Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2020/12/10-11/#

It's not even an agenda item of the next Council, although I guess the remark "In light of events, the European Council may address other specific foreign policy issues." might refer to Brexit.

Of course if you believe that, neither's agreeing the European budget and resolving (or trying to) the Covid Recovery Fund, which strikes me as implausible.

[Zanza]

Fair point. Both of those topics are much more important than Brexit though, so that means even less time for Brexit.

[Sheilbh]

Not really Brexit or even Northern Ireland specific (but needless to say the more this trend develops in the south the less likely it is that unionists will be at all comfortable with potential unification), a great article on the history wars in Ireland. Kilmichael was an ambush by the IRA during the War of Independence that killed 17 British soldiers, Narrow Waters/Warrenpoint was an ambush by the Provisional IRA that killed 18 British soldiers (the approach changed - Kilmichael was an actual ambush with men hiding on the roadside; Warrenpoint were two massive bombs one to hit the initial convoy with a second to hit reinforcements):

The history wars: A new battleground in Irish politics
Is Brian Stanley's tweet part of a concerted Sinn Féin effort to rewrite the Troubles?
Sat, Dec 5, 2020, 01:00
Pat Leahy


Mary Lou McDonald speaks at a graveside commemoration in Glasnevin to mark 150 years since the birth of Constance Markievicz. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Sinn Féin TD Brian Stanley's tweet comparing the Kilmichael ambush and the Narrow Water attacks that left 18 British soldiers dead was not just another row about yet another injudicious comment by a politician on social media. Instead, it illustrates where the new division in Irish politics is; and how the battle over history will define it – with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael on one side and Sinn Féin on the other.

The battleground may be policy and politics – but it is also history.

Stanley's tweet was a classic political gaffe, in which he said something he believed but that it was not advisable to say, likening Kilmichael to the Provisional IRA's attack in Warrenpoint, or Narrow Water as it is called by many.

Though Stanley did not mention it, the same day, in Mullaghmore, Co Sligo, an IRA bomb killed Lord Mountbatten, a senior member of the British royal family, as well as an 83-year-old woman and two teenage boys.

Stanley was widely criticised by opponents for seemingly glorifying the deaths of the British soldiers. His own party was privately furious and publicly censorious: "A singular, one-off mistake," said Mary Lou McDonald. Taoiseach Micheál Martin issued a thundering rebuke.

Northern First Minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster complained to the Ceann Comhairle, who replied that a "credible political response" was needed from the TD. Columnists wagged their fingers. Sinn Féin's social media army leaped to Stanley's defence by attacking anyone who criticised him.

Stanley apologised, and stayed in his job as chairman of the Dáil's most important committee, the Public Accounts Committee, though he has landed himself in newer, unconnected strife since about his social media commentaries.

While Stanley may have apologised for his comments, he will never repudiate the sentiment behind them. He was apologising for expressing his views in the way he did; he did not – nor would he, nor would he be permitted to – repudiate those views.


Aftermath of the IRA bombimg of Warrenpoint, or Narrow Water, in 1979 Aftermath of the IRA bombimg of Warrenpoint, or Narrow Water, in 1979

Those views are an essential part of the party's identity, its sense of itself and its mission. Asked if there was anyone in the entire party who would disagree with Stanley's views, one Sinn Féin TD replied: "I wouldn't think so."

This is the conventional Sinn Féin theology – that the Provisional IRA's campaign was the direct political and moral descendant of the War of Independence, 1919-1921, which secured independence for Ireland but only in its partitioned form.

It links Sinn Féin today to the party of Griffith, DeValera, Cosgrave and Collins. Only last weekend McDonald was tweeting "happy birthday to us" on the anniversary of Sinn Féin's founding in 1905 by Arthur Griffith.

This is, to put it mildly, a selective reading of history: the list of parties that can fairly claim to be descended from Griffith's Sinn Féin includes Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, the Workers' Party and Democratic Left.

The claim that the Provisional IRA was the heir to the guerrilla army that fought the War of Independence is even more fiercely contested. Micheál Martin, who has more than any other politician engaged in the history wars with Sinn Féin, has said the idea of an "unbroken chain" from Patrick Pearse to Gerry Adams is a "dangerous and corrosive myth".

But these contested linkages to the period of the Irish revolution are important to Sinn Féin. History is important, because disputes over history are almost always about the present.

Legitimacy for the IRA

Seeking to link Sinn Féin and the IRA to the revolutionary period is not about the War of Independence; it is about the Provisional IRA's campaign, and an effort to retrospectively seek legitimacy for it.

Stanley's tweet wasn't about Kilmichael; it was about the Troubles. The legitimacy of Kilmichael is not a point of contemporary political dispute; the legitimacy of Warrenpoint and the deaths that happened there (and, far more so, Mullaghmore, which he carefully did not mention) very much is.

Sinn Féin has always been alert to the opportunities and dangers of the historic comparisons. In 1985 Sinn Féin's director of publicity and IRA volunteer Danny Morrison published a pamphlet, The Good Old IRA, attacking the "hypocrisy", "ignorance" and cynicism" of those who drew a false distinction between the IRA who fought the War of Independence and the Provisionals.

Speaking to The Irish Times this week, Morrison was just as sharp, condemning the "hypocrisy and double standards" of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The War of Independence and the Provisionals' campaign, he says, had "exactly the same objective – to get British rule out of Ireland".

However, Fine Gael's former minister of justice and foreign affairs, Charlie Flanagan, a long-time IRA and Sinn Féin critic, believes the linkage is a bid to "to launder the IRA campaign".

"They are using the decade of commemorations in a way that is divisive and dishonest," Flanagan says. "I'm really concerned about it. The Stanley tweet actually goes to the heart of it. He's seeking to legitimise the IRA of 1979 by linking it to the IRA of the War of Independence."

This is the heart of the matter. Whatever about historical accuracy, the larger question is a moral and political one: was the Provisional IRA's campaign justified? That is really what the argument is about. Yes, says Sinn Féin. No, say the old "establishment" parties in Dublin.

"The War of Independence had broad public support, and the democratic legitimacy of the 1918 general election," says Flanagan.

"What democratic legitimacy did Pearse and Connolly have in 1916?" asks Morrison in reply.

For a long time, the overwhelming majority of people in the Republic – as well as the North – also said no. But that picture is not as clear now. For younger people, too young for the Troubles, the lack of any democratic mandate for the IRA's campaign anywhere is less troublesome.

As the former Green Party election candidate Saoirse McHugh recently tweeted, reflecting on the account of the Mountbatten assassination in the Netflix series The Crown, "To people in their 20s, the 1970s may as well be the 1920s".

What is not contestable is that for the entire period of the IRA campaign, public support in the South for the violence was minimal, and as a consequence Sinn Féin's electoral performance was negligible.

When the strategy changed from a military one to a political one, Sinn Féin still supported acts abhorred by most others. Time helped; but so did a conscious effort to identify the Provisionals' campaign with the War of Independence.

That continues today. Sinn Féin makes no distinction between commemorations of the old IRA and the Provisionals. It is conscious that violence was rejected by southern voters and, while it is prepared to justify and defend the Provisionals, it prefers to do so by linking to Kilmichael rather than Mullaghmore.

Anti-establishment brand

What is not contestable is that Sinn Féin has built a left-wing anti-establishment brand that is compelling to many voters. For many of those voters, an unpopular armed campaign is no longer an albatross around the party's neck. For them it's just history.

McHugh is right about one thing: demographics tell much of the story. Politicians in every party say there is a sharp divide between people who grew up after the ceasefires and those who became politically aware in the days when killings in Northern Ireland were a staple of the evening news.

In February's general election this year, the party won 32 per cent among the under-35s. "It's remarkable," says Morrison, "that younger people are so open to Sinn Féin given the demonisation of Sinn Féin by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael."

The language wars in the Republic are beginning to be noticed in Northern Ireland: "I think you see a new faultline starting to appear in southern politics," says Prof Peter Shirlow, director of the Institute of Irish Studies at University of Liverpool, "Unionists are starting to notice it."

The idea that gives Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil – and many other people in the South – indigestion is the idea of a Sinn Féin taoiseach attending Provisional IRA commemorations. "I'm depressed about it all," says one former minister.

Will there be a national holiday in 2031 to mark the 50th anniversary of the hunger strikes, presided over by a Sinn Féin taoiseach who speaks about the Troubles as the "second War of Independence"? Sinn Féin already plans a 40th anniversary of the hunger strikes in Cork next year.

Then, as now, Sinn Féin will draw on the history of the struggle for independence a century ago. The death on hunger strike of the lord mayor of Cork Terence MacSwiney in 1920 was one of the totemic moments of the War of Independence, bringing Ireland's struggle to world attention.

Then, as now, the claim of the unbroken chain from MacSwiney to Bobby Sands will be disputed by Sinn Féin's opponents. The decade of commemorations approaches more contested territory.The wars over history – and the battle for the future – will only grow hotter.

And there was a leaked intelligence assessment in the last month or so. As well as noting that the numbers of individuals associating with Loyalist groups is up to about 12,500 (higher than it was during the Troubles), it confirmed the assessment that the Provisional IRA still exists and the Army Council directs Sinn Fein.

[Tamas]

Why is it scandalous to liken one ambusb of British soldiers to an other? Is it because the second took place in NI? But weren't  Protestant Irish also against the war of independence?

[The Brain]

Sinn Fein are disgusting scum, and always have been. Surely no one is suprised by anything those nutjobs say or do?

[Sheilbh]

Why is it scandalous to liken one ambusb of British soldiers to an other? Is it because the second took place in NI?

I think that's exactly the point and the issue.

Kilmichael was in 1920 in County Cork. Warrenpoint was in 1979 in Northern Ireland (Armagh).

The scandal is that Kilmichael was committed during the Irish War of Independence and, as the article points out, all political parties in the south descend from the original Sinn Fein. So commemorating that is an  uncontroversial part of celebrating Irish independence. It's part of the history of the Republic of Ireland. And part of it is a fight over the "ownership" of that war - does it belong to all the Irish parties or does it belong to the modern Sinn Fein who would argue they kept the fight going in the North.

Warrenpoint was during the Troubles, it was committed by the Provisional IRA who, in effect, argued that the War of Independence never ended and would never end until the British were out of all of Ireland. It was seen as an atrocity committed by terrorists both in the rest of Ireland and in the UK. The Provisional IRA never really had any claim to legitimacy in the way that the IRA in the War of Independence did. It was terrorist violence and (to use a phrase) beyond the pale of Irish politics and the history of independence.

But the Sinn Fein argument kind of has a point and generationally for people who came of age after peace - what is the difference? And in a way, they're right - it's pure terrorist v freedom fighter territory.

And if you look at it from the perspective of someone from a unionist background in the North it's a rather different picture - for example Arlene Foster's family were forced out of their farm because her farther was a policeman and the IRA shot and severely injured him on the family farm. She was also involved as a child in the bombing of a school bus by the IRA because the bus driver was a soldier who volunteered to drive the local school bus.

But weren't  Protestant Irish also against the war of independence?

It's difficult to say. There were a significant number of Protestant Irish nationalists - historically before the Easter Rising you had figures like Wolfe Tone and Parnell who lead the nationalist movement, and it was really nationalist. During the War of Independence there were a number of prominent Protestant nationalists such as my personal hero Sir Roger Casement, Erskine Childers and Sam Maguire who signed Michael Collins up to the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The first president of Ireland was also Protestant. The key point with all of them is they were nationalists and a great number of them had associations with the Gaelic revival in some way or other - Sam Maguire was a Gaelic footballer, Douglas Hyde had done huge work in fighting for the preservation of the Irish language. Having said that there's no doubt there were a large number of Protestant Irish unionists too.

To an extent the sectarianism arguably comes later - it was always part of the Ulster unionists' fears, but they become exacerbated because they're kind of right. Home rule sort of does lead to Rome rule because the Irish state just doesn't have the resources to provide a lot of services which, combined with de Valera's views on the church, mean that education, health care, social care etc are basically just handed over to the Catholic church - those scandals are still unfolding.

But Ulster protestants are different. Most Irish protestants are Church of Ireland which is the Anglican holdover and, in Ireland, the church of the elite. Ulster protestants are working class as well as elite, they're descended from Scots or puritans overwhelmingly and their churches are Presbyterian - a bit like the South in the US there are loads of competing churches run by entrepreneurial preachers, rather than clergymen appointed by bishops. Given all of that Ulster protestants feel different from popish Church of Ireland Protestants, but crucially they have a separate national identity. They have an identity (and a language) as Ulstermen not Irishmen so the nationalist angle also doesn't work.

In the run up to Home Rule in the 1910s (and eventual independence) there's no arming of Irish protestants - though arguably many join the forces so there's no need. But there is a forming of  the Ulster Volunteers who are paramilitary militia (and endorsed by the Tory leader at the time Bonar Law). They sort of achieve their goal in getting Ulster carved out of home rule and independence. It may have been different if there were enough Irish Protestants in any area of Ireland to resist independence.

[Sheilbh]

Sinn Fein are disgusting scum, and always have been. Surely no one is suprised by anything those nutjobs say or do?

I don't disagree - but they're winning

It feels inevitable that we'll have a Sinn Fein Taoiseach before long (and there is no way I can see a border poll happening if that happens) - but it will be strange because based on intelligence reports now it would be a democratically leader of a state who answers to an unelected paramilitary council

[Tamas]

The UK is the last big multi-national country of Europe left, I guess it wouldn't be surprising if it couldn't stay together, and that its history and border with related nation-states is a constant source of trouble. Maybe it's just that its success gave it bigger momentum than Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (or even A-H) had.

[Sheilbh]

The UK is the last big multi-national country of Europe left, I guess it wouldn't be surprising if it couldn't stay together, and that its history and border with related nation-states is a constant source of trouble. Maybe it's just that its success gave it bigger momentum than Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (or even A-H) had.

In a way I think that's true of Northern Ireland itself - the smallest multi-national country.

The island of Ireland is basically post-colonial. You have a group whose historical experience is as settlers and then as a minority that is simultaneously powerful and threatened; and you have another group who are the majority historical experience is resistance to colonisation and eventual liberation. It's why I'd say the sectarian angle gets focused on too much, instead it's more like two competing national identities in the same space and history.

[Zanza]

Johnson to meet UvdL in Brussels this week, probably at the sides of the EU Council meeting.

I predict no deal as the EU will not move on LPF and Governance.  Not sure why he travels to Brussels for this.

[Syt]

Oh good

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55217535

Brexit: MPs reinsert controversial sections of Internal Market Bill

MPs have voted to reinstate controversial sections of a new law to allow ministers to override sections of the UK's Brexit divorce deal.

The House of Lords previously voted to take them out - but MPs backed government plans to put them back in during a vote on Monday.

The EU has warned the issue could jeopardise the ongoing talks on a post-Brexit trade deal.

But earlier, the UK signalled a possible compromise over the measures.

Ministers said they would be prepared to remove clauses which, if they became law, would supplant agreements with the EU relating to goods moving between Britain and Northern Ireland and subsidies for Northern Irish firms.

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said the timing of the move, which came just before Boris Johnson spoke to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, seemed to be "a rather public olive branch".

It has since been confirmed that the prime minister will travel to Brussels later this week in a last-ditch effort to break the deadlock in talks over a trade deal.

UK and EU negotiators are currently trying to reach an agreement before the UK stops following EU trading rules on 31 December.

Prior to the debate, the UK government said it would be willing to take the clauses out of the bill - or nullify their effect - if they could reach a solution with the EU in the coming days.

In a statement, No 10 said it was committed to the full implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol in a "pragmatic, proportionate way which recognises Northern Ireland's place in the UK's customs territory, and upholds the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions".

"If the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK government would be prepared to remove clause 44 of the UK Internal Market Bill, concerning export declarations," it added.

"The UK government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the UK's rights and obligations under international law."

What is the Internal Market Bill?

The bill would enable ministers to ignore certain requirements concerning Northern Ireland as set out in the Brexit deal (or withdrawal agreement) reached by leaders in 2019.

For example, under the Brexit deal, companies moving goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain would have to fill out export declaration forms, but ministers would be able to overrule this.

The bill also allows ministers to reinterpret rules on the financial support government gives to businesses in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis has acknowledged the bill breaks international law "in a specific and limited way".

The EU has previously said the introduction of the bill had "seriously damaged trust" and began legal proceedings against the UK.

However, Downing Street says the law provides a "safety net" in the event the two sides fail to reach a trade deal.

'Ping pong'

The bill has to be approved by both houses in Parliament. Now that MPs have rejected the Lords' changes, the bill will return to the House of Lords on Wednesday.

Peers will decide whether or not to reinsert their amendments, in a process known as "ping pong".

Earlier, Business Minister Paul Scully said it was critical for the measures in question to be kept in the bill as a "fall back option" to protect the UK's territorial integrity.

For Labour, shadow business secretary Ed Miliband said the legislation had been "absolutely savaged" in the Lords and it was no surprise the "beginnings of the climbdown" were now happening.

"Three months of posturing and undermining our reputation and three hours before the debate begins, we see the preparation being made for the brakes being applied before we go over the cliff," he said.

"I am not going to give the government any credit for it and I don't take their word for it either."

He also warned the bill would lead to a "constitutional punch-up" amid concerns of a power grab by Westminster from Scotland and Wales.

The bill could also affect talks for a trade deal between the US and UK with US President-Elect Joe Biden appearing to express concern.

On Wednesday, MPs will also get the chance to debate and vote on the Taxation Bill, which contains more powers for the UK to break legal requirements in the withdrawal agreement around the customs border with the Irish Republic.

No 10 said the contents of the bill, which unlike the Internal Market Bill will not need the consent of the House of Lords, would be "kept under review" in light of the discussions with the EU.

[Sheilbh]

I really like Helen Thompson who's a professor of political economy on the Talking Politics podcast. Here's her lecture to the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies which is worth a listen on the background. I broadly agree with a lot of what she says - especially about its medium term inevitability which I've become more convinced of in the last year or two:
https://vimeo.com/487128249

Edit: Also one other thought I have is there will be a covid recovery (and I think it could be stronger than people expect) even in the projections that assume no trade agreement at the end of the transition period are projecting growth of about 4.5-5% next year. We could end up in the bizarre situation of Brexit disruption and a no deal, and the fastest economic growth in my lifetime

The discourse will be unbearable

[garbon]

When else has the UK voluntarily shuttered a large swathe of commercial activity? It doesn't seem surprising that once the UK stops limiting commercial activity that you can see growth towards where you were before.

Or is the prediction the UK will have a stronger economy compared to pre-COVID times?

[Sheilbh]

When else has the UK voluntarily shuttered a large swathe of commercial activity? It doesn't seem surprising that once the UK stops limiting commercial activity that you can see growth towards where you were before.

Exactly and the initial signs from when we lifted the first lockdown was that the recovery was actually stronger than the OBR's guess/projection. The same will happen again and as I say my own suspicion is that we may see a stronger recovery than people expect as pent up consumer demand, plus higher savings rates over the last few months combine in a bit of a splurge.

Or is the prediction the UK will have a stronger economy compared to pre-COVID times?

Eventually it will and the projections are, especially because of the end of the transition period (trade deal or not), that we will return to pre-covid GDP at a slower rate than other European countries. But that's what Brexit was always going to look like, it isn't necessarily a big collapse but that we will over time become poorer (and I think this is where the "project fear" dismissals come from).

Even assuming no trade deal, and the end of the transition period the OBR's central projections are that we'll have the best annual growth in decades. Because of Brexit it'll be 2% lower than it should be but the debate around it is going to be really strange and tedious and difficult, because projected growth we could have had is a pretty nuanced point especially if it's in the context of a broad, strong recovery and no deal.

From an EU perspective I also hope that, especially in more Eurosceptic countries like Italy and France, the consequences of Brexit are understood as lower growth than we otherwise would have had.

Edit: Incidentally quite enjoyed the Times' take on whether fish is really an issue:

[Sheilbh]

Oh good

Government's dropping all of those provisions. Deal has been agreed on implementation of the protocol in the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee has actually been low-key quite effective this year. Both sides saying the negotiation on implementing the Northern Ireland protocol have been quite smooth and practical.

I feel like from a choreography perspective this seems to suggest a deal: Johnson-VDL call; Gove unexpectedly goes to Brussels and agrees implementation of protocol; UK drops contentious clauses of IM Bill and Finance Bill; Johnson goes to Brussels and the parties announce breakthrough/deal? It would feel odd if all of those initial steps lead to Johnson going to Brussels and parties announce talks have broken down.

Edit: The joint statement:

The co-chairs of the EU-UK Joint Committee – European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič and the UK Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Rt Hon Michael Gove – yesterday held a political meeting to address the outstanding issues related to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. Ensuring that the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, is fully operational at the end of the transition period, i.e. as of 1 January 2021, is essential. The Protocol protects the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions, maintaining peace, stability and prosperity on the island of Ireland.

Following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the EU and the UK, the two co-chairs can now announce their agreement in principle on all issues, in particular with regard to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.

An agreement in principle has been found in the following areas, amongst others: Border Control Posts/Entry Points specifically for checks on animals, plants and derived products, export declarations, the supply of medicines, the supply of chilled meats, and other food products to supermarkets, and a clarification on the application of State aid under the terms of the Protocol.

The parties have also reached an agreement in principle with respect to the decisions the Joint Committee has to take before 1 January 2021. In particular, this concerns the practical arrangements regarding the EU's presence in Northern Ireland when UK authorities implement checks and controls under the Protocol, determining criteria for goods to be considered "not at risk" of entering the EU when moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, the exemption of agricultural and fish subsidies from State aid rules, the finalisation of the list of chairpersons of the arbitration panel for the dispute settlement mechanism so that the arbitration panel can start operating as of next year, as well as the correction of errors and omissions in Annex 2 of the Protocol.

In view of these mutually agreed solutions, the UK will withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the UK Internal Market Bill, and not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill.

1. Next steps

This agreement in principle and the resulting draft texts will now be subject to respective internal procedures in the EU and in the UK. Once this is done, a fifth regular meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee will be convened to formally adopt them. This will take place in the coming days and before the end of the year.

Edit: Oh and on choreography I have no seen the credible argument that this could just as easily point to no deal choreography. With Northern Ireland solved you can more easily just do no deal.