No “Backstop” is same as no deal for Ireland, Taoiseach tells Johnson
RTE Dublin Sept. 9
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that, for the Irish Government, having no “Backstop” in the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement was the same as having no deal. Speaking at Government Buildings ahead of their first face-to-face meeting since Mr. Johnson became prime minister, Mr. Varadkar said there was no such thing as a clean break He said the story of Brexit would not end when the UK leaves the EU, either at the end of October or at the end of January. “In the absence of agreed alternative arrangements, no “Backstop” is no deal for us,” Mr Varadkar said. “All it does is kick the can down the road for another 14 months; another 14 months of uncertainty for business, another 14 months of uncertainty for people north and south of the Border. So that’s not an option that we find attractive at all.” Mr. Varadkar said he believed a deal was possible and he wanted Ireland to be a friend and ally of the UK. The Taoiseach warned Mr Johnson that he faced a “herculean task” in achieving trade deals with the EU and US post-Brexit. He said he was confident that he and Mr Johnson would achieve common ground, and said he would listen to any constructive ways that might break the current Brexit impasse. He said they respected the UK’s decision to leave the EU, but said leaving with no-deal would cause severe disruption to Ireland and the UK. Mr Varadkar said the backstop was a critical component of the Withdrawal Agreement, and they could not replace a legal guarantee with a promise. “The stakes are high, avoiding a return to a hard Border is the priority of this Government,” he said. “We are open to all alternatives legally workable, but we have not received such to date. “The Good Friday Agreement is the best example to show that old foes can come together and as co-guarantors of that agreement.” Mr Johnson said the one message he wanted to deliver today is that his overwhelming preference is to get a deal. He said he believed this could be achieved by 31 October. He said he had looked carefully at a no-deal scenario and assessed the consequences for both Ireland and the UK, but going through with it would be a failure of statecraft. Mr Johnson said Brexit was not a problem that Ireland wished for and so there were many questions that needed to be resolved. He said the UK would never institute checks at the border, could protect the economic unity of Ireland, and could uphold the Good Friday Agreement. “I’ve seen the old Border and how absolutely vital it is we keep the open border, on the plan, it’s fairly obvious, we need to find a way of ensuring that the UK is not kept locked in “Backstop” arrangement while giving Ireland the assurance that it needs,” he said. “Whether it’s electronic pre-clearance or concept of the unity of island for agri-foods, and other ideas we’ll bring forward to address the full range. “I don’t underestimate the technical problems but I do think there is a way through.”
Monday, September 9, 2019 With the Brexit impasse deepening, the Christian Churches need to step up to the mark and act as a voice of calm in the community, according to religious commentator, Dr John Coulter, in his Fearless Flying Column today. Great War commemorations are now a regular part of many community calendars, and ithas often been said – there were very few atheists in the trenches before thewhistles blew and the troops went ‘over the top’ into battle. Taking that World War One ethos as a benchmark, the Christian Church needs to move to the forefront of community life and take up a forward position as a calming influence in what is becoming an increasingly volatile and toxic political climate. That is not to say that the Christian Churches should adopt political positions on Brexit, but that they must recognise that their flocks contain many Brexiteers and Remainers – and a lot of very worried and parishioners afraid of the future. The Brexit challenge for the Christian Churches reminds me of the situation which faced congregations in 1998 in the aftermath of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, when many clerics found themselves facing a split church between the Yes and No camps, especially in the Protestant community. During the Great War, the Army padres and chaplains played a key role in maintaining morale among the troops in the face of such needless slaughter. The Christian Churches need to adopt thismorale-boosting role amid the severe political uncertainty surrounding Brexit. Of course, many churches and clerics will maintain they are already doing this using the strategy of intercessory prayers during worship, but mumbling a few prayers for common sense in governmentduring a Bible study event cannot be classified as pro-active – especially among the unchurched. During times of perceived threats to the Union, many Christians who were active in Unionist politics organised Days of Prayer in town halls and Orange halls. Some of those opposed to Brexit have called for campaigns of civil disobedience and passive resistance. This has the potential to end up being hijacked by extremists and militants resultinginviolence against the police. However, just as the Peace People held rallies for peace in Ireland in the late 1970s, perhaps the Christian Churches could help defuse tensions by holding peace rallies whereby those Churchescould use such demonstrations to reach out to their communities, especially to folk who have no faith, cannot or do not attend worship. One factor is certain – the clergy cannot hide in their pulpits and, like Pontius Pilate of Biblical times, wash their hands of the Brexit debacle. Now is a time for action by the Churches, not fluffy bunny-style words of comfort. The Churches on this island cannot simply leave it to the governments in London and Dublin to prepare for either a ‘do deal’ or ‘any deal’ or ‘some deal’ Brexit. The Churches must have their plansin places, especially if Brexit does go economically ‘pear-shaped’ and communities have financial hardships, with austerity and even homelessness rapidly rising. Some individual places of worship are going to have to swallow their pride and snootiness and open up their church halls for the homeless and those who cannot afford to pay rent or mortgages and haveto leave their homes. Likewise, if there are food shortages, churches will have to organise soup kitchens to feed the needy if existing food banks cannot cope. People who are starving or who have lost their homes throughno fault of their own do not want, or need, pious Christians fobbing them off with platitudes, such as ‘we will remember you in our thoughts and prayers’! These needy people want food and a place to sleep. Similarly, the Churches must maintain a politically neutral stance; they must avoid the scenario whereby the public gets the perception – that’s a pro-Leave denomination, or that is an anti-Brexit or Remain fellowship. The empty stomach of someone who voted Leave is just as challenging as the empty tummy of a person who voted Remain. Likewise, just as some people turn to their faith and church in a time of crisis, the Christian Churches must also be ready to help those who blame God for their predicament as a result of Brexit turningbad. There is the real danger that if things go bad for some families, they could actually turn away from their faith. The Churches must be read – not to judge or condemn these people with their pewgossip, but to ensure these people are helped. There is also the added danger that if the Churches do not step up to the mark in combating any austerity as a result of Brexit, that the so-called ‘black marketeers’ will step into the vacuum andcharge crazy prices either for food or a place to sleep. The ‘super rich’ in society may be able to soak up any severe austerity challenges caused by a Brexit backlash, but not those currently living on the breadline, or caught in an existing poverty trap. Indeed, some denominations may even have to consider the unthinkable to afford to carry out their Christian civic responsibilities – they may have to sell their riches to give to the poor! Some Christian denominations may have acquired tremendous wealth and treasures over the centuries which could be converted into hard cash to buy food, clothing or provide shelters. Would such denominations be prepared to sacrifice this wealth and follow the advice of Jesus and donate that money to the poor, or would they be like the rich young ruler in Biblical times who didnot want to follow Jesus because he wanted to keep his wealth. In the coming months, it will not just be the politicians who will have searching challenges to face; the Christian Churches will – not might – find themselves on the spot in combating austerity. In hard practical terms, if a person turned up on their doorstep of a church, cold, hungry, in dire need of food and rest – what will the ‘suited and booted’ worshippers do? In reality, the key questionwhich the Christian Churches must ask themselves is – what would Jesus do?
A secret memo written by a British Army general during the early years
of the current conflict refers to Britain needing to find a way to
“gradually escape” from its involvement in the north of Ireland.
The memo was discovered by researchers working for a documentary series
for BBC TV’s Spotlight programme. It was written by Michael Carver, who
was providing advice to the British government in 1972 as the British
Army’s chief of staff. There is no indication if the document was read
or if there was any response.
The former chief of staff wrote: “If I am right, and we want a lasting
solution, it must lie in finding a way in which HM Government can
gradually escape from the commitment to the border.”
He suggested a “plebiscite”, or poll, organised “in such a way that it
shows up the inequity of the existing border”.
The researchers also documented a new allegation of paramilitary
involvement against Ian Paisley Sr, who went on to become DUP leader and
First Minister.
A former senior British Army officer, David Hancock, told the programme
Paisley had personally paid for a unionist paramilitary bombing in
Kilkeel in 1969.
Targeting a viaduct carrying water to Belfast, the UVF bomb was blamed
on the IRA, but was in fact part of a loyalist campaign designed to
destabilise the Stormont regime of Six County Prime Minister Terence
O’Neill.
The unionist leader was considered by Paisley and his supporters to be
too moderate. At the time, O’Neill was said to be preparing reforms to
meet some of the demands of the civil rights movement.
Mr Hancock, who was stationed nearby, actually heard the viaduct
explosion and said it did “not have the footprint of the IRA”. He said
the then RUC police had shown him evidence that Paisley, at that time a
fundamentalist preacher and prominent unionist extemist, had supplied
the finances for the explosion.
Mr Hancock recalled: “I was good friends with the district inspector
down in Kilkeel. He showed me the evidence that they had of the
involvement of money from Paisley into what was then called the UVF,
where they got the explosives from, how it was carried out, who did it,
and why.”
Paisley’s links to loyalist paramilitarism over the years are well
known, particularly in the 1960s, but no charges were ever brought
against him for direct involvement in paramilitary violence.
His son, North Antrim MP Ian Paisly Jr said he was “not surprised at all
by the depths to which the BBC would sink in its hatred of my late
father and my family”.
A BBC spokesperson said they had “complete confidence” in the integrity
of the programme.
Raymond McCord has launched a legal challenge claiming the Prime Minister’s threat to leave with or without an agreement on October 31 is unlawful.
Raymond
McCord outside the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast (Liam McBurney/PA)
By
Michael McHugh, PA. Belfast Telegraph. September 6, 2019
A
no-deal Brexit would cause chaos in Northern Ireland, a legal challenge in Belfast
heard.
Prime
Minister Boris Johnson is trying to act oppressively and contrary to the
constitutional position of the country, counsel for Troubles victims campaigner
Raymond McCord alleged.
The
anti-Brexit activist claims Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat to leave
the EU on October 31, with or without an agreement, is unlawful.
His
barrister, Ronan Lavery QC, praised the EU for its contribution to peace
as Northern Ireland tried to become less tribal.
He
said: “To leave without a withdrawal agreement would create chaos and economic
misery and a real threat to the peace process in Northern Ireland – it would be
madness.”
Mr
McCord’s legal team began a judicial review at Northern Ireland’s High Court on
Friday.
His
son, Raymond McCord Jr, was murdered by loyalists from the Ulster Volunteer
Force in North Belfast in 1997.
He
has repeatedly voiced concern about the impact of Brexit, which was rejected by
a majority in the region, on the peace process.
All-island
co-operation deepened following the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which largely
ended the 30-year conflict.
Campaigners
are opposed to the creation of a hard Irish border after Brexit, which senior
police officers believe could provide an opportunity for dissident republicans.
Mr
Lavery said Northern Ireland was trying to move forward on a cohesive and
non-tribal basis and was a model for what could be achieved when people put
aside their differences.
He
added: “The EU is a peace project.”
He
said the EU withdrawal process should serve the interests of the people of
Northern Ireland.
“Generous
means generous to the people of Northern Ireland; it cannot mean generous to
the pursuit of English nationalism, it can only be something which serves the
people of Northern Ireland.”
He
claimed there was no specific provision for leaving without a deal.
The
barrister said the next step after the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by
Parliament was for a statement to be made by the Government about how it
proposed to proceed and making the policy clear.
Instead,
he said, the policy was having to be divined from statements to the media as he
scrutinized the legislation surrounding Brexit.
“Our
very simple proposition is that, when you take this piece of legislation,
nothing sanctioned or authorized the executive (government) to take the drastic
step of leaving the EU without a deal.
“That
needs to be expressly sanctioned by Parliament and it has not been.
“Any
withdrawal is premised upon a deal.”
He
said the Prime Minister was seeking to act in a way which was “oppressive” to
the people of Northern Ireland and contrary to the constitutional position.
Mr
Lavery added: “I am not asking the court to do anything radical, I am simply
asking the court for the law to be applied.”
He
said it was not possible for the UK to leave the EU outside the terms of
legislation.
Lawyers
whose clients oppose no-deal joined forces during Friday’s hearing, claiming
the UK’s Brexit negotiations were a “sham”.
They
said the Government needed statutory underpinning from law for its powers.
Judge
Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey observed that the Council of Europe, comprising
leaders of the EU states, could not be compelled to do anything.
The
case is due to continue on Monday when a barrister for the Government will
outline his case.
