…..”
You think it’s a game, Gavin? It’s not even like a game.
Sir
The UK Govt’s problem with NI is not limited to within NI, but it will/shall have implication(s) with regard to Scotland (and the City, if the City has not gotten its “special” deal yet). Whatever deal that NI gets in order to remain in the Single Market should theoretically be equally applicable to Scotland. You can bet your house the Scottish Govt will raise hell if such deal is limited/applicable only to NI. I think this the main reason there is such reluctance to solve the NI conundrum; everyone can clearly see that the UK Govt will chuck NI away the first instance it gets.
The NI issue is opening cans and cans of worms that the UK Govt wishes be buried.
ebreah,
“The NI issue is opening cans and cans of worms that the UK Govt wishes be buried.”
I would favour keeping the worms and burying the government. I don’t think I’m alone in that preference.
Well put. A poison chalice however not just for the UK why wouldn’t Catalonia be granted the same or any other upstart wealthy region . . . . . soon it would the EU of 65 states . . They would need bigger meeting rooms and speakers would be limited to 60 seconds an hour . . . necessitating more back room deals and pork barrelling
If you post nonsense (like this) I put you on notice that you will be deleted
Especially as you look like a trolling factory
“……why wouldn’t Catalonia be granted the same or any other upstart wealthy region . ”
Upstart wealthy region ?…….like the UK for example?
Damnit, Scotland too…
At the start of this thread Richard posed the question “will Ireland really bring the end of the Union for the UK?” We’ve subsequently seen a lively discussion of many of the factors involved, principally the border issue, but, to go back to Richard’s original question, I suspect the answer may be “yes.” However it may result from other underlying factors.
1. UK Government Ignorance/Indifference
Down the years UK governments have never really tried to understand wider public opinion in either Ireland or Scotland and have thus been blind to changes in the groundswell of opinion. So when the chips are down and crucial decisions are required, UK Gov is at a disadvantage and, with Boris as Foreign Secretary, liable to cause offence.
2. Instability of NI Politics
The NI electorate is now finely balanced between Unionists/Protestants and Nationalists/ Catholics, so “tribal” thinking will play a part behind the scenes. Both DUP and Sinn Fein have murky pasts, with connections to terrorism, gangsterism, gun-running and associated money-laundering in the not-so-distant past. The current hiatus in Stormont rule and the threat of direct rule from Westminster might suit the DUP, but assuredly would alienate Sinn Fein. The “Cash-for-Ash” scandal has still to be fully investigated and, when it is, it’s bound to cause controversy. Given the sensitivity of these issues and the potential impact on NI of Brexit outcomes, pretty much anything could happen within NI politics.
3. DUP’s Role at Westminster
They are currently the Tories’ parliamentary safety-net, so, given their volatility and hard-line attitudes, the £1 billion inducement may not be enough to keep them onside, particularly if a crisis brews inside NI politics.
4. Border Issues
Huge fortunes were made from smuggling and other cross-border scams during the Troubles and there are people who would welcome a return to the “good old days.” If they have sufficient influence on today’s politicians, they could be a destabilising factor in the Border outcome.
Amid all these uncertainties, one thing is certain: Scotland will be watching closely.
Thanks Ken