Skip to main content

A Disunited Kingdom

What is the United Kingdom?  What is it for?

We know historically how it came about, but what now binds these nations together apart from its legal relationship?  The answer to that is more interesting than it seems.

Those who work together, including nation-states,  usually do so because they have common objectives and a cultural alliance.  To be British in large part was once defined by its empire.  British colonialism was English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.  It gave the 'British people' a commonality.  We were not simply four nations occupying the British Isles.

The Monarchy was moulded in the image of this empire.  The monarchy was carefully crafted despite its German heritage.

But the Empire has long gone, and the United Kingdom looked to Europe with its membership of the European Union.  Now, most likely,  that visions will also be gone.

The more fragile our relationship with the world, the more fragile is the unity of the Kingdom.  The common purpose of the UK is as much embedded in common international endeavours as it is internal.  This is why Britain leaving the EU reveals major fault lines in the union.

In 1962, America's then-Secretary of State,  Dean Acheson,  caused a storm by remarking that

"Great Britain had lost an Empire but not yet found a role"

Since the second world war, the United Kingdom has punched above its weight in world affairs.

Now, Great Britain, by turning its back on its role in the European Union, risks once again being afloat at sea without a rudder.   By losing influence in Europe, it will lose its appeal internationally.  It will no longer be able to position itself as a crucial bridge between Europe and the USA, and Britain's place at the top table will increasingly come under scrutiny.

The dependency on the UK's external relationships with the EU is highlighted by the problem of the Northern Ireland border.  Northern Ireland will now have to consider whether it is better in the longer term to sever its ties with the rest of the United Kingdom and strengthen its bonds with the Republic of Ireland.

Scotland will also seek ways to reestablish ties with the European Union.  The SNP will argue that it is better to be in the EU than in a disunited Kingdom that has broken away from the EU.  It is a powerful argument.  Scotland sees its role in Europe in ways that England does not.  It was an argument that wasn't available to them in the referendum in 2014.

So powerful will be that argument that it is likely the other major parties in Scotland might also sign up to it.  It England from Westminster pulls the UK in directions that the Scots d not wish to go, then what holds them to the United Kingdom?

All the arguments used by the Leave campaign for 'taking back control' will be used in the bid for Scotland independence.

If Boris Johnson wins the general election and proceeds to take Britain out of the EU on terms regardless of the views of the people's of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, then he will be using English votes to do so.  He will in law be doing so as a United Kingdom government, but the impact that will have on our Kingdom will be catastrophic.

Perhaps, it doesn't matter.  Perhaps the time has come for Scotland to sever its ties and for Ireland to be united.   Who knows, it might heal a festering sore.  But people should be aware of the consequences.

If Boris Johnson wins the general election with a majority, then the UK is heading for uncharted waters.  The trade deals Britain requires will be long in the making, else they will be rushed and unlikely to maintain standards.

It is easy enough to get enthusiastic about it, but the sober reality is that the UK has benefited enormously from membership of the EU, both economically and politically.   The single market was as much driven by the Thatcher government as it was 'imposed' by wicked Brussel's bureaucrats.  She told business leaders in 1988 :

"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it."

This is what Boris will be walking us away from.

But it is more than economics.   It is also pivotal to the integrity of the United Kingdom.  To ignore the wishes of the nations that make up the UK is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

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