The Brexit result was a shock to the system and not just for me but for all progressive people and all in favour of building the peace process in Ireland. When I hear Tom McGurk and others arguing for Irexit I wonder how that would be a progressive move. It would seem to me like a regressive move, accepting the validity of the Brexiteers who want to stop immigration. Why should Ireland adopt their anti-democratic politics and policies?
The Irish peace process was hard won. It took years of hard work and negotiations to achieve the ceasefires and then the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. It took many public meetings and much debate to convince a majority on the nationalist/republican side that the new deal was worth consideration. There were a few sceptics and there were some who were totally opposed. It was argued that a deal would save a lot of people from being killed. It was argued that it would bring about a tangible and welcome improvement in the day to day lives of the vast majority of the people. It would bring the possibility of more jobs and more inward investment and free movement between north and south. It was not perfect and did not deliver on some core republican objectives but it did offer people the possibility of achieving the republican objectives by peaceful and political means.
The DUP were never enthusiastic about the Belfast Agreement until Ian Paisley’s party became the strongest unionist party and then he entered power as First Minister with Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister. In other words he joined as his equal in the power-sharing executive. It was an amazing turnaround. It brought about the possibility of permanent peace and prosperity on this island.
Then in June 2016, eighteen years after the Good Friday Agreement, along comes Brexit which could set the whole peace project back by years.
While a clear majority in the six counties voted Remain, the DUP called for a Leave vote. They lost the vote in the six counties. Yet they claim victory on the basis that the UK as a whole voted to leave. They do not recognise the majority Remain vote in the north. The leader of the DUP says Brexit will bring increased prosperity. Those who voted Remain do not believe that, Reputable economists do not accept that. There is great uncertainty about the future.
Dear oh dear.
I fear Fr. Joe’s thinking is as scrambled as his submission.
His first paragraph regurgitates the bizarre notion that the Brexit referendum was in fact a plebiscite solely on Immigration, and hence ”progressives” should be in favour of Remain, and those nasty Leavers were all xenophobic basket-cases.
NONSENSE!
34 million voted in the Brexit Referendum, the issue at stake was the membership of a Trade Club that has inexorably morphed into an Orwellian super-national political project.
Immigration policy was one small, but significant, sub-plot in the drama.
To suggest, as Fr. Joe does, that Immigration was the sole issue at stake is quite clearly wrong.
But, for the sake of argument, lets accept for a moment Fr. Joe’s self-delusion that Immigration was the only issue at stake.
Can I therefore remind Fr. Joe that when choosing the Remain camp he happily lined up behind a British Prime Minister who :
a/ referred to refugees fleeing War as ”swarms”
b/ happily left documented refugee children wallowing in the squalor and dangers of the Calais Jungle for three years;
c/ was an enthusiastic party to deporting refugees from the EU out of Fortress Europe back into the dangers and poverty of refugee camps on the Syrian border, a policy that was a clear breach of their Human Rights and agreed international obligations. Indeed, so incensed were Medecins Sans Frontiers at this humanitarian abomination that they refused 63 million pounds to co-operate with the policy.
If Fr. Joe chooses to ignore those facts, and dupe himself that he is a ”progressive” by lining up behind such blatant hysteria and xenophobia, then that of course is his prerogative.
But PLEASE don’t be wagging your finger from your pulpit at others that cant share your reactionary self-delusion.
Yes it’s all very easy to label brexiteers as simply racists opposed to immigrants. I suppose it’s better than debating with them the woeful trade deals the EU was/is cooking up.
What’s even more galling is belief that the remain side are all for open borders etc, when the evidence proves otherwise especially their relish in accepting the contrived narrative that ISIS was mingling with refugees to ‘attack us’, and thus agreeing to tougher restrictions and slowing down the movements of the said refugees.
Just like Clinton and others, the EU speaks out of both sides of its mouth but their actions expose their lies. Of course they are all for free movement and of course they want to help the refugees, even though member states played a big part in making them refugees in the first place. But but but we can’t just help them just yet cos of the contrived bogeyman ISIS.
Btw, I don’t hear many in the free state raising the refugee issue lately? They havnt gone away you know. But sure that doesn’t matter cos there’s more important things like Donald trump saying bad things and hurting people’s feelings.
I’m afraid some of the tone of the article demonstrates one of the problems I have with the liberal left; here are some examples:
“The Brexit result was a shock to the system and not just for me but for all progressive people…”
ergo, those who voted ‘Leave’ are not progressive – (anyway, define progressive).
“Why should Ireland adopt their anti-democratic politics and policies?”
ergo, those who voted ‘Leave’ are anti-democratic.
“Yet they claim victory on the basis that the UK as a whole voted to leave.”
ergo, those who voted ‘Leave’ ought to ignore the constitutional legalities of the United Kingdom.
“They do not recognise the majority Remain vote in the north.”
ergo, those who voted ‘leave’ are anti-democratic – see, above and above. I voted ‘Leave’ and I recognise the majority Remain vote in the north. That is simply a fact. Another fact is that the UK voted ‘Leave’.
It’s the self-righteous, monocular, exclusive, dismissive and scapegoating language used by the liberal left which beggars belief.
Beyond that why would the Peace Process be under threat if peace was the aim?
“The Irish peace process was hard won. It took years of hard work and negotiations to achieve the ceasefires and then the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.”
There was never anything to stop the terror organisations ending their terror campaigns. No need for hard work or negotiations.
“It was not perfect and did not deliver on some core republican objectives but it did offer people the possibility of achieving the republican objectives by peaceful and political means.”
In what way were republican objectives not achievable by peaceful and political means before the GFA.
“The DUP were never enthusiastic about the Belfast Agreement until Ian Paisley’s party became the strongest unionist party and then he entered power as First Minister with Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister. In other words he joined as his equal in the power-sharing executive. It was an amazing turnaround. It brought about the possibility of permanent peace and prosperity on this island.”
You’re suggesting that if the DUP had not decided to join the other parties in supporting the GFA that there was no possibility of permanent peace? Please explain.
“Then in June 2016, eighteen years after the Good Friday Agreement, along comes Brexit which could set the whole peace project back by years.”
You keep saying this. What does it mean? Who is threatening the peace?