Case for Ireland's exit

The country most affected by Brexit, other than the United Kingdom, is likely to be Ireland*.  This is the only nation that shares an actual land border with the UK.  Additionally, the UK is Ireland’s largest export market in the current EU (The exports to Belgium are higher value but most of this is shipped on).

*In truth though, all of the remaining 27 countries will be affected by the UK’s Brexit since Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget and either EU spending must be cut or other countries must fill the gap with higher contributions. Or a combination, thereof.  Though how Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy would be persuaded to fund the EU largesse showered on countries like Poland, I cannot contemplate.

The land border between the UK and Ireland lies between Northern Ireland/Ulster and the Republic.  This was, prior to the 1997 Peace Agreement, a much troubled area, IRA terrorists often visiting death and mayhem on people in Ulster and then fleeing across the border to the Republic in the South.  These same terrorists are now part of the devolved government of Northern Ireland!

What happens to that border, post-Brexit? 

What I am about to suggest will upset some right-thinking people and maybe lead them to believe I propose rewarding terrorists but please stay with me.

I propose two connected actions. 

The Republic of Ireland to also exercise its rights under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU and the Euro currency, timed to coincide with the final departure date of the UK.

On the date of this departure, the Republic of Ireland to once again become part of the United Kingdom and as a consequence re- join the Commonwealth.  And, as a simultaneous act, Ulster to become part of the devolved government of a united Ireland.  The powers of this united Ireland would be the same as those enjoyed by the devolved government of Scotland – principally responsibility for domestic issues – health, education, social care, policing, etc.  and the ability for limited local tax-raising powers.  Defence and Foreign Affairs as well as overall tax and financial policy to remain with the Westminster parliament.

Okay, so, at first glance this would seem to reward the murderous IRA and give them what they have so long fought for – a united Ireland.  However, this Ireland will be part of the United Kingdom and Ulster’s Protestant majority should be able to take comfort that their traditions will be respected and protected by the government of the United Kingdom.  Perhaps the devolved government can rotate the seat of government between Dublin and Belfast (just like the EU parliament rotates between Brussels and Strasbourg).

For Ireland this would represent an opportunity to protect tariff-free access to a significant export market.  They would also have the opportunity to become a part of the free trade agreement that will be established between the UK (it’s second largest export market) and the USA (Ireland’s largest export market) and the traditional goodwill, extended to the Irish by Americans can only enhance the chances of a good free trade agreement between the UK and USA.

Of course there would be adjustments needed to harmonise social laws and Ireland would need to ditch its policy of neutrality but on the former there is a narrowing gap, anyway.

Ireland is more closely aligned with the Anglo-Saxon approach to market economics than to the European model favoured especially by countries like France.  This would smooth any transition.

In terms of immigration, Ireland wouldn’t seem to be a threat as there has long been unfettered movement of people between the two countries – ever before the European Superstate was even thought of.  

Another thing that occurs to me is that given Ireland has received significant injections of EU provided funds, which have been invested in roads and other infrastructure projects, then this would negate the need for the EU to refund the UK with the surplus contributions it has made, over the years. 

Oh yes, I think, contrary to the fools who think the UK should pay a hefty divorce settlement (£ or €50-60 billion is mentioned), the UK should be compensated, on departure for the assets it has contributed to, which will remain after we leave.  It is ludicrous that when people talk about this ‘divorce’ they talk only of future commitments and turn 27 pairs of blind eyes to all of the assets that were built up, using UK funds, during the ‘marriage’.   

Consider though that this idea isn’t followed. 

There would surely need to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.  You can’t have freedom of movement between the Republic and the rest of the EU and an open border.  Similarly a hard border would be required to ensure that trade is administered in accordance with the eventual trade agreement that is reached between the UK and EU. (Scottish Nationalists – do take note that were you to achieve independence and subsequently membership of the European Union, these requirements would also apply between Scotland and England)

From an Irish perspective, they would be sacrificing sovereignty but gain a long cherished dream of a united Ireland and also access to a strong economy and market.  Some would say that the Irish would be dominated by the English but consider too, that the loss of sovereignty needs to be seen in the light of exactly how much sovereignty the Irish really have in a German-dominated EU. 

Another thing that would need to be considered – and this might help assuage the fears of the constituent parts of the UK – is that a parliament for England’s would need to be established.  Right now the English, rightly, feel hard done by as Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s parliaments/assemblies receive generous subsidies at the expense of the English taxpayers.  This is something that Scottish Nationalists conveniently ignore but if they do hope to achieve independence and to join the EU (bizarrely then relinquishing their newly won independence) then they will need to bridge a current £15 billion annual deficit which would be even higher when a post-independence Scotland also has to take on a share of the UK’s national debt – rough estimate £8 billion a year cost.

Please give it some thought and let me know what you think.

Scotland - After much thought - procrastination

Can you believe the nerve of Alex Salmond?

He has had how many years - 30 or more? - to ponder and decide on the question he thinks should be asked regarding independence for Scotland.

He says that he wants the question to be:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? 

But because he is such a sweetie he wants to consult on this to ask Scottish voters if they think the Scottish parliament should have more powers.

Now the wily Alex knows full well that greater powers for the Scottish parliament are not within the remit of any referendum set by the self-same Scottish parliament.  He knows that such powers rest with the parliament of the United Kingdom.  He also knows that the granting of additional powers to Scotland would need to be discussed in a UK framework, affecting, as such would, the whole of the UK.

How would his nationalist colleagues in Northern Ireland and Wales feel about Scotland getting additional powers and they not?  The Welsh First Minister has already voiced his concern

How would the English feel about Scotland getting more and more powers while still 'sticking their oar' into English business?

Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies know that won't fly.  So...

They hope to stir up the pot so that anti-English and anti-Westminster feeling, in Scotland, rises at what they will portray as 'Westminster interference in the legitimate aspirations of a sovereign nation and people, etc.'

I trust that the Scots, not usually considered gullible fools, will see through his charade and political posturing and will understand that the only question they can be asked is In or Out and then they take their own decision.

Salmond also now wants to hold the referendum in autumn 2014 "on the same terms as any Scottish election, to the same standards and with the same guarantee of fairness"

He then goes on to say that the Scottish government proposed to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds for this vote.

Usually the gap between saying one thing - same terms as any Scottish election - that is, franchise at 18 - and then  saying something very different - extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds - takes longer than a sentence or two but not for Alex and the SNP!

So dear reader, what is your view?

Simple Yes or No question?

Multiple choice?  If this then the referendum has to include the rest of the UK and be run by the government of the UK since it affects all of its constituent parts.

What constitutes a majority?  If the turnout is 75% and of these 53% vote for Independence and 47% vote against, would Scotland get Independence?  Bear in mind that with figures like that it would mean that of the possible electorate 60% either voted no or by abstaining could be considered to have voted for the status quo = No to independence.  As usual the devil will be in the detail  

Scotland funding is grossly unfair

That is according to the chairman of the Local Government Association.

Local authority funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is governed by the so called Barnett Formula.  This was a 'stop-gap' measure introduced, by the then Labour government,  in the late 1970s which has survived until now because politicians have failed to 'grasp the nettle' and address the inherent "unfairness and plain illogicality" of it.

Whenever a English department gets a change to its budget, the other countries of the Union get an automatic share.  The formula is based on population rather than need.

For example, when the UK Government froze council tax for English councils, saying that they couldn't raise additional taxes from local tax payers, the Government softened the blow by giving these councils an additional grant.  Simply, because of the formula, an extra £67.5 million was then given to Scotland.  This even though the devolved Scottish parliament had already frozen council tax in Scotland!

As another example, Scotland and Wales both receive extra money because Crossrail is being built in London.  Even though both of these countries don't have to make  a case for local projects requiring such funding!

Oh!, and when cuts are being made, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, get cut less!

Recent research shows that if the formula was revised there would be an additional £2.6 billion of funds diverted from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to English local authorities.  That would help keep quite a few English libraries open and 'meals on wheels' services running, wouldn't it?

According to the UK Treasury, the Government spend per person, in Scotland was £10,212 last year.  That was £1,624 per person, more than in England.

 Someone not a million miles from Downing Street keeps saying "We're all in this together" but I can't help thinking that those on the Celtic fringe are better protected than the heartland majority.

I can understand Labour protecting the Barnett Formula - it was devised by them and protects their strongholds that have, so far, always returned  lots of Labour MPs.  Why do the Conservatives keep it on?

Time for an equitable change!

Even Lord Barnett, he who devised the formula, says so!

To any English socialists reading this, ask your local MP (whatever party) and your local councilor what they are doing and have already done about this and why they don't highlight this 'unfairness' rather than just bleating on about the 'cuts'.

To the rest of you, speak up about this inequitable situation!