A so-called War Cabinet has been formed by the new British prime
minister, Boris Johnson to aggressively force Ireland to accept a
hardening and reinforcement of Britain’s century-old border across the
island.
With extraordinary speed, Johnson has issued threat after threat to
crash out of the EU with no deal on October 31 unless the Backstop —
the previously agreed insurance policy to avoid a hard border in Ireland
— is abolished.
Johnson has named a cabal of six senior Cabinet Ministers, styled as a ‘War Cabinet’, which will meet every Monday to
take the fight to Ireland and the European Union. They include the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, Foreign Minister Dominic Raab,
Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, and the
‘Minister for No-Deal Brexit’, Michael Gove.
A complicit Tory media has already delivered a barrage of attacks on the
26 County Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who they have identified as a weak
spot. Leading Tories declared that the Taoiseach “isn’t bright” and “the
Irish will blink”.
In a calculated move, Johnson delayed placing a phone call to Varadkar
for over a week since ascending to the premiership. He has insisted the removal of the backstop is a
precondition for any Brexit deal.
But Mr Varadkar has said there will be no change to the Backstop. He
said “any suggestion that there would be a whole new deal negotiated in
weeks or months is totally not in the real world.”
His deputy, the foreign minister Simon Coveney, warned that Johnson’s
approach to Brexit is “very unhelpful” and has put Britain on “a
collision course” with Ireland and the European Union.
He added: “I think it’s important to say very clearly, if respectfully,
that the facts don’t change around Brexit.”
In response, the Brexiteers described Dublin as “belligerent” and
“inflammatory”, with Varadkar dismissed as “ill-informed and arrogant”.
He and Coveney were blasted as “little Ireland’s ridiculous leaders”.
The DUP piped in by accusing Dublin of “megaphone diplomacy”.
It was a coordinated effort to portray Ireland as the obstacle. Johnson
stands accused of preparing for a Westminster election by fomenting an
international crisis in order to invoke the ‘spirit of the Blitz’,
rallying English nationalism against traditional enemies of Ireland,
Germany, France and the rest of the EU.
It all makes a mockery of the British government’s obligation — as a
co-signatory of the Good Friday Agreement — to exercise its power in
the North with rigorous impartiality.
The principle of consent — that the will of the people in the North is
respected on constitutional matters — also continues to be completely
ignored.
Almost overlooked is that the uncertainty being wrought by Johnson’s
government has deliberately pushed the peace process to the brink.
Official British reports of their crash-Brexit preparations have all but
dismissed the potential of a return to violence in the north of Ireland,
warning only of “potential law and order issues” over a month after
Brexit takes place
The ongoing level of violence in the north is already ignored by the
British media. This includes three nights of rioting by nationalist
youths in the North Queen Street area of north Belfast amid tension over
anti-internment bonfires, which saw several petrol bombs thrown at the
PSNI, as well as ana bomb attack the PSNI described as ‘potentially
catastrophic’.
The Continuity IRA has said it carried out a rocket attack on a PSNI
patrol in north Armagh around midnight on Friday.
They said a horizontal mortar rocket was fired at a passing police
patrol on the Tullygally Road beside Alderdale flats on but had missed
its target. They warned that a “live warhead” remained in the area
before the item was defused by British Army bomb disposal team.
For its part, the PSNI claimed that their patrol had been deliberately
lured to the area by the CIRA warning and that it had been targeted by a
“booby-trap device”. Had it detonated as intended, the result “would
undoubtedly have been catastrophic”.
Following a meeting with Johnson in Belfast on Wednesday, Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald was unequivocal
that a crash Brexit for Britain must trigger a reunification referendum in Ireland.
“We made it clear to him that the extensive planning he tells us he is
carrying out in respect of a potential crash Brexit has to include the
constitutional question and the issue of a border poll here in Ireland,” she said.
“We have stated to him very clearly that Brexit in any event, but
certainly a disorderly Brexit, represents in anybody’s language a
dramatic change of circumstances on this island and it would be
unthinkable in those circumstances that people would not be given the
opportunity to decide on our future together.”
WHAT WOULD JIMMY DO? 3RD ANNUAL GOLF OUTING
Join in celebrating the life of Jimmy Lanza and help raise donations to the Ray Pfiefer Foundation and the Stephen Siller Foundation on Wednesday, August 14, 2019, from 12:30 PM to 6:00 PM at Pelham Bay Golf Course, 870 Shore Road Bronx, NY 10464. Registrations start at noon. $160 a man includes golf, lunch/dinner and golf shirt. Please make every effort to register in advance online at https://tinyurl.com/y5v6ehb5 so that the proper arrangements can be made.
FDNY MARINE CORPS ASSOCIATION’S 1ST ANNUAL CIGAR NIGHT
FDNY Marine Corps Association’s 1st Annual Cigar Night will be held Monday, August 19th, from 1900-2300 hours at Vetro on the Bay (open air rooftop venue) 164-49 Cross Bay Blvd in Howard Beach, NY 11414. Cost is $130 per person and includes 4-hour open bar with premium liquor, beer and wine, 4-hour buffet catered by Russo’s on the Bay with top notch food and 4 cigars per person plus cutter. There will be raffle prizes as well as a 50/50 throughout the night. Space is limited to the first 150 people. No money will be collected at the door, so you must RSVP with either Joe Bachert at 631-605-1444 or Frank Ancona at 718-986-9822 and mail checks (made payable to FDNY Marine Corps Association) to Marine Corps Association, P.O. Box 1014, Smithtown, NY 11787 to reserve your spot.
STEUBEN ASSOCIATION BOAT RIDE
On Sunday, August 18, 2019, the Annual Steuben Association Boat Ride will be on the Art Cabana Yacht leaving from the Skyport Marina at 2430 FDR Drive Service Road East, (23rd St & FDR) Manhattan. Boarding begins at 5:30 PM (rain or shine); the cruise is from 6-10 PM. Tickets are $30 in advance or $40 at the door. Boat ride includes music by DJ Emjay, complimentary appetizers, and a cash/credit card bar. For ticket information, visit www.fdnysteuben.org or search FDNY Steuben Boat Ride at Eventbrite.com.
20 YEAR REUNION
A 20 year reunion for members in the August 8, 1999 probationary firefighter class will be held on September 20, 2019. For information, please contact Joe Brautigam at joeyb252@gmail.com.
The Brexit crisis is another example of how the UK so often ignores the consequences of its conduct on its neighbor
Richard McMahon. Irish Times. Dublin. Thursday, August 2, 2019(Richard McMahon is a lecturer in history at the University of Limerick and an expert on the history of violence).
Boris Johnson’s approach to Ireland is part of an ignoble tradition in British politics. At its heart is the false assumption that superiority in resources and military prowess equates to a superiority in intellectual power and moral rectitude. In short, the idea that might is right and that, ultimately, Paddy should know his place. This assumption shaped and even, at times, dominated, policy on Ireland for centuries before independence[i.e. in the 26 Counties of southern Ireland but not in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland; Ireland was partitioned in 1920 by the British government].
It runs through 19th-century British depictions of the Irish as incapable of self-government, unreliable, lazy and inferior. For Benjamin Disraeli, a British prime minister who shares some personal characteristics with the current incumbent, the Irish were “wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious”. Most obviously, this sense of superiority and a refined “moral” stance was clearly manifest in government policy during the Great Famine of 1845-49, which caused the deaths of more than one million people on the island of Ireland.
This consistently damaging strain of thought continued into the 20th century, with British military and economic power often used crudely to address deep-rooted political conflicts in Ireland, which refused, and continue to refuse, to allow for simple solutions. Ireland, the thinking went, should be the handmaiden for glorious Britannia – and this servile position is for Ireland’s own benefit and ultimately serves Irish interests.
Of course, within this particular strain of British political thought, the history of violence and tragedy in Ireland is sometimes portrayed as a product of Irish recalcitrance – a tendency towards disorder and conflict that fails to recognize the beneficence of British policy on the island. Britain, it is often suggested, is a guarantor of Irish stability, addressing and suppressing the inherent conflicts in Irish society, rather than a highly disruptive force that has often recklessly pursued its own interests at a serious cost to its nearest neighbor. This renders the current crisis part of a rather tragic re-emergence of a longstanding disregard for the consequences of British political action on the economic and political stability of Ireland. Sadly, this is because a powerful element within British political life refuses to accept that the blind pursuit of British interests can have deeply damaging consequences for those beyond its borders.
As Johnson now plays with dangerous ideas, promising a “golden age” while already seeking scapegoats for the failure of his vision, the genuine possibility of real and lasting damage to Ireland is compelling. The reintroduction of a hard border on the island is now a possibility. It would become a permanent target for republicans – and the social and economic damage could also serve as a recruiting sergeant for the disaffected to join the ranks of those committed to violent resistance.
More generally, it demonstrates a disregard for the costs inflicted on the basic standards of living of the inhabitants of both islands. That this prospect might be part of an elaborate and rather shallow bluff in the British government’s negotiations with the EU renders the actions of Johnson and his extremist cabinet all the more troubling. If true, Johnson appears to be depending upon reasonable people to block his unreasonable behaviour in the hope of benefiting electorally from their principled actions and, in the process, is risking stability and peace on the island of Ireland.
This reckless pursuit of a Trumpian, Britain-above-all policy, could unleash forces throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that Johnson may struggle to contain. The promotion of a deeper and greater sense of Irish history in Britain might serve to highlight this folly, although standing against Johnson’s destructive policies will ultimately have to be the work of committed activists and men and women of principle in the political realm.
Clifford Peeples discusses loyalist bonfire culture in the context of a cultural war.
Gandhi related that “A nation’s culture resides in the hearts and in the souls of its people.” It is the life force that feeds through cohesive society, drawing a sense of purpose, identity, and belonging. It establishes a set of shared traditions and morals, that act as the adhesive which bonds a collective beyond gender, class, and generation. Culture, in essence, should be upstream from politics. However, in disputes, this is seldom the case and culture can become a mere tool of ideology. This aspect of what has been termed a “cultural war” can best be seen in a global context in the Cold War.
While many see ideology and culture as detached fields, during the Cold War the two would converge as the political direction of the juxtaposing opponents forged out cultures and then used modern mediums to project these to each other as proxy weapons. An understanding of the parameters of what is termed “culture” can be found in Marwick’s definition that it can be viewed as two concepts: the traditional view is that culture relates to expressions of art and forms of tradition and the second concept of culture, that it is “the network, or totality, of attitudes, values and practices of a particular group of human beings.”
While culture and ideology are looked upon as two distinct and separate entities, both can intertwine and in certain cases, ideological restructuring can take place and a new culture can emerge or surpass the old. This has led some to conclude that “Ideology is the intellectual dimension of culture.” This restructuring or manufacturing of a culture, to suit ideological beliefs, can be observed in a dramatic form within Germany of the 1930s. It is also found within Soviet states. Culture and ideology also morphed and became a weapon of the cultural Cold War. Professor Gienow-Hecht states that by 1947 the enmity between the West and the Soviet Union had moved “cultural life” and “cultural institutions” from “the sidelines to the centre of political confrontation.”
The use of culture as a weapon in the developing Cold War could be seen as competing ideologies constructing aspects of culture to suit each other’s emerging political programmes. While cultural and ideology are often seen as two very separate spheres, the two would merge in the Cold War. Shibusawa would conclude the follow on the intertwined nature of both:
Dominant ideologies, then, are a subset of culture, or a discursive system. This culture or discursive system shifts as a small number of counter-hegemonic narratives succeed in challenging the veracity and “common sense” of dominant ideologies.
Vladimir Baranovsky observes that Russia has been on a cultural journey of “self-identification” for the last millennia and, as such, there are those who argue that Russia is European and descended from the Western Christian tradition. This is countered by those who believe Russia is in essence Asian in its cultural outlook, having split with the Western Christian tradition in the 11th Century with Byzantium, forming a distinct cultural form of its own that would develop in parallel to the West. These cultural differences would be made more profound by Russia’s stunted growth compared to the West, both politically and economically. The failure to modernise facilitated, first revolution, then dictatorship. This, Branovsky states, gave “…a strong link between Russia’s culture, mentality, and historical legacy.” The Soviet State from its foundation used culture as a form of external projectionism. In this, culture became the expression of ideology. Rossen Djagalov would write:
From very early on in this state’s existence, it projected in its dealings with foreign countries a belief in literature’s capacity to change society; thus, it tried to organize ‘the progressive forces’ of world literature through international writers’ organizations, writers’ congresses, frequent bilateral visits, multilingual literary magazines and massive translation initiatives.
This view: that the state could use culture as a form of weapon in the transition of outside cultures, which in the Soviets’ view was interchangeable with ideology, was to transcend from written format to transmitted media. Thus, the main culture expression of Cold War Russia was formulated as a manifestation of ideology, this would be given its own genre: socialist realism, which would cover architecture, literature, and art. The linking of ideology and culture in such a fashion and its subsequent export to the rest of the Eastern bloc mimicked the cultural imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
Most culture, in what we term the West, is less than 150 years old and most nationalities formulated a structure at about the same time. Some ancient traditions have survived and embedded themselves in popular culture: Puck, Halloween, Morris dance, Step dancing, Wassailing, Mummers, and fire celebrations. These remnants are intermixed with the greater Anglo-American culture that dominates the British Isles. Except for a few regional variants, the people of these islands are culturally indistinguishable: they follow the same sports, most of the time, they watch and read the same material; soaps, papers, and films. Yet there are elements that cause extreme views to overshadow some of the oldest cultural expressions on these islands. Expressions that are mirrored in in each community. Historical and religious orders, marching bands, and bonfires are all present in the divergent communities, nor are they exclusive to Ireland or the United Kingdom. However, every year bonfires become an issue.
Fire Festivals are present in every area and culture on the globe. They have been recorded as celebrations, sacrifices, and communal rites of passage. Bonfires in Northern Ireland fit two of the criteria, acting as celebrations and a rite of passage to those who participate. These fire festivals take many forms and are not without controversy. But to understand the significant cultural value to those who practice this form of celebration and to understand how we have got to this point they need to be explored.
Most Bonfires are small affairs, mostly made up of extended family and friends. They, in rural areas, consist of gathering that can be entertained by small groups of drummers and fifers. They are child-friendly and act as a cultural adhesive that bonds those taking part. Stories, mostly about family, music, and rural life permeate the air, along with the aroma of cut grass and smouldering wood. The music and patois swirl with the flames and embers into the night air. Nothing sinister, no gowns, just families under the stars, in front of a fire listening to music and sharing stories. The scene is timeless.
The mega bonfires or ones that have been looked upon as controversial, are urban and tend to take place in areas that acted as overflows from the sectarian violence and the redevelopment that drove tens of thousands from the streets of Belfast, to working-class suburbs of east Antrim and north Down. These mass pyres have resulted from a number of complex issues. They are not a traditional form of loyalist bonfire but are the result of external forces. Up until the 1980s, most loyalist areas had small street bonfires, similar in their nature to their rural counterparts. Redevelopment’s disruption of the century-old street structure brought new considerations. Belfast City Council took the decision that these small, but numerous, activities would be better contained as larger communal events. This attempt, at a form of regulation, had a number of effects: it brought in rivalry and took control away from parental scrutiny. Paramilitary structures replaced the community in a lot of occasions.
The difference between rural and urban bonfires can be understood in class. While urban bonfires are exclusively working-class their counterparts are made up of all sections on class. This, indeed, is indicative of loyalism. Urban loyalism’s link with the middle-class has been broken; this has increased its sense of societal alienation. As such, it has become its own subculture, developing and responding to other cultures around it. It has taken on dance music and a festival that was, in preparation for a few weeks, has now become several months long. The process of preparation has also changed: it gives adherents a prolonged sense of comradery, community, connection, and belonging in a community that believes it has been abandoned. This hothousing forms groups and friendships that most in society today cannot understand. They have as little regard for those who tell them that they are “polluting and destroying the environment”, while driving 4×4 and taking four holidays a year, as the accusers have for them. This alienation can be seen in the tyre issue. Some see this as a rage against those who are seen as the, would be, destroyers of their culture. The burning of tyres by a handful is an act of rebellion against regulation, the same regulation that brought about the conditions that gave rise to giant structures that cry out “we are here and we won’t be forgotten”.
The ideological war on loyalist cultural is reminiscent of aspects of 20th Century European extremism. It is portrayed as having no value, in any of its manifestations. It is sneered upon as squalid by those who live a few postcodes away. Nationalism and republicanism have debased themselves by demonising and continually attacking parts of the oldest cultural manifestations in Europe, due to their ideological differences with those who cherish it. While there are those who would destroy loyalist cultural expression, many are fascinated with it. I have a friend, a French linguist, who spends every July in Northern Ireland. Last year I worked with a sociologist who believed loyalism is the biggest working-class structure in the UK. There are social anthropologists, studying urban loyalism and its traditions. Social documentary programs are chronicling loyalist communities. What do all these have in common? They are the work of outsiders. The Cold War against loyalist communities has left the area of culture that toxic, that no local study of the views, motives, or aspirations of these groups is viable. John Abbott said “Every man’s ability may be strengthened or increased by culture” Whether that culture is of our taste is irrelevant, it is still upstream from the political ideologies which oppose it. A cultural war makes for a hard anvil, that will wear out many hammers.
* Anyone interested in the cultural aspects of loyalist bonfires should visit, Polish Photographer, Mariusz Smiejek’s South Belfast Bonnies 2019, Exhibition of documentary and portraits photography, Belfast South Community Resources Centre, 127-145 Sandy Row, Belfast, BT12 5ET. Which runs from 31 Jul at 09:00 – 1 Aug at 16:00.
Clifford Peeples is a writer and former loyalist prisoner.
Leo Varadkar and Boris Johnson spoke by phone this morning By Tommie Gorman. Northern Editor. RTE. Dublin. Tuesday, July 39, 2019
The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister have spoken by phone this morning in the first contact since Boris Johnson took over in Downing Street six days ago.
Mr Johnson told Leo Varadkar that his government will approach any negotiations that take place with determination and energy and in a spirit of friendship.
Following this morning’s call, the Taoiseach’s office issued a statement, saying that Mr Varadkar emphasised to Mr Johnson that the backstop was necessary as a consequence of the decisions taken by the UK and the EU is united in its view that the Withdrawal Agreement could not be opened.
He told the prime minister that alternative arrangements could replace the backstop in the future, but “thus far satisfactory options had yet to be identified and demonstrated”.
The statement continued: “The Taoiseach restated the need for both governments to be fully committed to the Good Friday Agreement, the protection of the peace process and the restoration of the Northern Ireland institutions.”
The Taoiseach invited Mr Johnson to Dublin to “share further their respective analyses on Brexit and to continue discussion of bilateral matters including Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement and the Common Travel Area”.
Mr Johnson’s spokeswoman said: “The Taoiseach congratulated the Prime Minister on his appointment and both leaders underscored their commitment to working closely together in the spirit of the warm and deep relationship between the UK and Ireland.
“On the process of restoring the Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland, both leaders expressed their determination to see this happen as quickly as possible.
“The Prime Minister said the ongoing talks have his unequivocal support and that he wanted to continue to work closely with the Irish government to help drive the process towards a successful conclusion.
“He said he looked forward to visiting Northern Ireland shortly and talking to the leaders of the five main parties about this.”
The spokeswoman added: “On Brexit, the Prime Minister made clear that the UK will be leaving the EU on October 31, no matter what.
“He said that in all scenarios, the government will be steadfast in its commitment to the Belfast Agreement and will never put physical checks or physical infrastructure on the border.
“The Prime Minister made clear that the government will approach any negotiations which take place with determination and energy and in a spirit of friendship, and that his clear preference is to leave the EU with a deal, but it must be one that abolishes the backstop.
“The two leaders agreed to stay in contact.”
Elsewhere, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said on Twitter: “To be absolutely clear; the refusal by PM Boris Johnson to engage with European leaders and our Taoiseach without preconditions on the issue of Brexit is unacceptable and is not within the realms of normal diplomatic or political behaviour”.
Mr Martin made the statement following strong criticism of his party TD, Timmy Dooley, who blamed the stand-off on what he described as a failure by the Taoiseach to “engage in basic diplomacy over the past two years.”
In a tweet earlier, the Clare TD said: “The Government’s lack of experience and arrogance will hurt Ireland in the coming months”.
His comments drew sharp criticism from other parties who said he was trying to score political points at a sensitive time of Brexit negotiations and that they could be used against Ireland by British politicians.
Labour Party leader Brendan Howlin urged Mr Martin to clarify his party’s position.
“I don’t think for a minute that Micheál Martin wants to allow any divergence of view – any weakening of the solidarity that has been the strength of our negotiating position for the past two and a half years.
Speaking on RTÉ’s News at One, he added: “If we are not unified on the backstop, it will comfort to those who want to tear us apart”.
Fine Gael Senator Neale Richmond accused Fianna Fáil of trying to “undermine strong Irish consensus on Brexit.”
This evening, the Independent Alliance called on all parties and Independents in the Oireachtas to support the Government position on Brexit.
Speaking on behalf of the group, Junior Minister for Skills and Training, John Halligan, said support for the Government’s position on Brexit should be united.
“This is a crucial time for our economy and political relationship with the UK. It is vitally important that the UK goes back to the Withdrawal Agreement it agreed with the EU.
“The only way forward is the Withdrawal Agreement. This policy has been agreed by all parties in the Dáil and it is vitally important that we all stay united on this on behalf of the people of Ireland,” said Mr Halligan.
UK PM Johnson says now up to EU to compromise on Brexit
Speaking in Wales today, Mr Johnson said the next move in Brexit talks was up to the European Union, adding that he did not want to leave the bloc without a deal but had to prepare for that outcome just in case.
“If they can’t compromise, if they really can’t do it, then clearly we have to get ready for a no-deal exit,” Mr Johnson said during a visit to Wales.
“It is up to the EU, this is their call, it’s their call if they want us to do this.”END
