Skip to main content

Put it back to the People

The people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly for their current relationship and cross border cooperation.  It was a historic political settlement made in good faith by the UK and Irish governments with the people of Northern Ireland.  That good faith is about to be broken.

Boris Johnson is proposing to tear up the agreement, either with his proposed 'deal' or with a no-deal Brexit.  He would do so regardless of warnings from across the political divide and from business and community leaders,  as well as the police and security services.

The Good Friday Agreement is in jeopardy.

There is a great deal of talk about 'honouring the referendum'.   But which referendum?  Do the people of Northern Ireland not matter?

Northern Ireland voted 71% for the Good Friday agreement, and they also voted to remain in the EU.  Their will and their future are now being sacrificed to keep Boris Johnson in Number 10.  Boris is willing to take Britain blindly into a no-deal Brexit without heed of the consequences, and particularly for the most impoverished families.

We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Our parliament is supposed to represent all our nations.   The votes of one nation should not trump those of the others.  We need a new political settlement.

Our nations fought together for justice and freedom against Nazi Germany.  Our countries have a long history, and we have prospered together.  We wave our flags with pride, but also that pride isn't merely symbolic.  It is pride in our parliamentary system, our democratic values.

Given that the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly for the peace process and the Good Friday agreement,  Johnson's proposed deal should be put back to the people.

Article 50 should be extended to allow any deal or 'no-deal' to be put back to the people.  Northern Ireland must not be sacrificed for the political ambitions of a bunch of politicians.









Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As