Is The Good Friday Agreement Dead?

Much broo ha ha is being undertaken, as Biden comes to Ireland, to mark a quarter century of the Good Friday Agreement. But, the agreement was a bad deal to begin with, and its centrepiece, the power sharing executive, has only sat for 40% of its existence, and has not sat, now, for 430 days. The conditions that existed and that led to its creation no longer exist, so the question is, is the Good Friday Agreement dead, never to be resurrected?

Marx noted, in The Poverty of Philosophy, that laws ultimately just rubber stamp real conditions. They may get out of synch, because governments may be ahead or behind – usually the latter – those real conditions, but, ultimately its the reality that imposes itself. So, in Britain, where the more rapid development of capital in the early 19th century had led to a more rapid growth of the working-class, and of conditions in which it was brought together, and led to create unions, parliament was led to repeal the Combination Acts, that previously outlawed such unions. The fact that France introduced such laws reflected the lower level of development in capital in France.

“In England, combination is authorized by an Act of Parliament, and it is the economic system which has forced Parliament to grant this legal authorization. In 1825, when, under the Minister Huskisson, Parliament had to modify the law in order to bring it more and more into line with the conditions resulting from free competition, it had of necessity to abolish all laws forbidding combinations of workers. The more modern industry and competition develop, the more elements there are which call forth and strengthen combination, and as soon as combination becomes an economic fact, daily gaining in solidity, it is bound before long to become a legal fact.

Thus the article of the Penal Code proves at the most that modern industry and competition were not yet well developed under the Constituent Assembly and under the Empire.)

(The Poverty of Philosophy – Chapter Two)

The GFA was a bad deal, because it institutionalised the sectarian nature of politics in Northern Ireland, giving each of the two communities (catholic/nationalist and protestant/unionist) a right to share in executive power, simply on that basis. It made a continuation of that sectarianism, thereby, inevitable, in an age when its material conditions were disappearing. The material basis of sectarianism in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religious differences, any more than the English Civil War was about religious differences, even though that is the way it is presented, based upon superficialities.

The English Civil War was about the rise of the urban bourgeoisie, whose interests tended to be aligned with those of protestant asceticism – Weber's Protestant Ethic – as against the interests of the Monarchy, whose profligacy was funded from taxes on that bourgeoisie. The material basis of protestant ascendancy in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with the fact that they are Protestants, but with the fact that they were transplanted into Ireland, by England, as colons, to exercise such dominance to begin with. It was on that basis that they exercised a series of privileges over the native Irish population, most of whom were still catholic. In a country that still had communally owned land, they were given land, seized by the English state; some of them were able to accumulate capital, and for those that didn't, they were given privileged access to jobs, by their protestant capitalist brethren, and so on.

For so long as there was a British state, exercising unrestricted mandate over Northern Ireland, the protestant colons could count on that state standing behind them, and ensuring the continuation of those privileges. When the 26 counties, won their independence from Britain, that unrestricted mandate was weakened, but not removed, as the new Republic was too weak to impose its own mandate on the Six Counties, and instead had to compromise with the British State for the creation of the Northern Ireland statelet as a sectarian bear pit from the start. That was reflected by the fact that, the historic County of Ulster, comprised nine not six counties, but, had a border been drawn around the nine, it comprised a majority catholic/nationalist population. The law established, creating the Northern Irish statelet, represented a reflection of the reality that Britain could not hold on to the whole of Ireland, and the purpose of the new statelet was to guarantee a Protestant/Unionist majority, tied to British imperialism.

That reality was also still apparent when, in 1969, Britain sent troops on to the streets of Northern Ireland. The official reason for the troops going in was as a special policing operation – to coin the phrase used by Putin to justify his actions in Eastern Ukraine – as sectarian violence erupted on the streets, as the catholic/nationalist community rallied around the Civil Rights Movement, much as black US citizens had been doing to demand equal rights, but which provoked, in both cases, a backlash from those that currently enjoyed the privileges being challenged. But, within a very short time, it became clear that the British troops were not there to simply keep a neutral peace, but to ensure a continuation of the status quo, and so to turn their fire – literally – on the catholic/nationalist community. The consequence was that, the peaceful civil rights movement became irrelevant, much as its US equivalent became, and the ground shifted towards those offering a physical force defence of the respective communities. In Northern Ireland, that was the Provisional IRA, which, until that time had been an insignificantly small organisation.

But, British imperialism was seriously on the wane, and had been for half a century. Most notably, the basis of imperialism, as against colonialism, is the requirement of large-scale, multinational industrial capital, to sweep away all of the monopolies and restricted markets that were the hallmark of the colonial empires, such as that established by Britain, and other European states, in order that, particularly, US multinational capital could settle everywhere unimpeded, and, thereby, exploit available labour supplies, based upon the extraction of relative surplus value, which itself requires, access to well educated workers, able to use the technologies that provide the high levels of productivity that produce the relative surplus value.

US imperialism ruled the roost after WWII, and its was its multinational industrial companies that acted as the spearhead, and its ties were more well established with the catholic/nationalist population, which had been the source of much migration to the US to escape the conditions in Ireland, in the 19th century, particularly during the famine caused by English policy in Ireland, in 1848.

US multinationals, began to set up in Ireland, with no regard for the old protestant privileges, and, indeed, with hostility towards them. The process accelerated with British and Irish membership of the EEC in 1973, and, with the creation of the EU, and its insistence on minimum standards required for a level playing field in a single market, the old protestant/unionist privileges were an anachronism that could no longer be tolerated. Its precisely why the DUP supported Brexit, in a doomed attempt to prevent the continuation of that, and in the hope of turning back the clock to the heyday of unionism, and its ties to a British imperialist state, with unrestricted mandate in the province. The fact that it has been able to forge an alliance with a Tory Party captured by the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie that grew rapidly from the 1980's onwards, and with similar motives for supporting Brexit, is a further anachronism that represents something like an eddy in the forward movement of the stream of history, rather than a new direction of flow.

When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, it simply reflected these changed conditions. In 1999, with no prospect of Britain committing economic suicide by leaving the EU, and as a new long wave upswing of the global economy got underway, the material basis of unionist privileges disappeared. Capital flooded into Ireland from the US and Europe, ending the monopoly that unionist capital had previously enjoyed, which had been the basis of unionist workers employment privileges, and so on. In fact, Ireland, like the rest of Britain, had labour shortages, leading to an influx of European workers, with no historical connection to the old sectarian divides. But, the agreement reflected material conditions in another way, which was that both PIRA and the British state understood they had fought each other to a draw, whilst the unionists were a rapidly diminishing quantity, both politically and demographically.

In fact, the Good Friday Agreement was more beneficial for the protestants/unionists for that very reason. Their day had already passed, and the writing was on the wall for the end of their supremacy, just as it had been for the white minority in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Without the old protestant ascendancy and privileges, there is really no basis for the unionist parties whose politics is based upon them, other than as a reactionary drag on bringing reality and appearance into alignment. But, in doing that, they inevitably undermine the interests of the majority of protestants in Northern Ireland too, as the effects of Brexit have demonstrated, even as mitigated by the Northern Ireland Protocol, which itself demonstrates that Britain no longer exercises the unrestricted mandate over Northern Ireland it did, and which the DUP desperately seek to restore.

But, contrary to the needs of the DUP, the British state, no longer even able to exercise unrestricted mandate within its own borders, as it has to comply with EU regulations to continue its trade relations, has even more had to relinquish its mandate in Northern Ireland to the EU, also under pressure from the US, apart from the blimp that was Trump. The Good Friday Agreement was supposed to give both communities equal rights based on power sharing, but, in fact, it simply institutionalised the existing sectarian divide, in conditions where the material basis of that divide was being destroyed by the day, as a result of the economic development that imperialism brings about, especially within the confines of the EU. What it actually did was shore up the position of the protestant/unionist community, and increasingly the interests of the unionist politicians even against the interests of the community they purport to represent, by abrogating the basic elements of democracy.

At the last elections, Sinn Fein won the majority of seats, which would have meant it nominated the First Minister, but the Executive has not met, as the DUP simply refuses to participate. As a measure of the failure of the agreement that is manifest. The GFA, as a sectarian arrangement that abrogates basic principles of democracy no longer reflects the material reality that exists. It is used as a means of arguing that Northern Ireland needed special arrangements following Brexit, but its not the GFA that makes such arrangements necessary. It is the needs of the Northern Ireland economy, and of its people that requires that no border exist between it, and the EU, with which it trades every day across that land border. In fact, that reality shows why, the actual border, if there is to be any, is that between Ireland as a whole, and the British mainland, which simply reflects the reality of a United Ireland, within the EU.

If the GFA did not exist, giving the DUP a veto, then the last elections would have seen a nationalist majority in the parliament, and any boycott by the DUP would simply have seen its more rapid demise. Its time for the GFA to be buried, and for a consistent democratic settlement in Ireland, whose only rational conclusion is a United Ireland within the EU.

G7 - Brexit Still Not Done

The G7 meeting in Cornwall, last weekend, showed that, for all of Johnson and the Brexiters bravado, over recent years, Brexit is still not done.  It illustrates the difference between appearance and reality.  The Brexiters will point to the appearance that Brexit is done, in the shape of a piece of paper - The Withdrawal Agreement - and the fact that its consequence is that Britain no longer has representation within the political institutions of the EU.  However, the reality is that six months after the Transition Period ended, Brexit is still a live issue, between Britain and the EU, now drawing in also the US; Britain is still effectively subjected to the rules of the EU Single Market, and, in the case of Northern Ireland, as a result of the Protocol that Johnson signed, not just effectively, but legally, subject to those rules.

Brexit formed about two-thirds of the time of the discussion of G7 members outside the formal business.  The motivation for that, surprisingly came from Johnson, given that most expected that he would wait until the G7 and NATO meetings had concluded before once again taking up a hard stance on Brexit, threatening to negate the Protocol.  Is that just an indication of Johnson's inept political skills?  Maybe, but also, by raising it during the meeting, it inevitably made clear that Britain was already becoming seen as an outsider, a pariah, not just in relation to the EU, but also in relation to the US, and other G7 members.  Biden made clear his alliance with the EU as against Britain on the issue.

When it comes to Johnson confronting the hard line Brexiters in his own party, and the DUP, therefore, he can point to Britain's isolation as a reason for caution, in continuing to pursue such a course.  It has to be remembered that Johnson never was a committed Brexiteer, other than for the purpose of his  own self-advancement, in the same way that he wrote silly stories about the EU demanding straight bananas, when he was a Telegraph journalist, not because he believed such nonsense, which in fact, he knew to be untrue, but solely because he knew that such trolling was lapped up, by the small-minded, petty-bourgeois readers of the Torygrpah.  Johnson's own position on Brexit was always that he thought that some new series of opt-outs for Britain from the EU, as with those obtained by Thatcher and Blair, would be the optimal solution.

In fact, its suggested that EU officials have been having talks with the UK government about Britain re-joining the single market at some point, when things in Britain have become dire enough.

That would have happened straight away in the case of a crash out Brexit.  But, if Johnson pushes the line of unilaterally abrogating the Northern Ireland Protocol, then the same thing would happen.  The EU is already taking Britain to court over its previous unilateral action, and now says that if Britain undertakes further such unilateral action, which its reported Johnson may do at the end of June, then not only would they take legal action, but they would go for a full out trade war.  That would cripple the UK economy in fairly short order.

On the weekend politics programmes, one interviewer asked Emily Thornberry whether her position, in relation to the Protocol, was not just that of a Remainer who simply wanted Britain to capitulate to the EU.  But, the reality is, of course, that, Remainer or not, the EU is an economy seven times bigger than the UK.  It can cut off the island UK economy, in a way that the UK cannot do to Europe.  It is simply a question of realpolitik that the EU is even more powerful than its seven times larger economy, suggests when it comes to its dealing with the UK.  A moralist might not like the fact that the EU can crush the UK, in any such dealings, but the world does not operate on the basis of moralism, but economic, social and political power.

So, whether Dominic Raab's moral sensibilities were offended or not by Emmanuel Macron's comment to the effect that Northern Ireland is a separate country to England, is irrelevant.  In fact, of course, Macron was technically correct as against Raab, in several respects.  Firstly, it had been asked of Macron how he would feel if Toulouse were required to be treated differently to Paris.  Macron rightly replied that Toulouse and Paris are in the same country. 

Even setting aside the question that Northern Ireland is a part of the island of Ireland, a country that was annexed, as a whole, by British colonialism, and that only a part of that annexation has been relinquished, still requiring the process of self-determination for Ireland to be completed, with the reunification of the island, it is also factually the case that Northern Ireland itself, currently, is a separate country to England, just as Scotland is a different country to England, as is Wales.  A look at the fact that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have separate football teams to that of England, each of which compete independently in international competitions is a manifestation of that.

But, more significantly, Macron is right, because, in this specific context, of the Withdrawal Agreement, the fact of Northern Ireland being a separate country from England, and from Scotland and Wales, is the direct consequence of the conditions created by Johnson's "oven ready deal", and his decision to place a border down the Irish Sea!  That in terms of the relations between the UK and the EU, set down in black and white in the Withdrawal Agreement, and the Northern Irish Protocol, the very thing that Johnson and his negotiator David Frost insisted upon, and which only six months ago they proclaimed as an excellent and historic deal, Northern Ireland, legally is a separate country and subject to different terms and conditions to the rest of the UK!  That is a direct consequence not just of Brexit, but of the decisions that Johnson and his government have made in relation to its implementation.

There are several obvious solutions to the problems faced by Northern Ireland resulting from the idiocy of the fudge that Johnson created.  First of all, for businesses in Northern Ireland, there is a simple answer to the problems they now face sourcing supplies from the UK.  Instead source your supplies from the Republic, and those difficulties disappear!  Hard line Loyalist small businesses will not want to be seen to be doing that, for obvious political reasons, though I suspect that many Loyalist small businesses, particularly those close to the border will already be doing that quietly.  Large businesses like TESCO will not want to be doing it for several reasons.  Firstly, they have established supply lines to TESCO on the mainland, and its large purchasing operations, but secondly, politically they would face pressure from the UK government, if they were seen to be separating Northern Ireland from Brexit Britain, in effect putting into practice the obvious reality of current material conditions that drive inexorably to a United Ireland.

The second thing that could resolve much of the current issues, would be if Britain simply signed an agreement with the EU on food hygiene and animal standards, such as Switzerland has with the EU.  The EU has even put that proposal to the UK, as the means to remove about 80% of the checks currently required between Britain and Northern Ireland, which superficially is what Britain says its objections revolve around.  I say superficially, because its clear that is just a smokescreen, and that what Britain is doing is using Northern Ireland as a Trojan Horse, in the way it has done throughout the negotiations since 2016, and is why the Brexiters always insisted that all of the problems that are now manifest would never arise.  What Britain is doing as it has done all along, in conformity with the history of perfidious Albion, is to sign a deal and then to immediately renege upon it.

Britain will not sign such a deal as an immediate solution to that problem, whilst it thinks it can get away with reneging on the current deal.  For one thing, it again shows that Brexit is not done, and that Britain is forced by economic and political reality to assume a subordinate position in relation to the EU, and to abide by its rules, regulations and conditions.  It blows apart the nonsense claims about "taking back control", and national sovereignty.  The reality is that no such control has been taken back, and in practice Britain has lost a vast amount of control and influence as a result of Brexit, because it no longer has a seat at the EU table.

Thirdly, Britain as a whole could resume negotiations with the EU, negotiations, which have never in reality stopped despite claims about Brexit having been done, and as this weekends row, shows continue to occupy centre stage.  Britain could simply accept reality before too much further damage is done, start negotiating to re-join the Single Market and Customs Union, and then all of the requirements of the Protocol disappear.  But, the obvious question would then be raised, if we are members of the Single market and Customs Union, should we not, also have a seat at the table.  In effect, that is the have cake and eat it scenario that Johnson has always really advocated.  But its an impossibility, as with its Labour variant, proposed by Corbyn.  The EU is not going to allow the UK to be a member of the Single Market and Customs Union, and to participate in the formulation of policy, unless it is also a member of the EU, any more than a trades union would allow members of a separate Staff Association to have that kind of relation to its decision making processes.  The inevitability of requiring to re-join the Single market and Customs Union, is also the inevitability that Britain, sooner or later, will have to re-join the EU itself, but now on worse terms than it had when it left.

Fourthly, and the solution that is most immediately in the control of the people of Northern Ireland itself is that Northern Ireland does the obvious rational thing, and reunites with the Republic.  On that basis, the question of a border within Ireland disappears, and the question of the Protocol also disappears, because a United Ireland would just have one single external border with the UK, in the same way as all other EU countries, have one external border with the UK.  The thing standing in the way of that is a minority of hard line Loyalists, who are being whipped up by the DUP, and others to their Right, as well as the concept of Loyalist violence being used cynically by the UK government.  But, the bigotry of a minority of Loyalists cannot again be allowed to prevent the establishment of a United Ireland, if that is what its people as a whole desire.  We would not have allowed the minority of white settlers in South Africa to prevent the removal of apartheid, simply on the basis of their threats of violence, if their privileges were ended.

Just as Britain's future inevitably resides once more inside the EU, because that is the path in which history is marching across the globe, as the nation state acts as a fetter on further capitalist development, and is replaced by large multinational economic and political unions, so the reunification of Ireland is also inevitable, for the same material and historic reasons.

Lenin, noting that Sismondi bemoaned the growth of the towns at the expense of the countryside, wrote,

“On this point modern theory takes a view diametrically opposite to that of romanticism with its sentimental complaints. When we understand that something is inevitable, we naturally adopt a totally different attitude towards it and are able to appraise its different aspects. The phenomenon we are now discussing is one of the most profound and most general of the contradictions of the capitalist system.” (p 228-9)

And, that applies equally, today, to the reactionary nature of the nation state, and the progressive nature of the large multinational states, and economic and political unions that are superseding it.

Will The DUP Bus In Poots?

Probably like most people, until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Edwin Poots, despite him serving as the MLA for Lagan Valley for the last 23 years, and currently being the DUP's Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.  He has come into he limelight after throwing his hat in the ring to replace Arlene Foster as DUP Leader, after she was unceremoniously dumped by the DUP, following the disastrous turn of events they have faced in the last two years.

Poots, of course, will face opposition from better known DUP politicians, such as Ian Paisley and Jeffrey Donaldson MP, as well as Gavin Robinson MP.  Even by the Neanderthal standards of the DUP, Poots is a wacky reactionary.  He believes the Earth is only 7,000 years old, and believes in Creationism, rejecting the theory of evolution.  Not surprisingly, his views on LGBT rights, and on women's rights are equally Palaeolithic.  His reactionary nationalist views are of a similar vein.  He would pose a bigger problem for Boris Johnson than has Arlene Foster, because he would be likely to take a harder Unionist line, in demanding that Johnson remove the border down the Irish Sea that he imposed, as part of Britain getting a trade deal with the EU, that minimises the losses to Britain from Brexit.

Johnson, of course, is not going to do that, for the simple reason that he agreed to that border in the Irish Sea, because, unless he was going to agree to the deal that Theresa May had agreed, or else unless he agreed to Britain openly remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union, the only route to a deal with the EU resided in the Protocol, and the Irish Sea Border.  Had the DUP supported May's bad deal, they would have avoided, Johnson's even worse deal, but they made the mistake of believing anything that Johnson says.  Its basically that, which Foster has now paid the price for, but it was the DUP as a whole that fell for Johnson's lies. 

Indeed, had the DUP opposed Brexit, back in 2016, they may have swung enough votes to prevent it, given the wafer thin majority with which it was approved.  It would have certainly further undermined any constitutional legitimacy that the vote had, given that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted decisively against it.  But, the DUP's own stupidity and reactionary politics drive them into the Brexit camp.  Like most Brexiters, they probably thought they would lose the vote, anyway, and so they were free to engage in political grandstanding without having ever o face the consequences.

For the DUP, those consequences are quite clear.  They have alienated even a significant chunk of Protestant voters, and that the most important part, the younger voters, who will have votes in elections for years to come.  Those voters grew up with all of the advantages that the EU brought with it, and that now, the DUP and Boris Johnson have, at least to an extent, ripped away from them.  Their only protection from having all of that ripped away completely now resides in the non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland, as well as in the EU, most immediately represented by the Irish government.  It is the EU, and the Irish government that has protected the rights of Northern Ireland citizens, by insisting on the Protocol, which keeps Northern Ireland inside the EU, for all intents and purposes indefinitely.

By putting the border down the Irish Sea, between Britain and Northern Ireland, Boris Johnson effectively signalled that he sees the inevitable progress of Northern Ireland being into a reunification with the Irish Republic. The trade deal that Johnson signed with the EU, has been an inevitable disaster for Britain, with exports having crashed.  But, essentially, Northern Ireland is in the EU, and so the same problems of British exporters have been replicated now into Northern Ireland also.  That means an acceleration in the integration of the Northern Ireland economy into that of the Republic, that was taking place anyway, and a corresponding severing of the economic relation between Northern Ireland and Britain, just as Brexit means an inevitable reduction in the economic ties between Britain and Ireland as a whole, as the latter re-orientates much more to trade with the rest of the EU.

If the DUP does choose Poots as their next leader, it will be fitting.  To have as their Leader someone who most of us have never heard of, whose views are so reactionary that even many young Protestants will be turned away from, is just a reflection of the fact that the DUP itself has pursued a policy that has led to its own increasing irrelevance.

Guest Post On Johnson's Moves From An Irish Perspective

This is a guest post, from Sraid Marx, on Boris Johnson's latest manoeuvres from an Irish perspective.

The Sraid Marx blog is written by someone who has been a Marxist for around 40 years. As they say in their "About Me" section of their blog,

"My maternal grandfather was an Irish emigrant to Glasgow and a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain during the 1930's and during and after the 2nd World War. He was a union member who lost his job more than once because of his union activities. My mother was also briefly a member of the Young Communist League. Both my mother and father were supporters of civil rights in the late 1960's in Belfast and were briefly members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party in the early 1970's. I therefore come from a left-wing background defined by politics and not by nationality or religion.

In 1975, after my family had moved to Scotland I became involved with socialist politics through the International Marxist Group in Glasgow and in 1976 I joined this organisation. I returned to Ireland to go to university and joined the Irish section of the Fourth International, the Movement for a Socialist Republic, in 1978. I was a member of the MSR and the successor organisations of the Irish section of the Fourth International up until 2012.

I am therefore a Marxist from the Trotskyist tradition."

********** 

The British Government declaration that it was unilaterally about to give itself the power to tear up the parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol that was part of the EU Withdrawal Agreement has met with much damnation by many of the members of the Dáil (the British equivalent is the House of Commons). The Sinn Fein leader denounced ‘Perfidious Albion’ while the People before Profit TD (MP) also condemned “the rotten, rotten Prime Minister” for his “insult to the Taoiseach and the people of this country.” 

‘The Irish Times’ Dáil sketch writer took a more humorous approach, comparing the predicament of the Taoiseach to that of the Irish football team: would he replay the role of Ray Houghton and put the ball in the net against England as Houghton did in the Euros in 1988? Or would he replay the role of Roy Keane in Saipan during the World Cup in 2002 and walk out on the Irish team? 

Those with long memories, or a knowledge of history, would not have to recall the recent words of the British condemnation of China for having reneged on the deal over Hong Kong. They only had to recall that almost 100 years ago the British had threatened ‘immediate and terrible war’ if the Irish did not sign the Anglo-Irish Treaty that created the Irish State and copper-fastened partition. The Brits were at it again – waiving the rules even when they didn’t even rule them. 

But this is the point, which is why Taoiseach Micheál Martin took the more measured approach: “I will therefore exercise judgement in terms of both how I intervene, when I intervene and the manner of my intervention”, which means he will leave it to the EU to do the intervening. The Irish now have the inestimable advantage 100 years later that the power of the political body they are part of greatly exceeds that of the British. The opposition parties in the Dáil were full of righteous indignation but regardless, all would rely on the EU to protect what are seen as vital Irish interests. 

These interests include a requirement for a new trade deal that protects food and other agricultural exports to Britain and free movement of goods to and through Britain to the wider EU market. A new "Brexit-buster" ship MV Laureline has been built and repointed to Irish trade with mainland Europe, and Dublin Port has a plan for a €320m development of facilities to support greater capacity, while plans are well advanced for a new electricity interconnector between Ireland and France. However, these cannot substitute for existing arrangements, electricity interconnection is currently only with Britain, for example, and don’t address the importance of agricultural exports into the British market or imports from it. 

There is an upside for the Irish State, as it can present itself as a convenient, English-speaking site for companies seeking access to the EU market, including companies relocating from Britain, but there is fierce competition for this and there are already infrastructural capacity constraints. The benefits are not as immediate as the potential threats. 

None of this has immediately surfaced as the primary concern of the Irish State or of the EU. Instead, its leaders have denounced the proposed changes for the danger it poses to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) through the potential creation of a hard border on the island. Neither of them can actually point to where the Agreement requires a ‘soft’ border and the Strand 2 North-South arrangements of the GFA have ironically been the most neglected and disused parts of the Agreement, and with little controversy, including from Sinn Fein. The problem however is twofold. 

Firstly, the peace process relies on freezing the current sectarian arrangements and any sudden or significant movement, in fact any movement at all, threatens instability and gives rise to potential conflict. The GFA assumed a ‘soft’ border and in most minds is part of the GFA, just as lack of political violence is also associated with it, it doesn’t matter that neither were the result of it. 

And secondly, the problem is not so much the border itself; a leader of the ‘dissident’ republican group Saoradh, Brian Kenna, described Brexit as “a huge help” for recruitment to his organisation and a “pilot light in reigniting that side of physical force to British occupation." The Saoradh leadership has said that they hoped Brexit - which they campaigned for - would be "as hard as hell." As one person put it - they want the border posts back so that they can blow them up. 

Unfortunately for this group, British security services in MI5 have penetrated its leadership and arrested nine of them in August. Republican attacks threaten stability, but even aside from their limited effectiveness such attacks do not, in themselves, provoke wider conflict. What does threaten wider conflict is the additional strain that a ‘hard’ border would place on already crumbling political structures within which sectarian competition has been institutionalised. The immediate shock of Boris Johnson’s threatened unilateral changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol did not prevent the resumption of joint Covid-19 press conferences by the DUP and Sinn Fein after weeks of separate briefings following the breaking of social distancing rules by Sinn Fein at an IRA funeral. 

Reaction in the North of Ireland is instructive. The leading voice in the DUP on Brexit, Sammy Wilson, welcomed the British initiative only as a first step after his leader had more or less indicated acceptance of the existing Protocol. The Ulster Unionist Party leader Steve Aiken said his party “took little comfort” from the Tory Bill. Unionists have lost all trust in Boris Johnson and are acutely aware that he doesn’t give a damn for them. Having been burned through accepting his promise that there would be no border on the Irish Sea they are clear that he may be creating another smokescreen to cover up a U-turn on acceptance of a trade deal that requires it. 

While most attention has focused on the potential separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK through rules governing the import and export of goods between them, with no such restrictions or barriers between the North and South of Ireland, this is not the real concern. Fears that Tesco could not deliver food to its stores in Northern Ireland without exorbitant additional costs were on the way to being dispelled, and additional paperwork for goods going from Northern Ireland to Britain have not been seen as a major concern. 

The main issue does not arise from concerns about the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK market but from the fact that it is still too close. EU state aid rules apply to Northern Ireland under the Protocol but these tie back to the rest of the UK if goods, investment and rules originating or applying in Britain affect Northern Ireland. Rules and tax incentives etc involving subsidies to industry or firms intended to support industry in Britain, if they have any impact in Northern Ireland, would be considered by the EU to be invalid. The intricate and complicated division of labour involved in the modern supply chains makes such impacts inevitable and the EU demands notification in advance of any changes to the British state aid regime. 

The row about the UK Internal Market Bill has therefore nothing and everything to do with Ireland, and Ireland will have not much to do with fighting it to a conclusion. The EU has made it clear that the antics of Johnson’s Government changes nothing, it will not even call a halt to the negotiations on a trade deal. The Withdrawal Agreement itself will be employed to sort out the mess and if the British appear to want no deal it will only be because they pretend to. Then when they sign up to one it will be a great victory. 

Far from getting Brexit done the Withdrawal Agreement demonstrates that it cannot get done without being either pointless or immensely damaging. Unfortunately, the British Labour Party, which should be making hay out of Tory incoherence, can’t effectively challenge while its own policy is that there is a Brexit that is neither. Yet another Brexit crisis demonstrates that only continuing opposition to it can defend the interests of workers in Ireland and Britain.

A No Deal Brexit Could Be A Bonanza For Ireland

It has generally come to be accepted that whilst Brexit will be bad for Ireland as well as Britain, a No Deal Brexit will be disastrous for Britain, but also very bad for Ireland.  Brexit will indeed, be bad for Britain, and have a negative impact on Ireland, though not as bad as has been stated, but, whilst a No Deal Brexit will be disastrous for Britain, it could mean a bonanza for Ireland.

Brexit will be bad for Britain for all the reasons that have been discussed over the last three years.  Undoubtedly, because Ireland's largest single trading partner is Britain, including all the trade that occurs daily across the border inside Ireland, it will, therefore, have a negative impact on Ireland.  Yet, the extent of that negative impact should not be overstated.  A lot of Ireland's economy has developed in recent decades on the basis of technology, and this production, is far less dependent upon the physical movement of goods.  Moreover, as part of the EU's Single Market and Customs Union of  around 450 million people (after Britain leaves), and economy of around $16 trillion, compared to around just $2 trillion for the UK economy, Ireland will have much greater ease in redirecting its trade than will the UK.

And, in any case, the fact remains that even if the UK leaves the EU, Ireland, along with other EU countries will continue to sell a similar amount of their goods and services to Britain as they do now.  In fact, even more so.  As the UK economy grows more slowly as a result of Brexit, and as foreign companies relocate out of the UK to Europe, so as to avoid, the problems of selling into Europe from outside the Single Market, and Customs Union, all those goods and services currently produced by those companies, and sold internally in the UK - as well as being exported to the EU, from the UK - will become imports to the UK, thereby diminishing UK GDP, and increasing its trade deficit with the EU.  The only difference will be that if the UK is outside the Customs Union, and operates under WTO terms, it will introduce a range of tariffs, as set out by the WTO, on those imports.  Indeed, as a result of the production being located outside the UK, into the EU,  the UK would almost certainly want to introduce such tariffs so as to make imports more expensive, so as to protect UK firms from the competition, and prevent the UK's trade deficit ballooning due to the rise in imports and fall in exports.

The consequence, of course, would be that as a direct result of these tariffs, the price of all those goods and services would become much more expensive for UK consumers, which means that workers in the UK would face a sharp drop in their standard of living at a time, when the relocation of production out of the country was pushing up unemployment, and thereby causing UK wages to fall.  But, in fact, even with high tariffs, its unlikely to prevent the UK needing to import these EU produces goods and services.  If all foreign car producers move production out of Britain, for example, and relocate to Europe, its not as though people in the UK will stop wanting to buy cars.  Its just that now those cars would have to be imported from France, or Germany, or Spain, or Belgium, and would be much more expensive, due to the tariffs.  The same is true with energy, food, other raw materials, and so on.

Already, that can be seen in relation to Ireland.  Even the threat of Brexit has caused financial firms to send tens of billions of pounds of capital out of Britain, mostly from London, to other EU locations.  Dublin has been one of the places to benefit from that, partly because many existing staff can transfer from London to Dublin, and the use of English makes such a transfer of operations easier to achieve.  But, what is true in relation to the high value, very profitable financial industry, applies to other high value production and services.  So, the effect of Brexit will have negative consequences for Ireland, as a declining Britain impacts on Irish trade with the UK, but, at the same time, that very decline of Britain can see a considerable movement of capital from Britain, to Ireland, creating employment and profits in Ireland that would otherwise have occurred in Britain. 

But, a No Deal Brexit, can mean a Bonanza for Ireland.  In the event of a No Deal Brexit, the UK's proposal has been set out in relation to the tariffs it would apply on a range of goods and services.  These range from 10% to 40%, and would apply to all those goods and services that are currently imported to Britain without tariffs inside the EU Customs Union.  But, at the same time, Britain has said that it will not impose any border checks on goods crossing the irish border into Northern Ireland.  That seems an amazingly reckless thing to do.  It means that Britain is inviting large scale legitimised smuggling into Britain, by the back door, using the Irish border as an open gateway.

The government was forced to admit that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, the channel ports would become clogged very quickly.  The EU will inevitably require UK exports to be checked at its borders, which means that UK exports will quickly seize up, leading to massive backlogs at Dover.  An obvious route for EU exporters wanting to avoid that will be to route their exports through Ireland, which inside the EU will have no such hold-ups.  As Britain proposes to have no border controls on goods moving from Ireland into Northern Ireland, a free flow of these goods into the North could occur, and as those goods would then be inside the UK economy, they would flow, freely, and tariff free across the Irish Sea, from Northern Ireland ports into mainland Britain.

Of course, in mainland Britain, those goods that have then entered tariff free into the UK, would be considerably cheaper than their counterparts, imported via other channels, that have had 10-40% tariffs imposed upon them, providing those that have imported through Ireland with significantly higher profits.  Indeed, it would make it lucrative for firms to establish production, or simply warehousing in Ireland, to be able to take advantage of such free money, provided to them by the British government. 

Rather as with the UK government's claim that it would not impose any border controls in Northern Ireland, which invites EU citizen's to migrate to Britain via that back door, the promise not to impose border controls so as to check goods crossing that border also seems designed to create a large scale movement that Britain would quickly seek to shut down. 

The Purpose of The Backstop

Brexiters in recent days have thought that they had a clever argument to put, as they send May back haplessly to renegotiate with the EU over the Irish backstop.  In fact, it simply shows that they do not understand the basic issues involved, and have not been listening.

The argument goes like this.  The EU introduced the requirement of the backstop into the Withdrawal Agreement, because the EU seeks to maintain the commitment set out in the Good Friday Agreement to there being no hard border in Ireland.  If the EU does not remove the backstop, the Brexiters argue, then, as the vote in parliament on Tuesday showed, the Withdrawal Agreement will not pass, and so there will be a No Deal Brexit.  In the case of a No Deal Brexit, the Brexiters argue, then Britain, including Northern Ireland, will simply leave the EU, and so there will be no arrangements for trade, which will mean there will have to be a border in Ireland.  The Brextremists, including the DUP say that Britain would not erect such a border, so it would then be down to the EU to erect that border, meaning that they would have to do what they say they do not want to do, and is the reason for them insisting on the backstop.  On this basis, the Brexiters, and the Brextremists, in particular, think they have put the EU into a logical Catch 22 situation.  They haven't.

Firstly, it's not true that Britain would not be led to introduce a border on its side, because with EU citizens having a right of free movement into Ireland, and a right under the Common Travel Area, to move without checks from the republic to Northern Ireland, and from there to the mainland, should EU citizens still seek to come to the UK, they would have a very large, obvious back door through which to do so.  Given that the drive for Brexit came almost exclusively from a xenophobic hostility to immigration, its unlikely that British governments would leave that door open for long.

Secondly, even if Britain crashes out of the EU on March 29th. it will not crash out of the Good Friday Agreement, unless is specifically decides to do so, thereby breaching a legally enforceable international treaty, into which it had freely entered.  The Good Friday Agreement, commits Britain to not establishing a border in Ireland, and in order to do so, also commits Britain to maintaining the conditions required for their to be no border, i.e. that the regulatory requirements in Northern Ireland are kept in alignment with those in the Irish Republic, i.e. with those of the EU.  If Britain crashes out of the EU on March 29th. without having put in place an agreement to ensure that Northern Ireland remains in regulatory alignment with the EU, it will then be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, whether it moves to erect a border or not.  That is precisely what the backstop provision in the Withdrawal Agreement was intended to deal with.

Thirdly, the Brexiters, thereby, also do not understand the real basis of the backstop.  The real basis of the backstop is not to prevent the erection of a border in Ireland per se, but is to prevent regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which is the foundation for there being no border.  The reason that the EU requires such a provision is not just to prevent the erection of a border, so as to comply with the Good Friday Agreement, and the concerns over the possibility of hostility developing into violence against the existence of such a border; it is to prevent a 500 mile backdoor into the EU's single market being created along that border, a trojan horse into the single market that the Brexiters had been trying to sneak through from day 1.   In just the same way that Britain would eventually have to erect a border to stop EU citizens crossing from the republic to the North of Ireland on their way into Britain, so the EU would have to establish a border to stop non-EU goods that do not comply with EU regulations, streaming across the Irish border, and thereby into the EU.

So, when the brexiters say, the backstop, by preventing agreement on the Withdrawal Bill, will lead to a No Deal Brexit, which will lead to the erection of a border, which the Backstop is intended to prevent, they are wrong.  The fundamental reason for the backstop is not to prevent the erection of a border, bust is to protect the EU single market from being undermined by Britain using Norther ireland as a trojan horse into it!  There is absolutely no contradiction, therefore, in the EU continuing to insist on the backstop to prevent Britain pulling off that sleight of hand, of gaining back door entry into the single market.  That is one reason they will not agree to it, and May will get short shrift, in her latest hapless endeavours.

If the EU has to erect a border and police it, to effect that, given that Britain engages in a crash out from the EU, it will do so, and it will rightly blame Britain, for that situation, as Britain will have reneged on its legally binding obligations set out in the Good Friday Agreement.  But, as set out recently, the obvious solution to that situation, and the course of action that would be obvious to the EU, given the large support for staying in the EU expressed by the people of Northern Ireland, would be for the EU and Ireland to press for a border poll so as to bring about a United Ireland.  The EU would be able to offer generous inducements to the people of Northern Ireland to agree to such unification, but given the devastation that would be inflicted on Northern Ireland, in the event of a Brexit crash out, and the introduction of a border, such inducement would probably not be necessary.  Already polls show a majority in favour of a UNited ireland in the event of a No Deal Brexit.  Once again, the brexiters seem to be bluffing in a game of poker, where everyone can see their empty hand.

How To Lose The Backstop

The Brextremists are insistent that to support May's Brexit deal, it is necessary to lose the backstop, which ensures that Britain's international treaty commitment to an open border in Ireland, set in the legally binding Good Friday Agreement is kept.  The Brextremists say that if Britain crashes out of the EU with a No Deal Brexit, it would automatically mean that the backstop did not exist, and, it would also mean that a border would have to be erected, as Northern Ireland would no longer be in the Single Market.  That is true, but it would also mean, therefore, that Britain had breached its commitment to a legally binding international treaty.  That does not seem to bother the Brextremists who also want to breach Britain's other legally binding commitments to pay the €39 billion, which cover Britain's already accrued bills from its 47 year membership of the EEC/EU.  Britain could decide to renege on its bills and legally enforceable treaties, but to do so would put it in a similar league as other pariah states, which flout such international laws and obligations.  It would hardly be a propitious start for a British state seeking to attract new international partners to do business with it!

There are a number of ways that the Backstop could be removed legally, and thereby prevent Britain from becoming a pariah state after having reneged on its international commitments.   The Withdrawal Agreement sets some of those out.  It would require that Britain and the EU, come to an agreement, which means that Britain and Ireland are able to engage in frictionless trade in the same way they do now as members of the EU.  The Brextremists are right to baulk at this provision, because whatever fantasies May on the one hand and Corbyn on the other may try to purvey, such a solution does not exist.  Or, more precisely, it could only exist if Britain were to agree to remain indefinitely inside the EU Single Market and Customs Union, and were to sign that into international law, via a legally binding treaty.  That is precisely what the Brextremists object in regards the backstop.  Moreover, realistically, any such arrangement could only be a temporary stage prior to Britain rejoining the EU, because no government in its right mind would agree to be permanently bound to abide by the rules and regulations of a Single Market and Customs Union, of which it had no right to a say in determining those rules and regulations.  The EU is not going to give that right to non-EU members, because to do so, would mean destroying the entire basis of the EU itself.

Moreover, the experience of the last two years of the chaos and incompetence of British negotiators, who have shown they have absolutely no idea what they want, let alone how to get it, demonstrates that any possibility of reaching a deal on Britain's future relationship with the EU, will not be arrived at any time soon.  Even if it were possible to arrive at a deal that made the backstop unnecessary, which it isn't, it could not be negotiated for at least another ten years, and the Brextremists have no intention of waiting that long to ditch the backstop.  Their latest ploy appears to be to follow the lead of Michael Gove, of accepting any Brexit deal, so long as it gets Britain outside the EU.  Then Gove's plan is to simply push British regulations ever further away from EU regulations, so that any deal simply quickly falls apart, allowing a Brextremist Tory government to push forward with its hard Brexit agenda, complete with its bonfire of workers and consumers rights, and environmental protections.  The Irish and EU politicians are undoubtedly aware of that plan, which is why they are insistent on the need for the backstop arrangement whatever Britain might seek to do after Brexit.  It is why any hope the Tories have of getting the EU to drop the backstop will be in vain.

May now, therefore, apparently seeks to modify the backstop so as to put some end date to it, and in order to assuage the Brextremists that date would have to be only a few years hence.  This is part of May's plan to pivot towards the Brextremist wing of the Tory Party, as she prepares to call a snap Brexit Election.  In that election, the Tory Remainers will be thrown under the ERG bus.  May will call the election on the basis of getting a mandate to push through a so called "Managed No Deal Brexit", which is what the ERG are pushing for.  That will require her getting agreement from the EU for a short extension of Article 50, to enable an election to be held, and for arrangements to be put in place for this illusory managed no deal Brexit.  Given that 80% of Tory members and voters back No Deal, it will unify the Tories around that idea, whilst it will leave Labour floundering to come up with some kind of unified alternative.

May could, of course, decide to resolve the backstop issue by agreeing with her Remainer wing, and agreeing to push for membership of the single market and customs union.  That would work, although as stated above why any sane government would agree to it, whilst having no voice in determining the rules and regulations is a complete mystery.  But, as I wrote recently, there is no chance that May will do that, because any hint of it would see her out on her ear, along with the other Remainer Tories, as the Tory rank and file ose up in rebellion.  They have already been told that would happen.

But, as I wrote the other day, any hope of resolving the border question in Ireland without the North being in a single market with the EU is forlorn.  It cannot work.  The ideas about some Canada plus style free trade agreement, as with talk about membership of a Customs Union, completely miss the point.  A free trade agreement or a Customs Union, is only an agreement to levy no internal tariffs or quotas on goods and services traded within it.  That does not at all mean that trade itself is frictionless within such an area, because for trade to be frictionless it requires a single market, where all of the goods and services within it, have to comply with certain rules and regulations in their production, and distribution.  The EU, for example has trade deals with the US, which allow certain goods to be traded between them, at either zero tariffs, or tariffs on which they agree that are different from what would apply under WTO terms.  But, that does not mean that trade between the US, and EU can be frictionless.  For on thing, the EU can block certain US products from coming into the EU altogether, such as GM crops, or chlorinated chicken.

To ensure that nothing coming from the US is in any of these banned categories, or that none of the products themselves contain, some of those banned products, it is necessary for the EU to have a border that can check such products, and stop them, where they do not comply.  An example of that can even be seen inside the EU itself.  The EU largely does not have a single market in services.  And, because it does not have such a single market, service providers, even in the EU, are not allowed to freely trade in them within the EU.  Travel around Europe, for example, and you will find that every so often your mobile phone pings, as it tells you that your coverage is now being provided by Orange or Bouygues and so on.  It's only recently that the EU has made some progress in providing the elements of such a single market in phone services by banning the exorbitant roaming charges that once applied, and which British travellers can now looking forward to facing again after Brexit.

There is another way that an end date could be written into the backstop, and that is to write in that the backstop will end, when Northern Ireland becomes rejoined with the rest of Ireland.  That would mean that Northern Ireland would then be a part of the EU, and its single market and customs union.  That eliminates the problem entirely.  The Tories cannot openly suggest it, because they are dependent on the DUP to stay in office, and their own Unionist hardliners would not stand for it.  But, if the Brextremists want an end point that is it.  In fact, voters in Northern Ireland voted 2:1 to Remain in the EU.  recent polls suggest that, faced with a No Deal Brexit, a majority in Northern Ireland would vote to unify with the Republic.   Simply on the basis of demographics, the largely Republican/Nationalist Catholic population is growing faster than the largely Loyalist Protestant population, so that eventually, there will be a clear majority for a United Ireland anyway.  And, indeed the affinity of non-Catholics in Northern Ireland with Unionism, is declining, as today's younger, better educated population,as everywhere, becomes less attached to religion, and the bigotries, and tribal loyalties that go with it.  So, trying to hold on to Northern Ireland, is itself time limited anyway, which makes any attempt to make it determinant for wider Tory policy, such as Brexit, extremely short-termist.

Brexiters Dissembling On The Border

During the referendum, Brexiters tried to avoid talking about the irish Border; when they had to they assured us that it was no problem at all.  That was just like they said that the negotiations with the EU would be the easiest in history.  Now, that both have been exposed as lies, they still try to claim Britain somehow has the upper hand in negotiations, and that the EU are simply negotiating, and will collapse at the last minute.  That is simply delusional attempts to avoid recognising that their entire world view was shown to be wrong.  On the Irish Border they continue to claim that there is no problem, and that trade across it can continue with the use of some unknown magical electronic systems.  

In pursuit of this later claim, the Brexiters refer to the fact that different EU countries, including Britain and Ireland have different duties, and VAT on various products, and yet this poses no problem to frictionless trade between them.  That is true, though it does not prevent fraudulent VAT and Customs and Excise returns where there is left to self-policing.  Nor does it prevent smuggling of goods across borders, in order to take advantage of variations in those VAT and Excise rates.  However, all this is completely besides the point.  The issues relating to different countries being in different customs regimes, or having different VAT and Excise rates are fairly minimal, and can indeed be dealt with by electronic systems, as well as policing to reduce smuggling etc.  The real issue does not relate to the fact that Britain and Northern Ireland will be in a different Customs Union to ireland and the rest of the EU, it relates to the fact that they will belong to different single markets, and that therefore, they will have completely different sets of rules and regulations dealing with standards of goods and services, both in terms of their own final production, and in terms of the production of the components used in their production.  No amount of so far non-existent electronic systems, is going to deal with that.  The only way to deal with that is to determine what goods and services can cross borders, and which can't, and then to ensure that is actually carried out at the border.

Take something like a chicken pie produced in the North of Ireland, to be shipped to the Republic.  The EU has single market rules and regulations relating to workers rights, to consumer rights and to protection of the environment, which ensure that its objectives are attained, and also that different firms operating within the single market do so, on a level playing field.  Suppose, as an extreme example, a firm in Northern Ireland, after Brexit, and the fulfilment of the Brextremists wish for a bonfire of workers' rights, is able to employ child labour to produce such pies.  That would give it an unfair advantage against EU, firms, including those in the Republic, where the employment of child labour is prohibited.  The single market is intended to prevent such divergences in basic conditions, which enable firms operating with poorer conditions to gain a competitive advantage over those that abide by some minimum standards.

It does not have to be so extreme, as the employment of child labour.  The EU introduced the Working-Time Directive for a similar purpose, so that firms had to abide by some minimum standard in terms of how much they overwork their employees.  Britain, of course, under Thatcher, objected to having to abide by such minimum standards, and obtained an exemption for Britain from the Directive.  That gives an indication of the direction the Tories would quickly whish to go in, after Brexit, just as the Brextremists have been keen to demand the right to be able to define regulatory alignment as really meaning regulatory divergence.  It is the strategy of those like Gove, in supporting May's Deal, who just want to get out of the EU, so that they can then begin this process of regulatory divergence, which will then require that the UK break entirely with the EU, thereby achieving their goal of a hard Brexit.

If firms in Britain/Northern Ireland, for example, introduce working-regulations that mean that employers do not need to provide basic things like a minimum number of paid holidays, maternity and paternity pay and so on, that would give them a clear advantage over EU firms that do have to provide such minimum standards.  Because Brexit will inevitably weaken the British economy, it will also inevitably lead to Britain attempting to introduce more and more of these penny-pinching measures, as a means of British capital attempting to maintain its profits and competitiveness.  That will particularly be the case under the Tories, but under Corbyn, the economic weakness of the economy, brought about by Brexit, will lead to the same thing.  This is why Brexit represents an economic and political attack on the whole working-class.  If British capital is led to introduce these limitations on British workers wages, conditions and rights, so as to compensate for its diminished profitability, then immediately, firms in Britain's immediate neighbours, with whom it trades will also attempt to introduce such attacks on their workers too, so as to retain their competitive advantage.  As this race to the bottom on pay, conditions and rights proceeds, so that attack on workers spreads out across the globe, so that US firms attempt to do the same to match their EU counterparts, and the Chinese Stalinists do the same to maintain the profits of Chinese firms and so on.

Trying to keep track of which chicken pie was made where, and what conditions the workers in that particular factory enjoyed, and whether they complied with EU standards, is impossible to keep track of without a border, and no amount of electronic systems is going to police such trade.  But, that is just in relation to the actual regulations relating to workers' rights in the Northern ireland factory, producing the chicken pie.  We could multiply that up to look also at the environmental regulations that such pies have to comply with in the EU, and whether their production outside the EU complied with those standards.  Then there is whether the firm complies with the EU's minimum standards for consumer rights.

But, even that has only touched the surface of the problem.  The chicken pie itself does not get made from nothing.  It requires pastry, chicken meat, gravy, possibly mushrooms, and various other ingredients.  Nearly all these separate ingredients will come from different suppliers, and many may come from suppliers based in different countries.  Within the EU, this is not a particular problem, because only products that comply with EU regulations can be imported.  But, Britain will not be in the EU, and so not bound by such regulations.  A firm in Britain and Northern Ireland could buy in pastry (or flour and so on to make the pastry) from anywhere in the world, and whether that flour or pastry then complied with EU standards would be anyone's guess, and pretty impossible to keep track of.  For example, Britain might buy in chicken meat from Mexico, which itself had been processed from chlorinated chickens, imported into Mexico from the US.  The EU bans chlorinated chicken, and so this would breach EU regulations.  But, with Britain and Northern Ireland outside the EU, and free to buy in chicken meat from Mexico, who would know that its chicken pies contained this chicken that was banned by the EU.

But, again, that only touches the surface.  Who would know whether the Mexican workers that processed the chicken had the required rights and so on that the EU requires, in relation to the products it allows into the single market?  Who would know whether those Mexican firms comply with the required consumer and environmental protections?  The EU itself, can ensure compliance with that, in terms of products it allows in directly from such third parties, because it is dealing with trade agreements relating to its huge economy, but it too then has border controls in relation to the import of these approved products to ensure compliance.  There is no way the EU could sub-contract that function to the EU, by allowing the UK to import goods and services willy-nilly from across the globe, which it then either sells on directly, or else which form components of its final production, which is sold on into the EU, without any kind of border checking.

And, that is only to deal with one component of the chicken pie.  The same considerations apply to GM crops used in the production of wheat that then goes into the production of the flour that goes into the pastry used in the pie.  And, this is for something fairly simple like a chicken pie.  Imagine the complexity involved in a more complex product, comprising thousand of components, all produced in different locations, and which moves rapidly across borders, back and forth, as these different components are added to say, a car engine, or a gearbox, which in turn is just one component of a car!

It is all of these different transactions, and the requirement for their production to comply with the rules and regulations of the single market that is the issue at stake in relation to the Irish border, not the issue of the Customs Union.  That is why Labour is mistaken in thinking that the question of the irish Border is dealt with by Britain being part of the Customs Union.  It isn't.  It can only be dealt with by being a member of the Single Market, or by agreeing to permanently accept the rules and regulations of the single market.  It is also why the Brexiters continually talk about the Customs Union, and fail to talk about the  real issue which is compliance with single market requirements.  

There is a simple fact, which is that if Britain does not remain in the Customs Union, and more importantly the single market, then there cannot be frictionless trade between Britain and the EU, including Northern Ireland and the Republic.  The EU is quite right to say that it does not want a border in Ireland.  That is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement.  If Britain does not agree to a deal with the EU that keeps it in the single market and Customs Union, or keeps it tied to those regulations permanently, then it must either accept the backstop, or accept that it would de facto have ensured that a border must be erected in Ireland.   It would by its actions have broken a legally enforceable, international treaty, i.e. the Good Friday Agreement.

There are only two courses of action the EU can then follow.  It can demand that Britain hold a border poll in Northern Ireland, so that the people of Northern Ireland, who voted by a 2:1 majority to remain in the EU, can give effect to that vote, by voting to become part of a UNited Ireland, rather than see he economy of the province devastated, or else the EU could do what it says it does not want to do, but what Britain's actions would force it to do, which is to erect a hard border in Ireland, and to police it using EU Border Agency personnel, and if necessary by EU military personnel.  In other words, Britain would then have the army of its large and powerful neighbour sitting dominantly on its border.

Ireland: No Border Means Abandoning Brexit, or Accepting a United Ireland

There is a simple truth that those who say there can be no border in Ireland have to recognise; it is that Brexit was all about erecting such borders!  If they really want no border in Ireland, they have to abandon Brexit.

Brexit is all about erecting borders where none previously existed, and hardening and extending borders where they already existed.  The core of the Brexit vote came from around 30% of the population who are bigots - not just on the question of nationalist bigotry and immigration, but as numerous surveys have shown also on questions such as homophobia, misogyny, climate change and so on.  The idea that this hardcore could have been, or might still be assuaged, by the EU granting some further appeasement of their racist beliefs in relation to free movement, as some liberals and conservative social-democrats have suggested, is pure wishful thinking, and just another reflection of the fact that they are remote from the views of this section of society, that their middle class safe spaces keep them separated from, and oblivious to.  It was illustrated by the actions of the more ignorant sections of that core, who, in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, who could be found, accosting anyone with a darker skin, or a foreign sounding voice, and telling them "We've voted to leave, so it's time for you to go!"

However, some within that core might try to dress it up, and the Brexit vote has meant fewer of them now feel the need even to do that, their real concern is not over the numbers coming into the country, and so on, but is simply a fear, or a dislike of foreigners.  It is the same sentiment I have heard many times, from such sections of society, who complained about the fact that foreigners smell, because of the food they eat, their unclean habits, their willingness to occupy dwellings on an overcrowded basis and so on.  Those views, of course based not on facts - indeed usually held by people who do not live in communities where there are immigrants - are what constitutes bigotry, and it is what makes them all the more willing to accept all of the attendant ideas about immigrants taking away jobs, living off benefits, getting privileges, being the cause of housing shortages, hospital waiting lists, and so on.  For these elements, Brexit is about erecting a border, to keep out all of these alien intruders, erecting a safe space around themselves, even though the reality is that, in doing so, they will merely make worse, all of the actual causes of the many problems that capitalism throws at them.

For all of the small businesses, the so called plethora of white van men, many of whom have fallen into the precarity of self-employment, because Tory austerity led to an erosion of properly paid, full-time employment, or those just above them, who scrape buy only because they are able to pay rubbish wages to a few employees, kept on poor conditions, and subsidised by in-work benefits, the desire to erect new borders amounts to nothing more than a desire to isolate themselves from competition from bigger, more efficient firms, and from the minimal protections for workers, consumers, and the environment that the EU provides, and which they hope a right-wing Tory government will sweep away for them.

The claims put forward by the Tories, and unfortunately by Labour, of wanting to simultaneously put themselves outside the borderless confines of the EU, and thereby erect new borders between the EU, and UK, so as to appease these bigoted views, in relation to immigrants, by ending free movement, whilst also having free access to the single market of the EU, is simply a self-centred, arrogant desire to have cherry cake, and eat it.  

In Ireland, that becomes abundantly clear.  Theresa May is trying to frame the choice as between a bad deal and no deal.  Whether that bad deal is her Chequers Plan, which she seems to no longer mention, because it's clear she does not even have support for it amongst her Cabinet, let alone Tory MP's, or the EU, or is something even worse, such as some Canada style free trade agreement, the result will be additional borders, additional restrictions, and a contradiction with the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement in relation to the Irish border.  The truth is that MP's can refuse to allow May, and the Brextremists to make any parliamentary vote such a binary choice, but as I wrote recently, if backed into a corner, they should vote for No Deal, rather than a bad deal, making clear why they had been forced to do so, and that responsibility for that rests entirely with May's government.

Similarly, May and the Brextremists are saying they do not want a border in Ireland.  But all of their proposals ensure that such a border has to exist.  On the one hand, they refuse to agree to staying inside the Customs Union and Single Market, on the other, they object to the idea of a border between Ireland and the UK mainland.  They claim that this is because they cannot accept the idea of Northern Ireland being separated from the rest of the UK, because that would amount to a break-up of the UK.  In fact, the logic of the Tories, and DUP stance is to ensure a break-up of the UK.  If they will not keep the whole of the UK in the Customs Union and Single Market, and they will not accept a separate settlement for Northern Ireland, to do so, then the only way there can be no border in Ireland, is for there to be a United Ireland.  That would mean not just a temporary, and partial separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, but a permanent separation.

The Brextremists say, in the event of a No Deal Brexit, Britain would not erect a border between the North and the Republic, thereby daring the EU to erect such a border.  That is typical of the way the Brextremists have tried to use Northern Ireland as a trojan horse in their negotiations over Brexit from the start.  (It is also typical of the way they have tried to claim that it is up to the EU to find ways of getting them out of the contradictions that Brexit has thrown up, in general, rather than accepting responsibility for those contradictions themselves.  The truth is, as I wrote, recently, that a no border, in Ireland, in the event of a No Deal, would directly contradict one of the main reasons the Brextremists had, which is to stop immigration.  The lack of a border, would simply mean that unlimited numbers of EU citizens could just use Ireland as a gateway into the UK, using the Common Travel Area as their conduit.

The Tories and Brextremists think that by posing the question in this threatening tone, they place responsibility on others to resolve their dilemma.  The truth is that a sizeable majority in Northern Ireland voted for Remain.  The unionist parties in Northern Ireland are now in a minority, in relation to the nationalist and republican parties.  There is no basis for the DUP being able to hold the people of Northern Ireland to ransom, with their bigoted views, and minority position, in relation to Brexit, let alone being able to hold the rest of the UK to ransom.  If the Tories and Brextremists push through a No Deal Brexit, the next step is obvious, in Ireland.  It is for the convening, in short order, of a border poll.  A recent survey showed a majority in Northern Ireland in favour of such a border poll, if a hard Brexit is pushed through.  That would be the obvious solution.  It would resolve the question of the Irish border, by removing it entirely by the creation of a United Ireland.  That would leave the rump of the UK to go their own way, and under such conditions, its likely that Scotland would also demand a second independence referendum, in order also to remain inside the EU.

For a unionist party, the Tories are doing everything they can to break apart the United Kingdom, in order merely to deal with the internal Tory party squabbles of Europe.

EU Calls Bluff Of May and the Brextremists

The EU, at its meeting in Salzburg, has called the bluff of Theresa May and the Brextremists. May has tried to bluff the EU into agreeing to her proposals on the basis of threatening them with a No Deal Brexit. She has suffered under the delusion that, at the very last minute, the EU, to avoid the chaos that will follow Britain crashing out of the EU, would give way. They won't. A No Deal Brexit will cause inconvenience for the EU, because of the chaos that will arise on its border, due to the catastrophe that will unfold in Britain. But, whereas the EU, thereby experiences inconvenience, the UK experiences a disaster. The UK accounts for only 8% of EU exports; if the UK cuts itself off from the continent, the EU will quickly find alternative markets for those exports. The EU, however, accounts for around 54% of UK exports, and up to 70% of UK exports go to either the EU, or to other countries on the basis of trade deals negotiated by the EU. The UK will find it much more difficult to find alternative markets for those exports, especially as it finds its ports and airports at a standstill, its planes grounded, its licences for a whole series of activities no longer valid etc. 

May has argued, for the last two years, that the negotiations with the EU were like a game of poker, and it was for that reason that they had to keep their cards close to their chest, and not let even the British people, or British parliament, know what their aims and objectives were in trying to obtain a deal with the EU. As time has gone on, it has become obvious that this was not true, and that what was true was what everyone already knew, which is that the reason that the Tories did not set out their game plan was that they did not have one! Even now, two years after Article 50 was invoked, the government cannot even agree on what it is that it wants. May's Chequers proposals are a ridiculous fudge that led to her Foreign Secretary and Brexit Secretary resigning from the government, and which her MP's, on both wings of the party, describe as being as dead as a dodo. 

The fact is that rather than playing a game of poker, a more appropriate analogy would be that she has been playing a game of Solo, but instead of her facing three other players, all combined against her, she is facing 27. What is more, rather than actually keeping her cards close to her chest, a more appropriate analogy is that she has bid Misère Ouverte, because the reality is that the EU 27 knew what cards the UK has to play, from the beginning. They know that the UK is a relatively minor economy compared to the E27, and so May's bluff of walking away with a No Deal Brexit never was a bluff to begin with. The EU 27 may prefer to avoid the inconvenience that a No Deal Brexit would cause, but not so much that they are simply going to agree to a deal that would be even worse for the EU in the longer term.  For the EU, a bad deal certainly would be worse than No Deal, but for the UK, its obvious that No Deal is, and always has been the worst deal it could possibly end up with, and by a very long margin.

The only way May's threat for a No Deal Brexit could be carried out is by causing an immediate and catastrophic crisis for the UK, and whilst the Tories may be mad enough to do that, and thereby destroy themselves politically for at least a generation, the likelihood is that there would be sufficient opposition to prevent them pushing it through parliament. If anything the EU's position is hardening, despite the Tories and Tory media trying to spin EU statements in the other direction. For example, Barnier's statement about the Irish Border was spun to suggest that he was softening to May's proposals. In fact, Barnier was continuing the EU's position of arguing that May has already agreed to Northern Ireland remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market, or remaining in the same regulatory environment. Barnier simply turned the Tories magical thinking about technological solutions for the border back on them. 

May claims that she could not possibly agree to Northern Ireland being separated from the rest of the UK, but that is precisely what she did agree to in March, of this year, having also agreed to that as the back stop position last December. In fact, of course, the UK does have different laws and regulations in Northern Ireland to the rest of Britain already, and that is even more the case where it suits Britain in relation to its tax havens for the rich in The Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands.  This is the reality that the EU also have come to understand in negotiations with the UK, which is that the word of the UK is worth bugger all, because no sooner has it been given than the government reneges on it, and claims, oh no we didn't agree to that. What Barnier has done, in the last week, is to say to May, if you really believe in these technological solutions then apply them across the Irish Sea, by enabling Northern Ireland to remain inside the Customs Union and Single Market, as you agreed as the backstop, and simply undertake the border inspections by your technological systems for goods coming into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. 

I expect, in the next few weeks, that a further element in the negotiations will be added, as March approaches on the horizon, which is that Spain will raise the similar issue of the Spanish/Gibraltar border, as Spain seeks to use its very real leverage over the issue. 

The fact of British duplicity in its negotiations, and its silly attempts at bluffing when it is apparent to the EU 27 that the UK has no bargaining chips must be extremely annoying to them, and the reason why they are likely to harden their position further rather to make any concessions. The Tories got Britain into this awful mess, simply to try to resolve conflict within their own party. There is no reason the EU will bail them out of it. 

Brexit Creates Conditions For a United Ireland and The Break Up of Britain

A majority of people in Northern Ireland (52%) now say that if Brexit goes ahead, they would vote for a United Ireland.  Only 39% said they would want to stay part of Britain, in the event of Brexit going ahead.  The Tories, and their DUP allies, by pushing ahead with Brexit, to resolve the internal disagreements in the Tory Party, have thereby created the conditions, which are driving against one of the central aspects of their reason for existence as political parties - Unionism.  Of course, if a border poll is held in Northern Ireland, resulting in the creation of a United Ireland, its effect would spread way beyond Ireland.   It would create a powerful incentive for a new independence referendum in Scotland, which would undoubtedly be won, as Scotland would be able to join with Ireland, as part of a Celtic Federation within the EU.

May Blown On The Wind

At the general election, Theresa May proclaimed her credentials as a “strong and stable leader”. In fact, everything we have seen in the last year, shows her to be anything but. She is probably the weakest Prime Minister we have had in at least a century. Its said of Donald Trump that his ideas are simply a restatement of whatever the last person who spoke to him had said. Theresa May is similar in that her statements are merely a reflection of whatever political pressure she has last responded to. Like a snowflake or a piece of may blossom, she is tossed this way and that by the latest gust of political wind. It means she is continually led into contradicting herself, rather like the Stalinists have always been led to do, as they zig-zag from one position to another, because their politics is based on short-term practical politics, rather than any ideological principle, or theoretical clarity of understanding. And, like the Stalinists, May is then led to contort herself in trying to insist that these contradictory statements and positions are all fully consistent, and that “nothing has changed, nothing has changed.” No wonder the Tories seek the same kind of authoritarian approach, and minimisation of democracy that the Stalinists, and National Bolshevism relies upon.

The latest manifestation was May's speech on Brexit yesterday, in parliament. Looking at her meanderings over the last week or so, we have the following merry dance, as she was buffeted this way and that. Firstly, having spent a year and a half under accommodating the Brextremist fantasies that Britain was still some global colonial power, to whom Johnny foreigner would come running desperate to do a deal, May found that reality was somewhat different. Looking down from the precipice, and seeing the cliff edge of a no deal Brexit, as the EU showed no sign of changing its position to hang on to Britain, May realised that despite her repeated assertions, “No deal, certainly is much worse than a bad deal.” 

Having based their negotiating stance on the delusion that Britain would be given everything it wanted, and so there was no need even for David Davis to be very bright, or to even put any effort into preparing his brief for the negotiations, of for the government to do any impact assessments of the effect of Brexit on the British economy, or for the government to even have any worked out plan of what their end goal after Brexit might be, the fact that the EU gave Britain nothing, left May needing to prevent a complete collapse, which was looking likely by early next year. So, facing this pressure from the EU, she was blown in the direction of obliterating all of her previous red lines. Rees-Mogg was wrong in saying those red lines were looking a bit pink; they had been completely erased!

But, the weakness of May's leadership was then reflected by the fact that even the 12 members of the DUP, could blow hard enough to cause May to be dashed off in a different direction. The wind coming from the EU prevented her from going back in that direction, but now blown, off course by the DUP, she was forced to move even deeper into the territory beyond her previous red lines. Having already effectively committed to keeping Northern Ireland in the Customs Union and Single Market, and to thereby accepting the role of the ECJ, she was now forced to commit to keeping the whole of the UK in the Customs Union and Single Market, so as not to have any regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain. Her only fig leaf, was to dress this up, for the benefit of the Brextremist wing of her party, as being a commitment to “regulatory alignment” rather than what it actually is, which is de facto continued membership of the Customs Union and Single Market.

But, like the conspirators bearing knives under their cloaks, standing behind Julius Caesar, May found that her MP's, even as they were praising her, were already tearing apart the deal she had done, and blowing her in yet another direction. The Brextremists began to claim that “regulatory alignment” meant “regulatory divergence”, and the freedom for Britain to determine its own regulations divergent from those of the EU. The public face of Brextremism, David Davis, said that the deal May had done, was effectively not worth the paper it was written on, Gove said it and any subsequent deal arrived at in Stage 2 could be ripped up, by a future government, and so on. Its quite clear that for the Brextremists in May's government no deal has been done, and any thought that Britain has committed to paying its debts in the Brexit Bill, that the rights of EU citizens have been protected, or that Britain will align its regulations with the EU so as to avoid the need for a border in Ireland, is entirely misplaced. You might think, therefore, that May would need to quickly slap down such treachery, because otherwise there is no basis for there to be any Stage 2 negotiations after all. The Brextremists, who desire a no deal Brexit, might welcome that, but surely May does not.

But, May is so weak, that whatever she thinks, she was again forced to change course, yet again, once this gust of wind from the Brextremists blew in her direction. May had the possibility of slapping down the DUP and and the Brextremists, by relying on the votes of Labour and the SNP, but that would have meant opening up the potential of a civil war inside her party, and the destruction of the Tories in the longer-term. So, instead she did yet another volte-face, and herself reneged on all of the commitments she had given to the EU just days before. She accepted more or less in toto the claim by Davis that the deal was not worth the paper it was written on, that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", and consequently that if the EU did not give Britain the trade deal it was demanding in Stage 2, the promise to honour its debts by paying the Brexit Bill, the guarantees to EU citizens in Britain, and the commitment to regulatory alignment so as to avoid the need for an Irish border would all be reneged upon! The rest of the EU, seeing this capitulation to Brextremism must surely conclude, when they meet on Thursday, that the deal is off, because they, like the British electors, have been lied to by May and the Brextremists.

May has tried to claim that in the deal she signed last week, the role of the ECJ is only in relation to Citizens Rights, and is limited to eight years. But, its clear that if there is to be “regulatory alignment” the role of the ECJ has to be much wider than that. In fact, if “regulatory alignment” is defined as “regulatory equivalence” or “regulatory divergence”, as the Brextremists want the role of the ECJ is even more necessary. With regulatory alignment, where the UK simply accepts and applies EU regulations, the role of the ECJ is minimal, and all that is required is to ensure that these regulations are actually being applied. But, if, as the Brextremists seek, there is merely “regulatory equivalence”, or “divergence”, whereby Britain is free to develop its own regulations on the basis only that the regulations strive for the same outcomes, who is to determine that that is the case? There necessarily has to be some body that examines UK regulations and compares them with EU regulations to confirm that they do indeed seek to achieve the same outcomes, rather than divergent outcomes, and the EU, as a $14 trillion economy that the UK needs to trade with, will undoubtedly insist that that body is the ECJ. Given that these regulations on a whole series of existing and new goods and services are changing all the time, Britain would find itself tied up in protracted, and expensive hearings in the ECJ, on all these issues, and would find being able to sell into the EU near impossible, even if there was a free trade deal, like that with Canada.

And, again, as I set out last week, the idea that a free trade deal is the same as being inside a Customs Union, or Single market, is another deception that the May and the Brextremists are attempting to put over on the electorate. May needs to avoid a border in Ireland, and has committed to that requirement. But, the only way to have no border is to have the Irish republic and the North of Ireland in a Customs Union and Single Market. That means they have the same set of regulations on all goods and services. That is quite distinct from having a free trade deal, such as that established between Canada and the EU – CETA – which Davis has touted as being the basis of a CETA plus plus plus agreement between Britain and the EU. What Davis and the Brextremists fail to say is that free trade between Canada and the EU covers only a limited number of goods, and does not cover services, but more importantly, it does not do away with either the border around the EU, or the border around Canada.

Indeed, Canada and the US have a free trade deal – NAFTA – but there is still a border between Canada and the US, and goods and services going in both directions continue to be checked as they cross that border, just as goods and services going to and from the EU and Canada continue to be checked at their respective borders. So, even if a comprehensive free trade deal is reached in the Stage 2 talks between Britain and the EU, that does not remove the need for a border in Ireland. The only way that can happen is if both Britain and the EU are within a Customs Union. And, indeed that was the basis that the deal last week was arrived at. It is what the Irish and the EU thought Britain had recognised and signed up to. Now, May blown by a Brextremist wind from her backbenches, and from the DUP, has dashed off in quite a different and divergent direction!

If I were an EU negotiator, or an EU Minister attending the Council of Ministers on Thursday, I would tell May to go back and try again, because it is quite clear that she is trying to take them all for fools, as she seeks to accommodate the Brextremists. The EU should be more than used to dealing with the duplicitous nature of perfidious Albion. For centuries, Britain tried to protect its own global interests by acting as a spoke in the wheel of European integration. Its role within the EU has continued to be determined by that imperative, although, in the last 70 years, it has also done that in conjunction with aligning itself with the global interests of the US, and thereby acting as an agent of US imperialism within the EU.

In fact, Brexit and the election of Trump have acted to strengthen the EU. There are, in fact, many reasons why other EU states would welcome Britain leaving, precisely because of its retarding role on EU development. Following Brexit, there has been an increasing trend towards forging an ever more perfect union within the EU, and Britain's absence from the corridors of power will facilitate that development. It will enable the EU to develop far more quickly, and thereby completely overhaul the relatively declining British economy, and its equally diminishing global status. It is precisely the kind of development that Churchill sought to avoid in WWII, that Britain sought to avoid in WWI, and that they sought to avoid in the Napoleonic Wars. If Britain is led, as indeed it must, unless it is to rapidly descend into the third and fourth ranks of global states, to apply for re-entry into the EU, it will find itself much diminished in power, stripped of its opt-outs, and rebates etc.

Similarly, Trump's election has had some perversely beneficial consequences. His comments about NATO have made clear that the EU itself should withdraw from a military alliance whose real purpose is to back up the global strategic interests of US imperialism. The EU could use its resources much more effectively to provide for its own European defence and security, and an EU state would certainly want to do so. Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, whilst failing to simultaneously recognise East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, at least blows away the hypocrisy of US diplomacy over the last 40 years about support for a two-state solution, and indeed blows the fantasy of any such two-state solution out of the water along with it. It means that any progressive solution in the Middle East now rests upon the construction of secular democratic states, including a federal secular democratic state of Israel and Palestine, in which the rights of both Jews and Arabs are protected, and that, as with the EU, the longer-term solution is sought within a Federal United States of the Middle East and North Africa.

In fact, the EU was working towards such a development prior to 2011, as it gradually drew the economies of MENA into its orbit. The role of the US has been wholly destructive of that strategy, as has been its strategy of fermenting turmoil on the EU's Eastern border, by its incessant expansion of NATO, and the positioning of its military forces along the Russian border. The EU would have every reason to oppose these manoeuvres by the US, in the EU's backyard, if it controlled its own defence. So, the EU has every reason to take a hard stance against Britain.

Moreover, they should simply examine May's actions over the last year, and recognise that her weakness leads he to be blown in whatever way the latest political wind blows her. The EU, with its 500 million people, and its $14 trillion economy, can act as a mighty hurricane, against tiny Britain. There is no reason why it will not do so.