No to time limits or unilateral escape hatches or all these elaborate devices, glosses, codicils and so on that you could apply to the backstop,” he told a debate hosted by The Sun on Monday.
Mr Hunt agreed, adding: “The backstop, as it is, is dead … I don’t think tweaking it with a time limit will do the trick, we’ve got to find a new way.”
Now that the “backstop is dead” the Johnson camp are pinning their hopes on a
new divorce deal ( that) may allow a future PM to delay paying the full £39billion until a free trade agreement with the EU is thrashed out. That would be a huge boost for Boris – who has said the UK should withhold part until the EU completes a trade deal, according to The Sun.
Our key local analyst Katy Hayward reminds us of the potential costs this side of the water that both candidates are ignoring.
It is estimated 55,000 jobs will be at risk in Ireland if the UK crashes out of the EU. In Northern Ireland, the cost of no deal could be over 40,000 jobs (equivalent to more than 1 in 20)
No doubt this will be dismissed as “project fear”.
But let’s stick to the politics of it for now.
Assume for a moment a majority of MPs are unable to prevent it Leave on 31 October. This creates a host of new political problems. The former Conservative leader William Hague argues that a Johnson government on a No Deal ticket would be unable to get the necessary legislation through this parliament. A reliable majority just isn’t there. A general election would be necessary.
The entirely plausible case is made that Labour are so divided over Leave v Remain, the basic Corbyn split and now over anti-semitism that the Tories would emerge as at least as the largest single party. Labour may have missed the boat. The momentum deplore it you like , is with the rather less divided Conservatives.
An election called by the new prime minister in September would cut through several problems in their present form. Prorogation of parliament for the election of new parliament would not attract the same constitutional ignominy as temporary suspension to allow Leave to happen without challenge. He wouldn’t have to face the threat of an immediate defeat in a vote of confidence supported by anti-No Deal Tories headed by the outgoing chancellor Philip Hammond and Dominic Grieve – or if he did due to an accident of timing in the autumn, he would accept the challenge on the front foot.
None of this would be the answer to all the new PM’s prayers however.
The Conservatives would be seriously split over the manifesto and candidate re-selection.
A postponement of a few weeks of the 31 October deadline would surely be necessary, forcing Johnson to eat his words.
The new parliament would likely be hung with an even more complicated mix than before, with a selection of Brexit party MPs on the No Deal side and more Lib Dems for Remain and SNP MPs demanding a second independence referendum as the price of a second Brexit referendum favouring Remain, if that was the keystone of Labour’s manifesto. Any Brexit policy could hang by a thread.
The abortion and equal marriage amendments of the NI Executive Formation Bill would fall – (will they pass the Lords in time before the summer recess on 25 July anyway?) – as Parliament cannot bind its successor.
If Stormont had not been restored and the courts did not rule against it on constitutional grounds, there might be nothing except the DUP to inhibit cross party support for a new all UK Abortion Act along the lines of the GB 1967 Act and repealing the 1861 Act criminalising abortion throughout the kingdom.
While the constitutional arguments against “driving a coach and horses through devolution” have force, their critics are attacking the wrong target, leading with constitutional grounds rather than their real objection to ” abortion on demand.” The objections are likely to be further weakened by the imposition of temporary Direct Rule in the event of No Deal and even possibly even with a deal. Suzanne Breen’s report is correct. Ministers of some sort will be needed to take on extra powers in the event of Brexit; if not Stormont ministers, then UK ministers. This move would require the support of the Irish government. And despite all the surrounding chaos, it would be likely to get it provided it was regularly endorsed by the British-Irish intergovernmental council.
DUP Leader Arlene Foster. A legal challenge over the Electoral Commission’s refusal to investigate EU referendum spending by the Democratic Unionist Party has reached the High Court.
In the British Parliament last week political frustration drove the debates on marriage equality and abortion.
Much of that frustration is directed at MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party. And yes, there is also frustration that our democratic structures are simply not working and therefore create a democratic deficit.
That deficit does not mean we should remain ungoverned. Or that we should not have necessary legislation passed. Or that we should be ignored. Campaigners for reform deserved political support and Westminster was their last refuge.
Frequent visitors to the House of Commons can witness the behaviour of certain DUP MPs when Lady Sylvia Hermon speaks. It is a spectacle which is silly, senseless and sexist.
This is not an accusation against all DUP members of parliament but is a regular feature of some. Other MPs see and hear it. Female MPs from all parties detest it.
Last year I watched in bewilderment as Sammy Wilson effectively stunned the Commons with an unnecessarily aggressive anti-abortion speech just after Tory MP Heidi Allen gave a very emotional and personal testimony about her own experience of abortion. His actions reinforced the view of many parliamentarians that the DUP were antiquated and out of touch.
The DUP’s verbal assaults on the prime minister over the Withdrawal Agreement were not only at times offensive and rude but antagonistic. One Brexit supporting minister who resigned over the same Withdrawal Agreement told this columnist: ‘The DUP’s treatment of the prime minister was appalling and won’t be forgotten by members on these benches’.
So the votes taken last week were not all about caring for the people of Northern Ireland and rights denied. The scale of victories also reflected the frustration of all parties within the Commons towards the DUP. The DUP style doesn’t go down well with the decorum of the House.
One of the problematic issues about last week was the conflation of two different sets of issues – abortion and marriage equality. (Why the overdue compensation to victims of historical abuse couldn’t have been added on is also baffling).
Marriage equality should never have been denied in the first place. Some of those opposing it were hugely hypocritical. Faith based groups are entitled to proper safeguards against vexatious attempts to use their properties/services. After that, the maxim is live and let live.
Remarks from some evangelical quarters that next we would see marriages between siblings are typical of the nonsensical claims made against marriage equality. There was a clear majority in the last Assembly (and therefore the public who voted for them) in favour of marriage equality. That’s the will of the people.
Abortion is a completely different matter. It is more complex. A simple motion however well intentioned is not the way forward.
The case for abortion reform is well made and the medical profession need clear guidance. It is not a black and white issue – it’s an area with considerable grey. This writer is well aware that for some, men speaking on abortion is only acceptable if one supports pro-choice. I respectfully disagree.
But in the main for life to start it requires two individuals and where a relationship exists the decision to terminate should also require the input of two.
That said having an absolutist position on abortion is not the way forward either. Sensitivity and compassion should be the watch word on either side of the debate. Remember, those who for whatever reason opt for an abortion don’t do it casually. They certainly don’t use abortion as a contraceptive as some claim.
The Westminster motion passed on abortion is too general. It is clear that abortion on demand is not something people in Northern Ireland want. A majority in the Assembly were against it.
To put this into perspective, if the Westminster motion as proposed proceeds into law, it makes the abortion reforms of the Dail seem positively conservative. Change is good when crafted with compassion.
Please Read, and forward. This will only take 1 minute to read! 28th Amendment, 35 States and Counting. It will take you less than a minute to read this. If you agree, please pass it on.
It’s an idea whose time has come to deal with this self-serving situation: OUR PRESENT SITUATION ! Children of Congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans. Staffers of Congress family members are also exempt from having to pay back student loans. Members of Congress can retire at full pay after only one term. Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live. For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment. And as the latest example, they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects. We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. The self-serving must stop. Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon their states.It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days most people in The United States of America will have the message. Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States …” This is an idea that should be passed around, regardless of political party. Congressional Reform Act of 2017
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office. And, no more perks go with them.
2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!).
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor and privledge NOT a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work … not get all kinds of freebies.
Sean Bresnahan responds to an Irish Times piece in which loyalists give their view on the possibility of a united Ireland.
In a recent interview with Simon Carswell of The Irish Times — speaking alongside fellow loyalists Winston Irvine, Jackie McDonald and Sammy Douglas — Rob Williamson, a coordinator with the Reach project in East Belfast, was quoted saying, ‘Sinn Féin and others who want a border poll in Northern Ireland on Irish unification haven’t told people what a united Ireland even entails’.
Williamson, for sure, is right that what a United Ireland entails needs determined — so everyone, including the Ulster Protestant minority on Ireland, know where they stand in the event of Irish Unity. The problem is that the 32-county forum it would require to map such out cannot be stood in advance and makes such a task, therefore, a practical impossibility.
For now, at least — likely until we’ve already arrived at Irish Unity and the ‘sovereign united Ireland’ the current ‘legal’ position (set out under the British-Irish Agreement) demands of an Irish Unity scenario — there is no political means for it to be stood as anything other than a consultative initiative of the Dublin Government, bound entire within its own legal sphere.
That is not to say that Dublin should not attempt towards such a forum but to unearth the reality that, absent political input from the Six Counties — absent a national conversation indeed — the impact of such an initiative, and its ability to forward a concrete proposal that can be authoritatively argued for as the national consensus, will have been undermined at its beginning.
The absence of an ability to map the form of a future United Ireland is not due to failings on the part of Dublin, or any other party on the Irish side, including Sinn Féin (explicitly cited by Williamson). It is the result of political constraints entrenched within the Good Friday Agreement, which upholds Britain’s claim to sovereignty in the North and ensures, thus, that what a United Ireland is to entail not only needn’t be discussed but that it won’t be discussed, with unionism simply refusing to discuss it for fear of undermining the status quo.
In this environment, interim to Irish Unity itself, the best that can be done on the part of Irish nationalism is not to make unionism’s argument for it, as is being foolishly attempted, but to uphold the position that any future United Ireland, while its governmental basis will need to be determined, must entail as its basic starting point that Ireland, as one, will be a sovereign independent state, free to determine her own affairs without external impediment.
If we cannot (outside our own private positions) offer Williamson and his community greater detail as to the form a United Ireland will assume, which they deserve, we can at least ensure that this much is understood and by all concerned — that Irish Unity involves, fundamentally, the end of the Union and the constitution of a sovereign united Ireland, as already set out under binding international treaty.
