Archive for the 'Northern Ireland' Category


A Nation once again? – Part 3 lessons from abroad

Monday, October 22nd, 2018

In the final of three articles Alanbrooke looks at Irish affairs

There are numerous examples of states being put together in modern times.  The closest and probably most studied is Germany. It is almost at 30 years since the wall came down so there is quite a period to look at. The situation is also not that dissimilar to Ireland  – a larger more prosperous neighbour takes over its sizeable but smaller struggling neighbour.  How has Germany fared?

Unity is claimed  to have cost Germany something in the region of € 2 trillion. Much of that was spent on upgrading eastern infrastructure but a not insignificant amount was needed to pay for unemployment subsidies and social welfare as the economy adjusted. It’s hard not to see Northern Ireland needing a comparable level of support. 

Overall unity has been a success for Germany, though the benefits have flowed largely to the west rather than the east. The east despite heavy investment has seen its towns empty, its young people move west and a consequent drop in population. While unity has worked for Germany arguably this is less so for the east.

This divergence is showing up in the German political arena. The east now votes very differently to the west and backs more extreme parties in the AfD and Die Linke who currently account for nearly 50% of votes in the former DDR.

In an Irish context Ulster already starts from voting for extremes and if Germany is a pattern the extremes are more likely to consolidate their support.  Ireland as a whole would need to learn to live with views, and eventually governments , people in South Dublin would find abhorrent. 

Indeed one of the constants for countries stitched  together is they carry their scars. The USA is still digesting the legacy of the confederacy, Italy its North and South and the Irish Republic itself lives with politics from 1921.

The German model shows us  unity is expensive, you have to live with scars which will change the politics of country and while it can be successful it may not be successful for everyone. Behind the early optimism came a period when reality sunk in. 

The problems were more entrenched than people thought,  all those new voters had been sold a dream, and 50 years of living apart meant big gaps in a shared history. Germans overall think unity has been a good thing, but they are not without reservations on how it has played out.

Ultimately for  the RoI unity will be a heart  versus mind  matter.  Unfortunately for now while the heart is pulling the strings the mind appears to be sitting this round out. Varadkar and Coveney have been disasters for Irish relations with the British communities.

The hard work of Mary MacAleese and Enda Kenny to normalise relations with the UK has been put in to reverse gear. I struggle to see how winding up unionists you hope will be a sixth of your electorate makes much sense. Equally there has been little preparation of the Southern electorate for what they are being asked to take on economically, culturally or politically and the impact that will have on their daily life. 

It’s too early to say if Unity would work for Ireland, but  one thing is certain without adequate preparation it is a major risk for an otherwise comfortable, prosperous state. If the optimists are right they can learn from Germany and make it a success – but even Germany accepts it still has major problems. 

If the optimists are wrong the  model won’t be Germany but Italy where 150 years after the euphoria  of unification the prosperous regions wonder why the ever took on their curious countrymen in the Mezzogiorno with its alien customs, violence and shifty politicians.  Belfast, twinned with Leipzig  or Palermo ?


Alanbrooke is a longstanding poster on PB as well as a Northern Irishman.


A Nation once again?  Part 2 – Culture and politics

Sunday, October 21st, 2018

In the second of three articles Alanbrooke looks at Irish affairs

In the previous article I looked at economics which is quite a hurdle. This article looks at the longer term issue of the impact of putting two sets of people  together. In Ulster the past always lies ahead of us,  so somewhere along the line somebody needs to be squaring circles. The North, trapped in its history and with a victim mentality, somehow needs to fit in to a fast modernising, liberal state which increasingly wants to leave the past behind.

A culture shock is unavoidable – in both directions

The North and South of Ireland are different in approach . Ulster culture is more like lowland scots irrespective of which religion. Ulster people are brusque, to the point and obstinate (with apologies to readers in Ayrshire). 

A northerner can make asking for a cup of tea sound like a threat without realising it. Unsurprisingly the Nordies often grate with their neighbours much like say the Scots with the English and that’s before we get to the historical baggage.

For unionists it’s the ongoing suspicion of nationalist intent. In the Irish Republic the protestant population has crashed by 60% and dwindled from 10% of the population at independence to 4 % now. A civil war and De Valera’s ardently catholic and Gaelic policies didn’t help improve the unionist view. The RoI’s record on its minority doesn’t look great from up North and as they say just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

For nationalists there lurks a recurrent niggle that the Republic abandoned them, that the South did live up to the ideals of 1916. Likewise there is a recognition that some aspects of the UK are superior to RoI, the NHS being top of  the list and that would be unlikely to survive in its current format.

For both communities there lurks the prospect of perceived second class citizenship. Once the dust has died down how does the North come to terms with no longer running (or not) its own affairs? How will  Belfast fare against the all-pervading presence of Dublin a city which has a bigger impact on its hinterland than London does to the UK or Paris to France? And then of course there are the day to day issues of parades, flags, the annually scheduled riots the whole headbanging  nonsense.

The Republic is not going to be too worried about Northern sensitivities, they’re too busy making money. There is already a degree of healthy scepticism about the North and that may just get bigger. Southerners look at the North and can’t understand why they don’t want to get richer. 

If you want some fun type “protestant work ethic” in to an Irish blog, you’ll think you’re in a Surrey golf club. The British government’s overindulgence of NI petulance will disappear and I don’t think any community in the North is ready for this, nor the Irish for the political pushback.

Politics will change  drastically

The politics of a New Ireland would be fundamentally different from the old.  For a start off the electorate has just grown by 40% and they are an awkward lot. The Irish STV system encourages communities to vote as blocks for maximum representation. So it’s fairly likely the unionists will all end up voting for a single party which would have about 15% of the seats.

The injection of Northern votes will also propel  Sinn Fein past Fianna Fail, at which point the old civil war party divisions look even more irrelevant. What is the point to two conservative pro-business parties when the opposition are now left wing populists?

How the electoral arithmetic will work out is hard to say, but it’s likely that at some point in the future either Sinn Fein could be the government or the successors to the DUP could hold the balance of power. At this point the North will take its pound of flesh.

Politically the Republic will be in for a shock to the system.  How this will play out is anyone’s guess.  In an ideal world all would get on together and start making themselves better off. But they should be doing that today and they’re not.  Suffice to note the British population in Ulster who are about 2% of the UK have been a perennial thorn in the side to the British government.

The Republic will be taking on a 40% thorn and this will change the nature of the state materially. Unity will put together two peoples who have big holes in their common history and in some cases have diametrically opposed views. The Republic inevitably will become a bit more like the North with all its consequences.

I often say the NI conflict is the Scots versus the Irish but they’ve both agreed to blame the English. Maybe in the distant future a British PM and a Taoiseach will be sitting in a bar somewhere consoling each other on how hard it is to handle their Scots.


Alanbrooke is a longstanding poster on PB as well as a Northern Irishman.


A Nation once again ? – Part 1  The economics

Sunday, October 21st, 2018

In the first of three articles Alanbrooke looks at Irish affairs

The fallout from the Brexit vote has led to  more interest in the future of Northern Ireland than is usual. In particular the issue of a one state Ireland has bubbled back to the top of the political discussion with, as ever, strong views on either side

The modern Irish state is not the Ireland of old; it is a successful, self-confident country which has worked its way to overtake its European peers in the prosperity league – its larger neighbour included.  Likewise within Northern Ireland demographic shifts should set the scene for a unity vote, all seems lined up to removing the border. This article doesn’t seek to debate the pros and cons but rather to look at what are the practical issues facing a United Ireland. 

Northern Ireland is an economic basket case.

This is hardly a shock.  It has been the case since local industry was destroyed in the 1970s campaign of violence and investors scared off.  The net result has been the UK government has stepped in to fill the economic void both by transferring jobs to Ulster and outright subsidy. This support amounts to almost 30% of NI income. That’s huge. To put this in context the UK has squealed at projections that Brexit will cost 6% of GDP over 15 years.  Ireland faces an actual 5 times that and  overnight , unless there is an agreement on how to pick up the tab. 

Suggestions on how this gap should be dealt have ranged from – the UK should continue to  pay all the subsidies, The EU should pay the subsidies, Ireland will grow its way out of it. While these are all brave suggestions, personally I can’t see them working. Likewise I fail to see NI citizens accepting a one third drop in their income that willingly. Of all the things in the in tray this is the biggest.

The Republic’s economy is not strong enough

The Celtic Tiger has returned with growth rates of over 8% being clocked this year.  The Irish formula is based on attracting overseas investment in pharmaceuticals, IT, financial services and tax sheltering; these in turn drive the construction sector.

The headlines hide an underlying weakness.  Most of the wealth driving activities are dependent on foreign – usually US – corporations.  US corporations make up 14 of Ireland’s top 20 companies by turnover,  pay 80% of business taxes and create most of the country’s value added. These are not Irish businesses.  By itself hosting footloose multinationals can be a challenge but add in a grumpy “bring our jobs home” POTUS who is dishing out corporate tax breaks and the challenge goes up a notch. Move any of the core sectors from Ireland and the country faces a fiscal shock. As the song goes, nothing good going to ever last forever.

For all the progress the Republic’s economy is just not big enough or wide enough to absorb the shock of taking on Northern Ireland at one go. The UK with 64 million people grumbles about the £10bn cost of 1.9 million people across the Irish Sea. The Republic with 4.7 million people could well be staring at a wealth endangering black hole requiring something like a 11% hit to its voters wealth.  And don’t forget  after 50 years of handouts no-one in the North does gratitude, we do “rights”.

Short term the numbers are a big headache. The Republic hasn’t got the ability to comfortably take on the North without some major assistance.  The EU might help but budget rules would have to be relaxed to an eyebrow raising degree. The US under Trump I can’t see doing much he’ll want his taxes back from Ireland not the other way around. Voters either side of the border  won’t want to pay tax rises. The UK no doubt would pay its legacy bills but why should it pay  more it will be on for a dividend? So if you see a bus with £10 billion for the NHS painted on the sides its driver is John McDonnell.


Alanbrooke is a longstanding poster on PB as well as a Northern Irishman.


The DUP are not as supportive of Brexit or as united as it might appear

Wednesday, October 17th, 2018

There’s a widespread assumption that the party that supports TMay’s minority government, the DUP with its 10 MPs, is rock solid in its view on Brexit and there’s no wiggle room.

That perception is certainly a good bargaining chip for its relations with London but is this view correct? Could it be less united and less supportive of Brexit as might appear.

Last night the person I go to on Northern Ireland politics who has proved to be solidly reliable in the past raised a lot of doubts in my mind enough for me to go on record here repeating them.

The DUP’s overwhelming objective is to maintain the union amd there’s a growing realisation that Brexit itself presents massive challenges and that the party’s support for Leave in the 2016 referendum might have been the wrong call. In fact it is being said in some quarters that not all their Westminster MPs voted for Leave.

Anything that threatens the union with the rest of the UK is a huge worry and, as we’ve seen, Brexit is problematical.

The general approach of the DUP is to use its current critical role in providing TMay with the Commons numbers she needs to maximise the benefit to the Province. This is all about leverage and the party will look for every opportunity to use it.

Ultimately keeping the Union together is a bigger priority to the DUP than the UK leaving the EU.

Mike Smithson


Victorious sponge. When competing freedoms clashed in a bakery

Wednesday, October 10th, 2018

George Bernard Shaw is one of those writers, like Spenser, Milton and Dr Johnson, who is now much less read than known.  Nowadays all that most people know of him is My Fair Lady (ironically, he refused permission in his lifetime to allow Pygmalion to be adapted into a musical) and the odd quotation.  One of those quotations came to mind this morning: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” 

Most people, if someone asked them to make something with a message that they disapproved of on moral grounds, would inwardly sigh and do it if it was within the bounds of normal public debate.  Most people, if they asked for something to be made with a message and met with a refusal on the ground that they were opposed to that message, would inwardly sigh and simply go elsewhere.

This morning we had the Supreme Court decision in Lee v Asher’s Baking Company, a case that came about only because of one unreasonable company and one unreasonable man.  Mr Lee wanted a cake iced with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and the message “Support Gay Marriage”.  The Baptist owners of the bakery after anxious consideration decided that they could not produce such an immoral consumable good.  Battle lines were drawn and a legal showdown has ensued.

There is to be no doubting the sincerity on either side.  Mr Lee was a stalwart of an organisation called QueerSpace.  Asher’s is named after a Biblical reference (“Bread from Asher shall be rich, and he shall provide royal dainties” – Genesis 49:20).  We see a very 21st century Northern Irish collision of values.

Neither side was prepared to back down, so in what must be a legal first on this side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court has been asked to set legal boundaries for freedom of conscience in relation to marzipan, fondant and cochineal.  Like Asher’s cakes, the Supreme Court have risen to the challenge, opining on the use of ganache with panache.

The jokes write themselves but there is an important point (which is why the Supreme Court took the case – it only takes cases of national significance).  Both religious freedom and sexuality are protected characteristics.  What happens when they collide?

In the end, the Supreme Court sidestepped the problem.  It found (questionably, given the findings of the court of first instance, which had found that the bakery had assumed that Mr Lee was gay) that the bakery had not treated him differently because he was gay.  So the question was whether this was discrimination by association.

It firmly concluded that it was not.  Its rationale is most clearly expressed in the postscript, where the Supreme Court discussed its US namesake’s finding in a case where a bakery had refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay couple:

“The important message from the Masterpiece Bakery case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics. One can debate which side of the line particular factual scenarios fall. But in our case there can be no doubt. The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.”

So the matter is now acte éclair.  Freedom of speech does not entitle one to demand a platform, even if that platform is made of cream and sugar rather than printing ink.  And that, for the devout Baptists of Northern Ireland, must be the icing on the cake.

Alastair Meeks


Why a united Ireland post Brexit is a real possibility

Monday, September 10th, 2018

Tory indifference towards the Union and opposition to Brexit in Northern Ireland makes a united Ireland a real possibility writes Keiran Pedley

I cannot have been the only person that was astonished at Northern Ireland secretary Karen Bradley’s recent admission that she knew nothing of the place before taking office. I am probably being naïve, but you would have thought that someone appointed to such an important role would at least possess a passing knowledge of its history and the political skill required for such a position. Some have commended Bradley’s honesty. Yet her appointment reflects an arrogance about Ireland that seems to permeate the Conservative Party in 2018. Aptly displayed by Boris Johnson’s constant bemoaning of the importance of the Irish border question in Brexit negotiations.

Perhaps it is not arrogance but indifference. Indeed, we see such indifference among the British public in general. On the question of Northern Ireland’s constitutional future, polling by Lord Ashcroft in June showed that voters accept the future of Northern Ireland is for the people there to decide and they do not mind which path they choose. This is hardly controversial. Perhaps more striking, however, is that when forced to choose themselves, 63% of Brits felt Brexit was more important than keeping the union together – a figure rising to 73% among Conservative voters. It would appear that when considering Britain’s post Brexit future, Northern Ireland barely features in the minds of many (English) voters.

Brexit and the Irish unity question

Such indifference comes at a sensitive time. Polling published by Deltapoll last week suggests that Brexit has the potential to shift views in Northern Ireland on the question of Irish unity. When presented with two scenarios, one where Britain remains in the EU and one where Britain leaves, public opinion in Northern Ireland shifts sharply in favour of a united Ireland once Britain leaves the EU. Those traditionally neutral on the constitutional question, primarily non-voters and Alliance voters, move from supporting the Union to supporting Irish reunification. Meanwhile, support for a united Ireland in the nationalist community significantly hardens post Brexit and it even grows among some unionists too.

Table 1: Attitudes to Irish unity in Northern Ireland

Source: Deltapoll. Deltapoll interviewed an online sample of 1,199 adults aged 18+ between 24-28th August 2018. Full tables here. Data in parenthesis unweighted n sizes. Data weighted to represent population of Northern Ireland by age, gender, social class, region and recalled 2017 / 2016 vote. Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.

As we digest these numbers, a word of caution. For reasons outlined in this week’s Polling Matters podcast, care is needed interpreting these figures. Sampling a representative population in Northern Ireland is difficult. This poll significantly weights raw data that skews male and Remain and undersamples younger people and non-voters (as online polls often do). The sample surveyed is likely to be very politically engaged, which has created problems for polling in the past and raises questions about the scale of the Brexit related shift in the headline figures.

More importantly, it is fair to say that Brexit would not be the only consideration for voters in the event of a real border poll. The future of the peace process and what a united Ireland would look like in practice would play a significant role too (as would other factors). So although this poll clearly shows that Brexit shifts opinion on a united Ireland in Northern Ireland, the scale of that shift and how a border poll plays out in practice is unclear.

Nevertheless, such unpredictability offers little comfort to unionists. The data cited above is not in isolation. Research by Lucid Talk for the BBC earlier this year showed a similar trend, with more than one in four in Northern Ireland claiming that they would at least consider abandoning support for the Union in favour of a united Ireland post Brexit. 

Therefore, whilst we cannot say for certain that Brexit will lead to a united Ireland, we can at the very least say that Brexit has the potential to shift opinion on the subject in a way that is virtually unimaginable under any other circumstances. This is before we introduce the potential of a ‘hard border’ with the Republic, which increases support for a united Ireland further still in Deltapoll’s data to some 56%.

Time to take a united Ireland seriously

This all makes you wonder how seriously unionism in Northern Ireland takes its current situation and the prospect of a united Ireland. The answer to that question ought to be ‘very’ and in fairness most probably is. In many respects, the DUP’s support for Brexit seems odd considering the Conservative Party’s apparent luke-warm commitment to Northern Ireland, alongside the fact that Northern Ireland voted Remain and appears somewhat warm to the idea of a united Ireland in the EU post Brexit. Of course, the DUP does not have to take its current situation lying down. One wonders, as Brexit negotiations reach a crucial phase this autumn, if the DUP is about to start flexing its political muscles as it continues to prop up May’s increasingly fragile government. 

In any case, it is time to take the prospect of a border poll and a united Ireland seriously. It may not happen overnight, but it is a realistic prospect in the medium term in a world where the Tories increasingly prioritise Brexit over the Union and Jeremy Corbyn edges closer to Number 10. Serious thought must now be given to what this all looks like in practice in the context of a fragile peace process and no functioning Assembly in Stormont. Talk of Labour splits and a Johnson challenge to May have made Northern Ireland something of an afterthought in Westminster circles this summer. One way or another I suspect all that is about to change. The Tory direction of travel on Brexit appears to be moving away from the most accommodating for Northern Ireland’s position in the UK – and that may spell trouble ahead.

Keiran Pedley

Keiran Pedley presents the weekly PB / Polling Matters podcast (link here) and tweets about polling and politics at @keiranpedley. You can listen to the most recent episode below.


The Brexit Irish issue: Moggsy’s plan slammed by Ex-British Army officer who served there

Tuesday, August 28th, 2018

The CON MP ” fundamentally misunderstands” Ireland’s history

There are several interesting elements of The Moggster’s latest contribution to the Brexit debate. First, he has shown that he understands that the land border in Northern Ireland is a critical issue in the Brexit negotiations. Secondly, he has shown, by harking back to the Troubles with such breezy insouciance, that he fundamentally misunderstands the history of the island of Ireland. And thirdly, in telling us that no checks on the border would leave the UK “in as bad a situation as we are already in”, he has shown that he believes that the existing system of travel between the UK and Ireland is awful, which is an extraordinary comment for a British politician to make.

At present, provisions of the Common Travel Area (CTA) allow an EU citizen to fly to Dublin, cross the land border into Northern Ireland and from there cross to the UK mainland with only a small chance of any passport checks. And this worries Jacob Rees-Mogg who calls it “a great loophole in the way people can get into the UK”.

The CTA, dating back nearly a century, and only formally enshrined in 2011, facilitates freedom of movement for British and Irish citizens between the UK, Ireland, and the Crown Dependences (Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man). While not legally binding, its various iterations have established a commitment to a joint approach on visa issues including towards third countries. Having withstood various challenges to its provisions, the CTA was and, following the more recent Anglo-Irish and Belfast Agreements, remains now an integral component of the peace process. Amongst other provisions, it removes the need for the type of border infrastructure in Northern Ireland, the absence of which, everyone with the exception it seems of Rees-Mogg, appreciates, is such an important element of modern life in Ireland.

So does the CTA mean there are no border controls between Ireland and the UK? Yes and no. If you travel to Ireland by air or sea as a UK citizen, you will be asked to produce identity documents when you get there. This need not be a passport, given CTA-mandated freedom of movement, but a document confirming eligibility to gain entry to the country. A passport, for example (there is in fact a choice of documents). The UK, meanwhile, carries out random checks on those arriving from Ireland in much the same way as they do for travellers coming off the Eurostar at St. Pancras.

The land border crossing, however, is a different matter. There are currently no controls on any of the many land border crossing points between the two countries Ireland and the UK. Rees-Mogg, in his speech, advocated the reintroduction of some kind of system in order, as he put it, to “keep an eye” on those using the land border. Quite what he believes this measure will be, short of a hard border yet sufficient to “have people inspected” goodness only knows. What the reintroduction of any kind of border infrastructure would have has been well-rehearsed on PB, not to say the subject of the odd thread header.

But more telling than his evident ignorance of or disregard for recent Irish history, is what his speech tells us about how he views British sovereignty. Never mind Brexit and trade deals, Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to think that the CTA, the system agreed between the UK and Ireland Governments nearly a hundred years ago which has been an integral part of the peace process since its inception, was and is a sovereignty concession too far.

A guest slot by Topping




Topping, who served with the British Army in Northern Ireland during the troubles, on Ulster and Brexit

Monday, August 6th, 2018

Kenneth Allen / Bloody Sunday mural, Bogside

Why the border issue is so important to both sides

Why, when we’re busy trying to Brexit, is everyone hung up on Northern Ireland? Why should we let this small part of the UK, with a population just larger than Newcastle’s, dictate seemingly our entire Brexit settlement? Terrorism, people say. But we don’t give in to terrorists, so why does Northern Ireland and its terrorists get such special treatment?

For most people in the UK, terrorism means the odd bomb scare, suspicious package, or a thankfully rare terrorist incident. Whereas it once defined the island of Ireland.

Let’s imagine the scene: a long walk in the countryside on a beautiful summer’s day. You gaze out over the rolling hills and, amongst the trees swaying gently in the wind and the gambolling lambs, you see an army patrol dressed in camouflage kit, helmets and face paint, carrying machine guns. Is one of them pointing their gun at you? Shortly, a helicopter emerges from the distance, drops like a stone to land, and picks up the soldiers. Then, with its door gunner on alert, it rises steeply backwards, upwards and away. You continue your walk.

Or imagine you’re off to Tesco and pass fully armed soldiers either patrolling on foot, or in armoured vehicles with machine guns sticking out of the top. Perhaps they’ll stop and ask you who you are, where you’re going – questions you’d have to answer. Or they might take an hour to search your car. And all this because you know there is a threat of violence from the local communities.

How could such scenes exist in the United Kingdom? Well they did, in Northern Ireland, and that was the Troubles. Northern Ireland was at war, both with itself, and with the British Forces sent initially to protect the Catholic community in 1969. That military operation lasted 37 years and the internal conflict which brought it into being is what people fear when they talk about a return to the bad old days: complete disruption of the civic society that you and I take for granted.

There has been progress since, of course. The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement assured Unionists that until a majority wanted otherwise, NI would remain part of the UK, while the Nationalists for their part saw a raft of cross-border bodies established. And times have changed in other ways also. Gerry Adams is in parliament now and surely no more than a handful of hot-heads want a return to the armed struggle? Isn’t it all – wasn’t it always – gangsters and criminals?

While not as intense (3,500 people died during the Troubles), there has been continuous terrorist-related activity since the GFA was signed, including murders, shootings and weapons finds.

    To think that no dissident Republican groups are or would be willing to fight for a united Ireland today is wishful thinking; to dismiss them as gangsters or criminals is to misunderstand the history of Irish Republicanism.

Army patrols in NI would routinely visit the 208 Border Crossing Points (BCPs, more than the EU has with all points East) of which 20 were official; the remainder, located in streams, fields, forests or woods, were often used to smuggle various substances – diesel, livestock (“dizzy cows” were taken back and forth over the border to collect agricultural subsidies), or, of course, weaponry and terrorists. One of the consequences of the GFA, and the reduction in violence, is that there are no more “official” BCPs; you can cross the border anywhere you want.

And it is this last issue that represents the toughest Brexit nut to crack. All mooted options, whether Chequers, any of the backstop agreements (Joint Report or Withdrawal Agreement), or any other solution, must be seen through the prism of how it affects the border.

Again, why? There are customs posts throughout the world without accompanying violence.

A hard border between the RoI and NI would inflame the Nationalists as it would create a more tangible separation between Eire and the UK, representing a setback in their quest for a united Ireland. It would also violate the spirit of the GFA, and the many pronouncements made by Theresa May. A border in the Irish Sea, meanwhile, would inflame the Unionists as it would create a de facto separate state of the island of Ireland. It has also, of course, been outlawed by the UK Parliament.

And ludicrous as it sounds, the fact that all parties have stated they don’t want one, has not prevented the border being used as a negotiating tool in the Brexit negotiations.

During the Troubles, a hard border provided a call to arms for Republican paramilitary groups. In the absence of some kind of as yet non-existent technological solution, people fear that any kind of border infrastructure created now would have the same effect. Which would in turn bring reprisals from Unionist paramilitary groups. And pretty soon you are back to the Troubles. And that is why it all matters so much.

Topping is a regular poster on PB