Some fallout from the UK election (3): Unity

Timothy Garton Ash,  who is Professor of European Studies at Oxford, Isaiah Berlin Professorial Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, writing in the Guardian, lamenting that the ‘Remain’ forces have, finally, lost the Brexit battle, notes that “Under Johnson’s EU withdrawal deal, Northern Ireland will already be in a different economic and legal space from England, Scotland and Wales. Now Northern Ireland has, for the first time, elected more nationalist than unionist MPs. While it will probably remain constitutionally part of the UK for some time to come, since a formal break could return the province to bloodshed, in reality it will be ever more integrated with the rest of the island of Ireland.

Is he right? I’m seeking serious comment, here, please … will Northern Ireland “remain constitutionally part of the UK for some time to come?” Would a “break” with what I’m now calling Lesser Britain really “return the province to bloodshed?” Or is the “reality” that “it will be ever more integrated with the rest of the island of Ireland” drive the people of Ulster to seek some sort of economic union with the Irish Republic?

I understand that sectarian divisions are deep and bitter in Ireland but I also understand that a generation of peace and prosperity is likely to change how people respond to challenges.

Is there, I wonder, some imaginative way to provide two states of simultaneous “union?” Can the island of Ireland be an economic union even as the provinces remain politically separate: one in the EU the other in the UK? Is that really beyond the ability of men and women like Boris Johnson and Ursula von der Leyen and Leo Varadkar and Margrethe Vestager  …


… to put their big heads together in the best interests of the people?

I suspect that the better solution is that Ireland reunites, as a separate, sovereign state, and then joins either:

  • A new (quite loose, looser even than Canada) federation called, say, The British Isles; or
  • A new free trade area consisting of the existing European Free Trade Association plus the newly unified Ireland (which would mean leaving the EU) plus Scotland (assuming the indyref2 succeeds) and the United Kingdom of England and Wales; or, maybe, even
  • Some combination of both.

My personal sense is that the EFTA is a much better fit for the British Isles, in whatever form, than is the EU. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are all liberal democracies with strong commitments to free trade and social justice. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all much closer, socially and politically, to e.g. Norway and Iceland than they are to, say, Hungary or Greece. An expanded EFTA makes good sense … to me, anyway …


… it is compact, homogeneous and should work well for all of its partners. I can see nothing in the EFTA’s current rules which make adding the British Isles difficult.

I am persuaded that the EU is the problem. I think it has forgotten its original purpose ~ to bring peace and prosperity to a free, democratic Western Europe  ~ and it has become a Leviathan and is turning Europe into a vast, illiberal, protectionist union, which is, I believe, not what Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman and Paul-Henri Spaak had in mind, at all.

I believe that the EU needs to be torn apart and rebuilt in a way, that I have described as a layer cake, and that others have called a multi-speed Europe so that the very many (too many) diverse members can each choose a “layer” that suits their needs. The bottom layer, a simple, free trade area, should in my view, be broad enough and simple enough to allow the EFTA and the British to join. The upper layers will include things like the Schengen Agreement and multiple customs unions and common currency areas.

In the interim, I believe that it’s is time for Ireland to reunite, after 100 years: to bring the Erin green and Ulster orange together, again. That may require more than just good sense and goodwill to accomplish.

There is another alternative for the United Kingdom: the CANZUK proposal about which I have commented, several times since Dr Andrew Lilico floated the idea. It might make sense for Ireland, united or not, and for an independent (or not) Scotland, too. Free(er) trading groupings are better than going it alone. But, if I’m right, if the EU has gotten too big and has lost its focus then a smaller grouping, EFTA+ or CANZUK+, might be preferable.

Published by Ted Campbell

Old, retired Canadian soldier, Conservative ~ socially moderate, but a fiscal hawk. A husband, father and grandfather. Published material is posted under the "Fair Dealing" provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act for the purposes of research, private study and education.

2 thoughts on “Some fallout from the UK election (3): Unity

  1. There are other examples of union in the British Isles – The Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey and Sark come to mind.

    “They do not form part of either the United Kingdom or the British Overseas Territories.[1][2] Internationally, the dependencies are considered “territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible”, rather than sovereign states.[3] As a result, they are not member states of the Commonwealth of Nations.[4] However, they do have relationships with the Commonwealth, the European Union, and other international organisations, and are members of the British–Irish Council. They have their own teams in the Commonwealth Games. They are not part of the European Union (EU), although they are within the EU’s customs area. The Isle of Man (along with the United Kingdom) is within the EU’s VAT area.” (per Wikipedia – Crown Dependencies)

    Britain could hark back to the era of the Union of the Crowns (1603) or something like the Kalmar Union of mediaeval Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

    Not much new under the sun.

    And as to what will happen… a wise man constantly reminds me that a week is a long time in politics. Boris now has five years to sort Scotland and Ireland. And he has the advantage of the purse and an inclination towards the establishment of free ports. (David of Scots called them Royal Burghs in 1124).

Leave a Reply to Christopher J Pook Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: