Home » Posts tagged 'Ireland'
Tag Archives: Ireland
On June 23, 2016, the People of the United Kingdom Voted in a Referendum to Assert Their Right to Self-Determination
And as soon as UK voters made their intentions known to their government that they wished the UK to leave the European Union, the EU set about creating a political device to keep Great Britain in the European Union. And that trap is called ‘the Irish backstop’.
Which is a flagrant attempt to prevent the right of the British people to self-determination and self-governance. (Self-determination is a legal term; Look it up if you don’t understand how profound it is in international law)
Self-determination is all the rage in globalist circles — especially in EU countries — most of which loudly espouse the right of people across the world to self-determine their future, etc., etc.,
Except when it impacts the EU…
Hypocrisy? You bet!
How Can a Bloc Like the EU Promote the Right to Self-Determination Yet Seek to Subvert it in EU-member States?
Because they can.
They can, because nobody has called them on it. Because the EU is thought to be too big and too powerful to oppose.
And as long as that attitude persists the EU will continue to win, unopposed, every battle (that they don’t have to fight, because no one has the courage to stand up to them on it) at which point, two things will happen; Every country that doesn’t stand up to the EU will become 2nd-class beings on account of surrendering without a fight, their human rights to the EU; And the EU will increasingly become the Emperor nation with no clothes.
That’s an unsustainable realpolitik and no good will ever come of it. For any side.
With 20th-century thinking like that it’s no wonder there was decades of trouble in Northern Ireland.
Attention! ‘Win-Lose’ thinking is Dead. In the 21st-century we Utilize ‘Win-Win’ thinking. And if You Don’t, You’re a Dinosaur
Welcome to the 21st-century where we sit down like adults and work out a ‘Win-Win’ agreement that both sides can live with.
Gone are the days when it was ‘the winner takes it all’ in politics (great ABBA song here) and everyone else was expected to die without making a fuss. So uncivilized!
With all of that in mind, let’s skip to today’s news, shall we?
There we shall see who remains in the 20th-century — employing the ‘Win-Lose’ monster to prevent Britons from self-determining their own future — and who has stepped into the 21st-century and promotes the idea of a new agreement that works for both sides.
“While I will energetically pursue a workable withdrawal agreement for the UK, the withdrawal agreement has been rejected three times by the House of Commons. It’s not going to pass. So that means reopening the withdrawal agreement and securing the abolition of the backstop.” — New UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson
“I think he seems to have made a deliberate decision to set Britain on a collision course with the EU and with Ireland in relation to the Brexit negotiations. Only he can answer the question as to why he is doing that.” — Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney
So, there we have it!
The UK people voted for self-determination, the EU created a trap called the Irish backstop to keep the UK in the EU; Theresa May, the former UK Prime Minister spent three years valiantly trying to work out a ‘Win-Win’ withdrawal agreement with the EU (but ultimately failed because she was negotiating with 20th-century thinkers who only understand ‘Win-Lose’ thinking) and therefore, the proposed Withdrawal Agreement failed to pass in the UK House of Commons three times.
And now, insult upon insult, Simon Coveney (who is probably a very nice man, but doesn’t understand the concept of ‘Win-Win’) is practising diplomacy via the media, trying to blame British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for the mess the EU created in the first place. Astonishing!
George Orwell would be aghast.
- Downing Street says no new Brexit talks until EU drops backstop — FT
- UK PM Johnson tells Germany’s Merkel: The backstop has to go — Reuters
For his part, Boris Johnson has taken the best possible path to deal with such 20th-century thinkers — he has refused to deal with them until they drop the backstop portion of the Withdrawal Agreement.
If he fails to stand firm on it, his party will suffer in upcoming byelections (if any) and will almost certainly suffer historic losses at the next UK General Election which is scheduled for May 5, 2022 and could result in UK Conservatives being tossed from power for a generation or more if Brexit isn’t delivered.
PM Boris Johnson, having set himself and the UK on the best possible course to deal with the intransigence shown by the EU, can only lose by backtracking and caving-in to their unreasonable plot.
Now, all you 20th-century thinkers please return to the 20th-century. You don’t belong here. It’s been nice/not nice hosting you, but please, Go Home! And don’t come back until you understand the concept of ‘Win-Win’ — which means working out an agreement that works for all sides. Capisce?
It’s up to you whether you choose to become part of the solution towards a stronger European economy and society, or remain part of the problem where the rest of the world advances while the littoral states of Europe continue their toxic medieval-based strivings.
Learn about the disasters caused by (in this case, European) 20th-century thinking:
List of Conflicts in Europe in the 20th-century (Wikipedia)
With less than 50-days until the official Brexit date of March 29, 2019, no Withdrawal Agreement exists to guide future relations between the UK and the EU.
Although no reference to a such a withdrawal agreement appeared on the 2016 referendum ballot it seemed appropriate that UK and EU governments should attempt to create such a legal document in order to facilitate a better future relationship.
Subsequently, the two governments agreed to create a ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ (WA) document and try to have it ratified by their respective houses of Parliament. And while the EU27 hasn’t tried to ratify the agreement, UK Prime Minister Theresa May offered it up for consideration in the House of Commons where it was voted down by a margin of 230 votes in one of the largest defeats in the history of the United Kingdom.
The 585-page Withdrawal Agreement was diligently prepared by Theresa May and her Ministers and there’s no doubt that the EU side also worked ceaselessly to produce it, yet British MP’s were singularly unimpressed by the ‘backstop’ clause dealing with the Irish border. That particular section of the agreement is 175-pages long, plus 10-pages of addenda. Yikes!
In any event, all parties in the House of Commons voted it down handing in the worst defeat for a governing party in the House in 100-years, thereby stalling further progress on Brexit negotiations.
So, if you arrived here looking for the reason why no agreement exists to guide Brexit with less than 50-days until the official Brexit date, you’ve found it.
The Irish Backstop portion of the WA (185-pages in total) is solely responsible for the lack of a Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. But the remaining 400-pages would pass in the UK House of Commons in minutes — and would easily pass in all of the EU27 countries too. There’s simply no dispute in the WA, except for the portion that deals with ‘the Irish backstop’.
As ‘the Irish Backstop’ has Failed, What Alternatives Exist?
Until last week, everyone involved in Brexit negotiations was locked-on to the idea of getting the Withdrawal Agreement passed through the House of Commons and then getting it passed in the EU27 parliaments.
And now that it has failed so massively, we are compelled to seek other options and such options to resolve the Irish backstop issue are only limited by our creativity.
- The territory of Northern Ireland was created a couple of centuries ago when the ruling Monarch of Great Britain purchased the territory and it thenceforth became part of Great Britain. Therefore, Northern Ireland could be sold or granted to the Republic of Ireland by the owner of NI which would be today’s Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (thereby obviating the need for ‘the Irish Backstop’ and guaranteeing near-instant passage of the Withdrawal Agreement) who would only do so if a majority of Northern Ireland’s people expressed their wish to join with the Republic of Ireland. Which would make for an interesting Northern Ireland-only referendum question, wouldn’t it? Assuming The People of Northern Ireland voted to leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the ruling Monarch would be well advised to accede to their wishes and let them leave. One important caveat must be in place, namely, that any property and historical buildings, monuments, etc., would need to be disassembled and returned to Great Britain as they are the property of the UK and from a pragmatic standpoint I doubt that statues of Sir Winston Churchill etc., would remain standing for long in a Northern Ireland that would join with the Republic of Ireland. Even the Stormont building in NI could be removed ‘brick-by-brick’ and relocated to Great Britain. If Northern Irelanders voted to leave the Kingdom, no doubt some would want to relocate to Great Britain to maintain their UK citizenship and their relocation to the UK should be facilitated with greatest care, speed, and respect, should that particular set of events ever occur. However, if The People of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to stay in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the ruling UK Monarch and the UK government are obligated to accede to the wishes of Northern Irelanders and continue to support their full rights of UK citizenship and devolved governance in NI.
- Another way around the present impasse would be for all trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be routed through Liverpool for customs and inspection — by air or ship — instead of having a so-called ‘Hard Border’ between the two Irelands. Items valued under £100. (or some other mutually agreed and arbitrary number) could be exempted so that shoppers crossing the border between ROI and NI by car could purchase small items, etc., without incurring any tax liability or having to pass through a hard border crossing. Unlike every other country in the world, a hard border just isn’t acceptable due to the decades of conflict caused by poor leadership and oversight in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland that led to a horrible, divisive, and toxic power vacuum which led and fed the conflict. Let’s hope that politicians, corporations, and royalty in the 21st-century don’t drop the ball like that again. Ever. And I hope that every one of them that dropped the ball are roasting in Hell to this very day, paying for the fecklessness that caused such misery to hundreds of thousands of people on the island of Eire.
- Another suggestion is for new technologies exist that could be used to track and collect tariffs/maintain safety certifications, etc. on goods sold between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and between other EU countries and Northern Ireland, and between overseas countries and Northern Ireland — and I believe it’s possible. The amount of information that can be contained in one bar code (a simple bar code!) is astounding. All that needs happen is for each such item to be scanned by a bar code reader. I can only imagine what modern and more sophisticated technologies could accomplish. Perhaps cooperation between the UK and the EU on these new technologies would result in the same scale of technological revolution as the introduction of the bar code and both countries could lead the world in such technologies. Wouldn’t that be great?
In short, if UK and EU leaders want to find a way forward they will and if they don’t find a way forward it’s only because they don’t want success.
IMHO, there’s no reason that political power vacuums should be allowed to occur in the 21st-century. Such power vacuums have proved disastrous in the past. So, let’s decide now to choose that better path, whatever it may look like.
It isn’t the job of citizens, of corporations, of sports teams, nor of any other organization to solve the political problems between or within developed nations, it’s the remit of politicians to solve political problems, therefore, let’s go forward with those sentiments in mind and together, write a much better script for our respective peoples so that everyone gets to live in peace and prosperity.
As the official Brexit date of March 29, 2019 approaches the main sticking point to an orderly Brexit now appears to be the lack of agreement between the UK and the EU on whether or not there will be a hard border between the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI).
But why there exists a sticking point that involves Northern Ireland in the Brexit negotiations is anyone’s guess as there’s no good reason for the EU to treat Northern Ireland any different from the way it treats the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and has been since the year 1800 and such was formalized in a treaty that covered the matter and many other matters between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in 1922.
Q: What would drive European Union negotiators to want to inflame tensions in the region? How could that possibly benefit the EU?
A: The simple answer is that EU leaders don’t want the UK to leave the union and one way to accomplish that goal is to make Brexit appear to be a hopelessly complicated situation and EU negotiators would thereby hope to win in the court of public opinion. The theory is that UK citizens would then apply enough pressure on HM government to give up on Brexit.
Which has a microscopic chance of succeeding. To wit: Widely published online polls circulate in the UK media say things like; ‘Most Remainers these days just want to get Brexit over and done with’ due to the economic uncertainty surrounding Brexit.
And the Brexit timeline doesn’t seem to faze EU negotiators either — who it must be said — are representing the interests of the EU27 and not the UK, nor of individual Britons. Which puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it?
“Countries don’t have friends, they have interests.” — Sir Winston Churchill
Other items like the Belfast Agreement (read the complete text of that agreement here) also known as the Good Friday Agreement which lists no requirements for a hard border, soft border, or no border… also doesn’t seem to matter to EU negotiators.
And of course it doesn’t. Why would it? The EU’s negotiating teams are working for the interests of the EU27 — as you might expect — and not the interests of the UK nor of individual Britons. It’s preposterous to expect European Union negotiators to work for the interests of any country other than the EU.
Option One: The Question Everyone Asks: Why Not a Regular Land Border Like Every Other Country in the World?
The simplest solution would be to create a normal land border between the UK’s Northern Ireland and the EU’s Republic of Ireland along the entire 310-mile-long boundary between the two countries and everyone on both sides could thenceforth act like adults and there needn’t be any more trouble there than any other border in the world.
Practically every country in the world has a border and rarely are there problems with this modality in the 21st-century.
Maybe it’s time for both sides on the island of Eire (which both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland share) to craft a new agreement that creates a normal, hard border (just as all mature countries do) and thenceforth ‘agree to disagree’ (just as all mature countries do) and ‘agree to agree’ on matters of mutual interest (just as all mature countries do) It seems that 99 per cent of countries manage to do this just fine.
Perhaps this is asking too much of the UK and the EU, or of the people of NI or the ROI… but creating a normal border between the two Irelands would demonstrate to the world that the Belfast Agreement was an important step towards permanent peace on the island of Eire and it would show the world that *forward momentum never stopped* on either side since the 1998 signing of that accord.
Profoundly, a one-page addendum could be added to the existing Belfast Agreement spelling out the frames of reference with regards to a normal land border between the UK and the EU. Problem solved!
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Brexit turned out to be the impetus for a new and better relationship between Eire’s people?
Think of *those* photo-ops UK and EU negotiators! For the rest of the 21st-century you’d be the darlings of the world media along with Irish people on both sides of the border.
Option Two: The Present Course Leads the UK and the EU Towards Dispute
UK Prime Minister Theresa May has spent the past two-years hopscotching all over Europe trying to create a workable Brexit deal — and in this context ‘workable’ means a Brexit agreement that works well for the UK and its people, for the EU27 nations, and for the EU/EC leaders in Brussels. Very admirable, Theresa.
Apparently, 95 per cent of the Brexit terms and conditions are agreed according to UK PM Theresa May and the only sticking point is agreement on a border/no border between ROI and NI. If accurate, that’s good news!
The UK Prime Minister has said on many occasions that Northern Ireland is clearly a part of the United Kingdom (which is indisputable) and it must remain so following Brexit. As has has Arlene Foster, Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
So, if EU negotiators were trying to steal Northern Ireland by stealth, they ran into a brick wall when Theresa May and Arlene Foster joined forces. (And hey, there’s nothing wrong with the EU testing the resolve of the UK and NI to see if they are still firmly committed to keeping Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom)
But now that it’s been made clear to EU negotiators that it would be unseemly of them to continue to try to pull Northern Ireland away from the United Kingdom. And classy people that they are, it’s doubtful they’ll continue to try.
The present course that leads the UK and the EU towards dispute with both Irelands isn’t about any of the foregoing. It’s about Theresa May’s plan to keep all of the UK in the Customs Union — rather than what the EU wants — which is to keep only Northern Ireland in the Customs Union.
Which is why some observers question the EU’s motives, as retaining the EU Customs Union for Northern Ireland but not the rest of the UK is exactly the way a country would try to annex a territory or province by stealth.
In fact, there is legal precedent.
In the 1930’s, General Motors Corporation enjoyed very lucrative and exclusive U.S. government contracts to build military vehicles — and was allowed to compete against Ford and Chrysler in the public marketplace. Likewise, Chevrolet (a privately held company) competed against Ford and Chrysler.
By the 1950’s Chevrolet’s booming sales meant they had problems producing enough parts to build the huge volumes of cars they were selling and (incredibly) had pre-sold tens of thousands of them to buyers who were impatiently awaiting delivery of their new Chevrolet vehicles.
Subsequently, senior GM and Chevrolet executives met and came up with a plan for GM to build huge numbers of engines and transmissions for Chevrolet using Chevy designs, standards, and manufacturing practices.
As Chevrolet increased their sales exponentially, it leaned evermore on GM to provide parts for Chevy cars, but by the late 1950’s GM was building thousands of vehicles for Chevrolet in GM factories.
Things came to a head in 1959 when Chevrolet accused industrial giant GM of trying to take-over the much smaller Chevrolet by stealth.
In U.S. Supreme Court later that year, the court found that there was so much cross-over between the two firms — that no one, not even Chevrolet’s own lawyers! — could say for certain what belonged to GM and what still belonged to Chevrolet.
Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court reluctantly ruled in GM’s favour and General Motors immediately accelerated the integration of Chevrolet into GM to prevent renewed legal action by Chevrolet’s lawyers. Shortly thereafter, Chevrolet ceased to be a separate entity and ‘became one’ with GM.
And here is the lesson for the United Kingdom:
If UK negotiators are weak and allow the EU to incrementally absorb Northern Ireland into the EU — after a certain point no international court could say exactly what belonged to the EU and what still belonged to the UK/Northern Ireland. Shortly thereafter, Northern Ireland would ‘become one’ with the European Union.
All of which means that the UK cannot afford to lose this battle. The very nature of the UK is threatened, while for the EU it’s merely an opportunity to gobble-up more territory and punish the UK for leaving.
For Theresa May, keeping the entire UK in the Customs Union seems the only way to abide by the Belfast Agreement and prevent Northern Ireland from being assimilated by the EU.
Recent commentary from her MP’s and from those in the UK media have forced Prime Minister May to say her plan is a temporary one — as leaving the European Union and its Customs Union was a major reason why 17.4 million voted to leave the EU.
Therefore, she and the EU have more negotiations ahead to arrive at a permanent solution to the Northern Ireland conundrum.
Will it get done in any reasonable timeframe? No one knows, because all the EU ever says to the British Prime Minister is; “No”, “No”, and, “No”.
So, wish her well no matter which side of Brexit you’re on, because getting a negotiated Brexit that works for both sides is in everyone’s interest.
Option Three: A So-Called ‘Hard Brexit’ is the ‘Emergency Out’ for the UK
If the EU won’t (1) accept a normal border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and (2) if the EU won’t accept the entire UK staying in the Customs Union for a specified time (until a Northern Ireland agreement can be negotiated) then (3) the EU will have triggered the ‘default option’ for the UK — which is to leave without any agreement.
See how it’s all about the decisions the EU makes?
Such a so-called ‘Hard Brexit’ is what Brexiteers have been clamouring for as it best represents their desire for a clean break from the European Union and would allow the UK to begin free trade negotiations immediately following the official Brexit date which would supercharge the UK economy if handled correctly.
Strangely, it also represents the easiest pathway for the EU! The only risk for the EU (at this point no one knows exactly how much risk the EU might sustain in such a scenario) is to the huge trade surplus in goods that the EU presently enjoys with the UK.
But a Hard Brexit would allow the EU to divert its attention to Italy — which for solely economic reasons — might need to leave the EU and the EuroZone for a specified number of years in order to save its stalled economy.
The Hard Brexit option seems to enjoy plenty of support in the UK (except for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor who seem to think it’s the worst available option) but it would be the quickest deal for the UK and it would also allow the EU to instantly pivot to Italy and give 100 per cent of its attention towards creating innovative workarounds for the Italian economy.
Which, if everyone is thinking rightly should make Brexiteers and EU negotiators natural allies regarding a Hard Brexit — especially when framed in the context of Italy — and the sooner Brexiteers and EU leaders realize this, the better.
Place Your Bets!
Option number one (as above) is the best option in my opinion:
The Theresa May 95 per cent Brexit + a normal border between ROI and NI.
Option number two (as above) ranks third place in my opinion:
The Theresa May 95 per cent Brexit + the entire UK stays in the Customs Union for a series of 6-month periods in order to provide the time to negotiate a comprehensive Brexit deal that solves the Northern Ireland conundrum. It’s also the most dangerous Brexit plan by far… re-read what happened to Chevrolet (as above)
Option number three (as above) ranks second-best in my opinion:
The Hard Brexit is the purist’s Brexit — and although it could incur the largest amount of disruption, such disruptions seem wildly overblown (UK agriculture contributes only .52% to UK GDP for example) and a Hard Brexit would gain the UK the most in the shortest amount of time. For certain, the Hard Brexit option must be Theresa May’s ’emergency out’ in case negotiations go bad. And likewise for the EU, the worse it gets in Italy, the more a quick and easy-to-arrange Hard Brexit should appeal to the EU.