• Home
• /
• Opinion

Brexit threatens peace, and the Irish are the victims

The British Empire systematised divide and rule. A century later, that policy threatens the United Kingdom itself. The hard Brexit pursued by Prime Minister Theresa May risks reopening the conflicts that wracked Northern Ireland for decades. The price of avoiding more bloodshed may require opting for a softer form of Brexit.
The partition of Ireland in 1920 followed purely sectarian lines. The historic region of Ulster comprises nine counties: Three with Catholic majorities merged into the independent Republic of Ireland and six with Protestant majorities became Northern Ireland, an integral part of the United Kingdom. Conflict known as the "Troubles" wracked the province between 1969 and 1998, pitting Nationalists seeking unification with the Republic against Unionists wedded to the UK, claiming more than 3,500 lives. The 500-kilometre border between the two Irelands became the most militarised zone in Europe west of the Iron Curtain. The Good Friday Agreement that ended the troubles on April 10, 1998, while formally abandoning the Republic's historic claim to Northern Ireland, also enshrined the principle that the people of both parts of Ireland have the right, without external interference, to solve their remaining disputes by mutual consent.
Brexit threatens to overturn two decades of peace. While the UK as a whole voted narrowly, by 51.9 per cent, to leave the European Union, the people of Northern Ireland voted by 56 per cent to Remain. Maintenance of peace across the province was a primary motivation behind that vote.
Attempts to find a solution during the two years of negotiation between the UK and the EU failed utterly. That is why the so-called "Irish backstop" was incorporated into the Withdrawal Agreement signed between London and Brussels on November 14, 2018. This is an open-ended arrangement with no time limit.
For the Irish government and the people of both parts of that divided island, the border is about relations between communities, about history, geography and culture, peace and reconciliation and, ultimately about symbols and identity. The border is an existential threat hovering over an entire people.
The basic problem for the EU is the sanctity of the single market. Given the rhetoric of Brexiteers, Brussels must assume that the United Kingdom's intention is to develop an economy and a market with very different regulatory and normative underpinnings from those of the EU. The UK aims to become a deregulated, flexible, low-standard labour market economy, potentially a tax haven for overseas investors and an unfair competitor to the EU. Under such circumstances, the only land border between the two places requires serious customs checks and inspections.
On January 29, The House of Commons passed the so-called "Brady amendment," supported by May's government. Members of parliament voted by a narrow majority to instruct May to return to Brussels to pin down those "alternative arrangements" and avoid installation of a hard border in Ireland. This has merely exacerbated the problem. Those voting in favour of this amendment, including its sponsor, Graham Brady, refused to specify what "alternative arrangements" they had in mind. The EU finds itself facing two almost equally awful alternatives: a no-deal Brexit or a porous border between the future UK and the EU. Under those circumstances, there is little doubt that, although terrible for everybody, the EU will choose the no-deal Brexit, if that is May's intention.
As seen from Europe, the UK's party politics is the sole driver of the Brexit process. May can stay on as prime minister only if she keeps the Conservative Party united. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, can hope to become prime minister only if he keeps the Labour Party united. Brexit profoundly divides both parties, with Brexit "policies" of both leaders exclusively geared to an attempt - probably vain - to avoid splitting the ranks. For many analysts, both parties are sacrificing, on the altar of fictitious party unity, the future of the country they claim to lead. The Irish people risk becoming massive collateral damage in this incomprehensible endeavor.
-Yale Global
Jolyon Howorth is a visiting professor of public policy with the Harvard Kennedy School