Skip to main content

The Guardian view on Brexit and Ireland: the forging of folly | Editorial

Hard Brexiters view the Irish backstop not as a way of keeping the peace but as a devious mechanism to force Britain to march in lockstep with EU regulations they are desperate to get out of

Brexit is about drawing lines on maps and hearts. In that respect it is at odds with the 1998 Good Friday agreement which sought to erase them. Key to ending the Troubles was the removal of the hard border between the north and south of Ireland. Theresa May’s problem is that she has committed to leaving the European Union while respecting the peace deal that depended on both London and Dublin being part of it. The agreement made less salient the questions of identity: under its provisions people in Northern Ireland could be, uncontroversially, citizens of Britain or Ireland. What did it matter if they were part of a club that allowed people to travel, work and reside anywhere? North-south institutions were set up to oversee common endeavours. The agreement was sold as a “stepping stone to a united Ireland” to republicans, while unionists held that it was “securing the union”. The symbolism was key: with a hard border you can see that the island is partitioned, without it you cannot.

Aware of this, London and Dublin committed not to return to the days of border checkpoints, which would risk undermining the peace deal’s principles. Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement enshrines this in law in the form of an insurance policy: to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland in the event that the UK leaves the EU without securing an all-encompassing deal, there would be a backstop arrangement to allow for frictionless trade. Fanatical rightwing anti-EU Tory MPs were not bothered about the peace process, or the aspirations of fellow subjects. Instead, they saw in the insurance policy a devious mechanism to force Britain to march in lockstep with EU regulations that hard Brexiters were desperate to get out of. To reverse her government’s historic Commons defeat, Mrs May voted to replace the backstop. She did so to win over the Democratic Unionist party, but her actions enraged businesses in Northern Ireland which had publicly backed her deal.

Continue reading...

from The Guardian http://bit.ly/2HW5rzf

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...