In a recent article in the Guardian (October 19th), the London based novelist Eimear McBride expresses clearly and eloquently how many of us living in the border areas in Ireland feel after Brexit. It really is a time of great uncertainty and fear. Could we possibly be going back to the bad old days of border checkpoints and restrictions of movement? There is real fear that the peace we so longed for and fought so hard to achieve could be jeopardised by the decision of the people in England and Wales to leave the EU. After all a majority here in the north of Ireland voted to Remain in the European Union. How is the will of the majority going to be respected? I doubt if Charley Flanagan is going to stand up for the people. He and Mr Kenny are too afraid of upsetting the DUP and the British Prime Minister.
The people here in Fermanagh and Cavan and all along the border from Newry to Derry are demanding that the British and Irish governments honour their commitments in the Good Friday Agreement to support the institutions agreed and voted on at that time. The peace Agreement here has had substantial financial support from Europe. This small island needs to be able to have free movement of goods and people to make any economic progress. It makes no sense to have one part of Ireland in the EU and the other part outside it. North and south are inextricably linked and any attempt to deny that now will put the peace process at risk and is sure to cause economic instability. Already, even before the Brexit has come into force, some Mushroom factories in Monaghan are in difficulty due to the fall in the value of sterling against the Euro. The Brexit vote has resulted in great instability and uncertainty. Already jobs have been lost in border areas.
A way must be found to allow all of Ireland to remain in Europe and to prevent any attempt at establishing any kind of border – hard or soft. We in the Border Communities Against Brexit will resist any attempts to return to the past. I am grateful to Eimear McBride for expressing our predicament so cogently and convincingly. I will be reading her books from now on.
In a speech to delegates at Plaid Cymru’s conference in Llangollen, Ms Wood made a number of interesting points. She stated:
“Plaid Cymru will never sign off or endorse something that is bad for Wales.”
Ms Wood was critical of the toxic debate on immigration, refugees and free movement given the issues did not feature on the EU referendum ballot paper.
The issue of an independent Wales is now under consideration within the Welsh Regrexit camp.
This campaign is a great idea.
They are making it clear that the people on Northern Ireland will not participate in the coming referendum unless there is a guarantee they will be treated as a separate entity, or at least that no result will be binding unless all 4 regions vote in agreement.
It is vital to make this clear before the referendum takes place.
What’s that? It’s already over you say?
Surely not.
“The people here in Fermanagh and Cavan and all along the border from Newry to Derry are demanding that the British and Irish governments honour their commitments in the Good Friday Agreement to support the institutions agreed and voted on at that time.”
I thought the group waa protesting about Brexit. Mixed messages are never a good idea.
“After all a majority here in the north of Ireland voted to Remain in the European Union”
Isn’t it strange the way we’re told if the majority in the North want to stay in the UK (it was originally carved out to ensure that) that that must be respected but yet when a majority in the North vote to stay in the EU that is not respected? Funny when Unionism demands something its respected but when its others its not.
This pandering to Unionism has to stop.
“There is real fear that the peace we so longed for and fought so hard to achieve could be jeopardised by the decision of the people in England and Wales to leave the EU”
That peace is already in danger, the GFA ensured closer integration and co-operation between the North and South, Brexit puts that at serious risk. The GFA would never have been signed by SF/SDLP if that integration was not going to be honoured.
Today in 2016 we see the UDA/UVF not being tackled by the PSNI and allowed a free reign to do what they like, this is despite both organisations still recruiting young people and one UDA commander (Dee Stitt) boasting about how the UDA are the “Defenders” of North Down. He is even being paid a salary of £30,000 a year. That’s not surprising given the UDA were legal for 2 decades despite committing many sectarian murders. Collusion is no illusion and its still going on today.
On top of this SF is losing influence in their own communities who are frankly fed up with them and dissidents are more active. If there is a hard border your going to see massive instability here and possibility of a return to violence. I think it is time the British Government just faced the reality, they have neglected the peace process here for years and now it could potentially come back to bite them where it hurts. They have always treated this place as a Colony, which of course is how they see it. I think the best solution (for now anyway) is Joint Rule of the North between Dublin/London.
“Already jobs have been lost in border areas”
They will be lost in Britain too. Today large Banks in Britain have warned they could be leaving Britain as soon as next year (2017). One of the destinations they could be making their new home is Dublin.
Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin has warned in a speech at Wolfe Tones grave that Brexit is going to be disastrous for Britain and that it is time that Ireland stopped being so dependent on trade with the UK. Martin has said that Ireland needs to increase its “Skills and Innovation base” and look to other countries to do business/trade instead of Britain. I have been saying that for years, we already have strong links with the USA and should do more business with them. Not to mention we are on far better terms with the Americans (especially Irish America) than Britain, at least the Americans aren’t occupying 1/5 of our country. Deepening links with the likes of France, Germany and major economies like China/Brazil is essential.
Martin then went on to describe Britain’s handling of Brexit as “Shambolic”. He says that Westminster arrogantly expects to get “all the good bits of the EU but none of the bad bits”. He says the EU wont allow that to happen under any circumstance. Martin then mentions Scotland and the Executive in the North, saying that Scotland has the right to be at the Brexit talks and Scotland and the North’s desire to remain in the EU “must be respected”.
“Isn’t it strange the way we’re told if the majority in the North want to stay in the UK (it was originally carved out to ensure that) that that must be respected but yet when a majority in the North vote to stay in the EU that is not respected? Funny when Unionism demands something its respected but when its others its not.”
Self-determination is a universal democratic tenet, not a unionist demand. The question of membership of the EU was one that was put to the UK as a whole. The majorory of people in NI voted for the UK to remain but there was no vote to ask views about NI having some kind of ‘special status’ in the EU in the event of the UK leaving, even if such a status were possible, which it isn’t.
“This pandering to Unionism has to stop.”
Respecting self-determination isn’t pandering to unionism.
“That peace is already in danger, the GFA ensured closer integration and co-operation between the North and South, Brexit puts that at serious risk. The GFA would never have been signed by SF/SDLP if that integration was not going to be honoured.”
It didn’t ensure closer integration. It did, however, facilitate closer cooperation on specific areas of mutual interest. There is no reason why Brexit means that cooperation should end.
“If there is a hard border your going to see massive instability here and possibility of a return to violence. I think it is time the British Government just faced the reality, they have neglected the peace process here for years and now it could potentially come back to bite them where it hurts. They have always treated this place as a Colony, which of course is how they see it. I think the best solution (for now anyway) is Joint Rule of the North between Dublin/London.”
Ryan worries about the possibility of a return to violence and then advocates joint rule. Did you think that through?
self determination whilst running cap in hand to another parliament? that is not self-determination. I think I’ve had this out with you previously but you never learn do MT?
“self determination whilst running cap in hand to another parliament? that is not self-determination.”
I don’t follow. What “other parliament”? Who was “running cap in hand” -to it? And how does this relate to self-determination?
Westminster! Another parliament. If by self determination you mean creating your own destiny by upholding two separate jurisdictions in Ireland then you’re running cap in hand to Westminster. The north does not even have taxation powers, one of the bedrocks of a nation state. Its cap in hand….there is an island here that is well capable of being a solid nation state without Westminster. I suppose you’ll bring EU into the argument now, but they do not hinder national sovereignty. Westminster has and does.
“Westminster!”
How was Westminster “another oarliament”?
“Another parliament. If by self determination you mean creating your own destiny by upholding two separate jurisdictions in Ireland then you’re running cap in hand to Westminster.”
I don’t follow the logic. Where does “running cap in hand” come.into.it and, indeed, what does it mean?
“The north does not even have taxation powers, one of the bedrocks of a nation state. Its cap in hand…”
The UK has taxation powers, which is the “nation state” ton which unionists decided by self-determination that they wished to continue to belong.
“there is an island here that is well capable of being a solid nation state without Westminster.”
Any number of places are “well capable” of being “solid nation states” but under self-determination whether or not to become or join or leave a “nation state” is a matter for the people to decide.
“I suppose you’ll bring EU into the argument now, but they do not hinder national sovereignty. Westminster has and does.”
Why would I bring the EU into it? Westminster doesn’t hinder national sovereignty.
I seen that statement from Stitt and couldn’t help but wonder if that same statement had come from say some dissident republican, that he and his organisation were defenders of say, Lurgan, what would the public and political reaction be?
Especially after being awarded £1.7mil by the state.
All those demanding for no ‘hard border’ or for the north to ‘remain in the EU’ are ignoring the elephant in the room I.e the border. Perhaps it’s time to demand its removal? Problem solved.
“There is real fear that the peace we so longed for and fought so hard to achieve could be jeopardised by the decision of the people in England and Wales to leave the EU.”
Why’s that?
Should I be afraid?
I’m not any threat to peace.
In a recent article, Joe, you offered us some spiritual advice.
There, you drew our attention to the theology of suffering, especially the suffering of Jesus, and how the event of the crucifixion replaces the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of redemptive suffering. As a believing Protestant I may (I would) wish to emphasise other aspects of this theology, but, most certainly, I can agree that in the death and resurrection of Jesus we meet and can know hope in His “redemptive suffering”.
In that article you also quoted Richard Rohr – even as a conservation Protestant I was not unfamiliar with his name.
You quoted him as saying, “People who haven’t come to at least a minimal awareness of their own dark side will always find someone else to hate or fear.”
It is an uncomfortable, yet penetrating comment.
There, you also say, “there is no such thing as redemptive violence. Violence doesn’t save; it only destroys in both short and long term. “
‘Fear’ and ‘violence’, both placed in their proper, destructive place.
And yet here you raise the spectre of both: “There is real fear that the peace we so longed for and fought so hard to achieve could be jeopardised by the decision of the people in England and Wales to leave the EU.”
And you cannot answer my questions.
Perhaps you will pardon me for being confused?
PF, do you believe that to threaten violence is a form of terrorism?
Freddie
I’m not sure that the question is so easily answered as that.
What I can say is this, violence (and I mean in the form of self-defence or to free others from a grave injustice) should be a last resort.
I certainly think that if anyone were to threaten violence in a Western European democracy just because a vote didn’t go their way is a from of terrorism.
I should also say that in responding to Joe I was, and am, keen to find out how he squares “redemptive suffering” with a loss of peace due to a Brexit vote.
I’ll say too, that while I don’t think that Christianity necessitates pacifism, the call to love our enemies is an experience far, far beyond any of our experiences.
Thank you for that, PF. Would you view Edward Carson as a terrorist, or were his actions just an act of self defence?
I would very much class Carson as the leader of a paramilitary force that threatened military action against the very government he claimed to be loyal to. An aggressor very much not a defender, who would never have achieved this pithy little state if it hadn’t been for Tory bigots backing him.
“I would very much class Carson as the leader of a paramilitary force that threatened military action against the very government he claimed to be loyal to. An aggressor very much not a defender, who would never have achieved this pithy little state if it hadn’t been for Tory bigots backing him.”
I would very much class De Valera as the leader of a paramilitary force that engaged in military action against the government. An aggressor very much not a defender, who would never have achieved this pithy little state if it hadn’t been for nationalist bigots backing him.
Sweet lord above MT, just pathetic. Do you actually see everything as a mirror image? That is just pathetic. Out of respect for Jude, I leave this debate as of now. Pathetic, just utterly pathetic MT…..
“Sweet lord above MT, just pathetic. Do you actually see everything as a mirror image? That is just pathetic. Out of respect for Jude, I leave this debate as of now. Pathetic, just utterly pathetic MT…..”
Whoosh. ..
Why do you ask about Carson particularly?
You see, Freddie, what’s going on here, and I may as well cut to the chase, is an attempt, on the part of more than one person, to justify contemporary actions, such as those commited during ‘the Troubles’, by projecting the past upon the present and vice versa.
Comments were specifically made about Brexit being a threat to peace; those comments remain unclarified, and I don’t see how discussing Carson or any of the 1916 Rebels will help, or justify that.
De Valera was pretty vile as was Carson I think. However, De Valera was an Irishman with a noble cause in his heart and that was a self-determining Irish nation, whereas Carson was an Irishman who wanted to be governed by another nation. Ignoble you might say.
“De Valera was pretty vile as was Carson I think. However, De Valera was an Irishman with a noble cause in his heart and that was a self-determining Irish nation, whereas Carson was an Irishman who wanted to be governed by another nation. Ignoble you might say.”
Carson was an Irishman with a noble cause in his heart and that was union of the British peoples, whereas De Valera was a Spanish-American who wanted to divide the British peoples, ignoble you might say.