Brexit Rebellion in Northern Ireland asNationalist speak out

[Obie]

The Political dynamics are fastly changing in Northern Ireland, and soon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have no option but to call a referendum on whether or not Northern Ireland still wish to be part of the UK. As per the Good Friday agreement, if there is a sign that a majority of the people will support break from the UK, then a referendum must be called.

The wipe out of Unionist parties and the mobilisation of Sinn Fein and the Republican Movement, indicates that within the next decade, we will simply have the United Kingdom of England and Wales.

It appears that it is not only Brexit that will likely to change British Passport in the future.

[secret.simon]

A more nuanced and rounded analysis of the Northern Irish elections.

Sinn Féin’s success should not be exaggerated. All nationalism’s 40 per cent share is well short of what is necessary for calling the border poll which is likely in time to become a Sinn Féin demand. Nationalist voters may have been keener to punish Arlene Foster and the DUP for arrogance than advance the cause of Irish unity. In any hypothetical straight vote in the Assembly to test support for Irish unity, the pro-union side could muster around 50 votes to nationalism’s 40.
...
It may suit them politically to use a transitional Assembly without an Executive as a forum for months and wait on events in the Republic. Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s retirement, due within a few weeks, will presage a pre-election period when Sinn Féin will bid for a place in new coalition...

[secret.simon]

The gradual erosion in the Unionist vote in Northern Ireland.

[rooibos]

Nationalism works both ways. If it's fine for the UK to "get our country back", why should the same right be denied to Scotland and northern Ireland?

[Obie]

Nationalism works both ways. If it's fine for the UK to "get our country back", why should the same right be denied to Scotland and northern Ireland?

That is quiet an interesting thought actually.

Many politician in England talk about taking back control, England's independence.

I wonder why the SNP and Sinn Fein are being criticised for wanting to take back control, afterward 63 Percent and 56 Percent of their people voted to stay in the UK.

I am inclined to agree with the first minister that the only way in which Scottish voice will be heard is possibly to take control of their own destiny.

Their desire for self determination should be accorded adequate weight.

[secret.simon]

Nationalism works both ways. If it's fine for the UK to "get our country back", why should the same right be denied to Scotland and northern Ireland?

I entirely agree. The history of the world, and of Europe in particular, is the history of countries breaking up and reforming. One need only look at the history of Italy (or Spain or Germany) to see the formation of a nation-state from multiple smaller states. Conversely, one need only look at the first two of those countries to see local nationalism (Catalonia, the Basque country, the Lega Nord, etc). At the end of the day, each country has to struggle with both centrifugal and centripetal forces and it is the role of the political structure, the constitution, to have the flexibility to hold things in as-loose or as-firm a matter as required at a specific point in time.

The only condition that I would place on such an "right" is that once a decision is taken, whether by politicians or the people, it is stuck to for a generation and not revisited every few years. Quebec is a case in point.

Of course, such a decision should be honoured by both sides. The losing side will always feel aggrieved (of course it will. It disagreed with the coutcome). But once the decision is taken, it should be treated as final, atleast for a generation. Who you are (Are you Scottish or British, Catalan or Spanish, Padanian or Italian) ought not to be a factor of party politics, but a matter of longer seated identity. On that basis, it should not be decided by the composition of the government in London, Madrid or Rome, but on a longer term vision of who you and the nation truly is.

[Obie]

So the right of a nation to self determination, has to be decided once in a generation, even if the views of the people changes. Strange.

The United Kingdom has changed beyond recognition.

It resemble the place my parents said they grew up in the 60s, clearly not the UK that shares my values, and certainly not the UK that Scotland voted to be part of in 2014. The values between the 2 nation are of such divergence, that the people must exercise their view as to whether they wish to be part of it.

[secret.simon]

People change their views on a daily basis.

The right to self-determination should be exercised when there has been a significant, permanent movement in the mood of the people in one direction. Which is why the threshold for such change should not be a simple majority, either in Parliament or in a referendum.

[Obie]

Scotland is a democratic nation, its has institutions and parliament.

If its parliament decided to call a referendum, then referendum it must be.

The SNP are right that the UK has changed dramatically. It is not the UK they voted for. I personally sometimes feel i am under seige.

The people of scotland must go back to the polls.

[secret.simon]

I would actually support the SNP's position as before; the next referendum should be when there is a significant movement for independence.

We have seen how divisive, toxic and self-destructive it is for a country when a referendum (Brexit) or election (Trump) is won by a bare majority. A Scotland breaking away from the UK by the same margin as Brexit would be as riven by dissent and internal disagreement as the UK is now. Why would one wish for such a toxic environment?

I think the Scots should hold off on the referendum until they are sure that they would win a significant (at least 60% plus) vote either way.

Were I consulted, I would have counselled the government to put such a requirement for the Brexit referendum as well. One needs a groundswell of public opinion, not just public opinion on the day, to make such a permanent change.

Also see this excellent write-up on why rules matter, written the day after the Brexit referendum.

[Obie]

Your views are noted and respected.

With the level of disrespect and intransigence showed to Scotland by Mrs May, the tories and the fanatic Zealots in that Party, I think Scotland must flex its muscle now.

This is the best moment for the SNP to mobilise their base, just like the Nationalist did in Northern Ireland.

It must not wait until 2019, they must vote now to ensure continuation of Scotland's EU membership.

[secret.simon]

Seems people in Brussels agree with you, Obie.



Politics is, of course, the art of the possible.

[Obie]

As a reluctant no supporter for independent Scotland last time, I now believe independence is not only the right direction for Scotland but the best direction for it.

Brexit UK is beyond recognition.

I think Sturgeon will go down as one of the best leaders in History. Her speech was on point and very well reasoned and justified.

Scotland need to take back control. They cannot be told what will happen to them, they must be in position to determine what should happen to them.

[rooibos]

Am I right in thinking that, if Scotland theoretically becomes independent before the UK as a whole leaves the EU, then Scotland would automatically have the right to remain in the EU.

I know this is far fetched, but a lot of far fetched stuff has happened in the last 12 month.

[Obie]

Even if they are unable to inherit UK membership, at least they will have the hope that they could be member of the EU or have a Norway kind arrangement for joining the single market.

With Brexit UK, one can see no hope.

Scotland must rise above the darkness and backwardness of this calamitous Brexit.

[secret.simon]

Am I right in thinking that, if Scotland theoretically becomes independent before the UK as a whole leaves the EU, then Scotland would automatically have the right to remain in the EU.

No. Scotland does not exist as a subject of international law yet. If it were to split from the UK while within the EU, it would not automatically be a member of the EU. The treaties were signed by the UK as a subject of international law.

Succession of states is a fascinating, but not straightforward, topic of international law. But with international law, there is no court to appeal to. What matters is the decisions of the other states as to what they wish to recognise. It is entirely possible that the EU will treat Scotland as a special case and as if it never left the EU. But it is not automatic.

Look at the example of Pakistan in the link above. When Pakistan split from India in 1947, it claimed to have inherited an equal share in the British Indian membership of the United Nations. But the UN stated that while India retained its seat, Pakistan had to apply as a new member. Likewise India House in London, which was built pre-independence remained the High Commission of (independent) India, while Pakistan had to establish a new and separate High Commission. The same approach reoccurred when Bangladesh split from Pakistan. Pakistan continued its membership of various international bodies, while Bangladesh had to apply as a new member.

Iceland and Denmark, as Nordic nations, have done it differently. After Icelandish independence, it negotiated with the Danish Government and its embassy in London is housed in the same building as the Danish embassy, but uses a separate entrance. Nordic nations, which have all been ruled by each other at some point in time, collaborate in their diplomatic work. The Berlin compound shared by the embassies of five Nordic nations is quite interesting from an architectural point of view. Well worth a visit, if you are in Berlin.

Returning to the question, Scotland remaining in the EU is not automatic, but at the will of the EU. Mind you, the UK will not have a say in it as it will not be a part of the EU councils when that decision is being taken. So Scotland's destiny is in the hands of the EU27. To the best of my knowledge, that would have to be a unanimous decision as it is the equivalent of a new member.

If Scotland is treated as a new member, it will meet an almost certain Spanish veto. It will also have to sign up to the Euro, though not immediately. Conversely, it will have a relatively very easy ride with adopting the EU acquis communtaire (EU law), because it is already part of Scottish law at present.

Alternatively, to bypass the Spanish veto, it could be a part of the UK-EU divorce settlement, which only requires a qualified majority in the EU Council. But that would require the UK government to back it. Scotland may find itself between Scylla and Charybdis.

rise above the darkness, backwardness and of this calamitous Brexit.

Obie, I am aware that you don't agree with President Trump, but can I request you to stop sounding like him? One thing that he is known for is a very dark, dystopian use of language. Can I request you to strive for moderate, neutral language, no matter how sickened you are feeling?

[Obie]

Well I am nothing even as remotely close to Donald Trump. I will nevertheless take the insult on my stride.

Firstly, Donald Trump is not a decent person, where as i will like to believe I am, and I accept you may have a contrary view.

Mr Trump's use dystopia language to describe a state of affair that is inconsistent with reality.

My use of darkness of brexit is clearly factual, and i don't think you should take my word for it.

Politician have been killed in broad day light in the UK as a result of brexit, European citizens have been killed, pound has devalued, we are on the path of a hard brexit and the possibility of Tories government so intransigent in their ideological philosophical belief and mindset, that all voice, which includes the judiciary is silence if it does not conform to theirs, important party member are sacked if they dare to criticise them. I don't see how the use of the noun darkness to describe brexit, can be described as dystopian in nature.

[secret.simon]

All I am saying is, restrain and moderate your language, Mr Moderator.

[Obie]

All I am saying is, restrain and moderate your language, Mr Moderator.

DOn't tell me what to say, I am entitled to my free speech, so long as it is grounded on facts, and does not offend or vilify individuals or groups on ground of nationality, race or ethnicity.

[secret.simon]

DOn't tell me what to say

Yes, Mr President Trump.

I am entitled to my free speech

With power (of being a moderator) comes the responsibility of not speaking your mind, but of sticking to impartial, undisputed and neutral facts.

Returning to the topic of the thread and my earlier post about Scotland's application being subject to a Spanish veto, Alex Salmond has correctly suggested that an independent Scotland could join EFTA and thus join the EEA without joining the EU. It would logically be easier to join EFTA as there are only four members who have to approve membership (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) as opposed to the EU27. EFTA members don't have a voice in EU decisions, but must abide by EU law. But typically they have exemptions from specific EU aspects. Scotland could negotiate an optout from the EU fisheries policy as a member of EFTA, as I believe both Norway and Iceland have done. This may be the best alternative for an independent Scotland.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... lmond-says

[mkhan2525]

Reunification of the North with the Republic is just round the corner it seems and maybe more sooner than we realise.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -the-union

[secret.simon]

I entirely agree with that article. It is only a matter of time. The Irish Protestant/Unionist has fallen from 80% to just over 50% over the past century. It is only a matter of time (another 10 years?) before it goes under 50%.

Provided the Irish government treat the Protestant minority with respect and protect their rights, which I have every expectation of, I would not be surprised if Northern Ireland becomes a part of the Republic. Probably something on the lines of the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol agreements between Austria and Italy, where the formerly Austrian region has autonomy and keeps most of its internal revenue, but is a part of Italy.

Northern Ireland was created at the behest of the Protestant majority as then. If the circumstances cease to exist, one could argue that its right to remain may cease too.

It would be symbolically significant if such a referendum (to unite with Ireland) took place in either 2020 or early 2021, with the unification occurring on 3rd May 2021 (the 100th anniversary of the Partition of Ireland and the creation of Northern Ireland).

Of course the end of Northern Ireland could also presage the end of the CTA and (a united) Ireland finally being free to join Schengen.