Thursday, November 22, 2007
Unloved unionists fear new border with Great Britain…
NOTHING could demonstrate to unionists how little London loves them than this little exchange in the Lords last night involving David Trimble and Lord West (who seemed unaware - despite having served here - that Northern Ireland is part of the UK). There seems to be considerable unionist unease about the eborders scheme, which, from a unionist perspective, will result in an electronic security ring being thrown around Great Britain, while NI is left to take its chances with the Republic. This, the argument goes, will result in people from Northern Ireland being treated like foreigners when travelling to any other part of the United Kingdom. The problem for Westminster is Ireland’s porous border, about which, apparently, nothing can be done - GB fears that illegals enter the Irish Republic easily, cross the border into Northern Ireland without hindrance, which they then use as a jumping point into Great Britain. I’ve copied the exchange below the fold.
Northern Ireland: Electronic Border
3.23 pm
Lord Trimble asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the impact of the electronic border on the British Isles common travel area.
21 Nov 2007 : Column 832
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, we continue to work closely with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on operational policy and legislative issues, including the implementation of the e-borders programme, which is a key part of the Government’s plans for securing our borders.
My Lords, I wonder if the Irish Government have pointed out in their discussions with Her Majesty’s Government that British citizens make up the largest group of foreign nationals in the Irish Republic and that they, together with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Irish passport holders domiciled in Great Britain, have been accustomed to travelling back and forth between the two states without any formalities ever since the creation of a separatist Irish state. With the e-borders, there will of course be considerable inconvenience to them. Would it not be much better to take the existing informal common travel area and put it on a formal basis analogous to the Schengen agreement that applies elsewhere in Europe? This would solve the problems that arise in practice and relieve the difficulties experienced by the Home Office, which seems to be intellectually challenged by the idea of a land frontier.
My Lords, as was said before, there is a lot of dialogue between ourselves, the Border and Immigration Agency, the UK police, the Garda National Immigration Bureau and the Northern Ireland Executive on these various issues. We carry out a lot of joint operations, and we all believe that the way we are moving forward with two chunks of work—one relates to the Police and Justice Act 2006 and the other to e-borders—are good ways of covering the problems. We know both anecdotally and from taking samples that there are people who either come through the Republic of Ireland, move into Northern Ireland and then come across to the United Kingdom or vice versa. The sample evidence we have suggests that it is a considerable problem, and this way forward will resolve those issues.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the same quality of protection against external terrorism will be afforded to citizens of the United Kingdom residing in Northern Ireland as to our fellow citizens who reside in the mainland?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the quick answer is yes. We are making sure that is exactly what happens.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I return to basic Northern Ireland politics after a very statesmanlike Question from my noble friend Lord Trimble. Do Her Majesty’s Government really understand Ireland and Northern Ireland? I think not. They are expelling the people of Northern Ireland—I am one of them; I live there— geographically from the United Kingdom. They are putting an electronic boundary around England, Scotland and Wales, excluding Northern Ireland and packaging it in with the Republic of
21 Nov 2007 : Column 833
Ireland. Do Her Majesty’s Government really think that that will help political friendship and political progress between these islands given their delicate state? I would love to answer the question. I hope the Minister’s answer is the same as mine.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not agree. The Government do understand Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the status of the people there. There is no doubt whatever that, in the interests of the Republic of Ireland, the people in Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom in general, it makes sense to move down this route. On the e-borders area, for example, we have carried out a trial run called Project Semaphore, and in that very small pilot project 1,300 arrests were made for crimes including murder, rape, assault and so on. On a counterterrorist basis, it is better for the safety of all our people. I cannot accept what has just been said about our lack of understanding. There is absolutely no intention, no desire and no wish; it would be contrary to everything we believe in.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister reply specifically to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble? Would it not be more optimal to maintain the common travel area rather than hive off Great Britain from our neighbours in both Northern Ireland and the Republic? This is a complex issue. Given the mix of population between the islands, it is absurd to go down the route that the Government appear to be going down.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, we are maintaining the common travel area, which is recognised by the EU. We are applying a sensible way forward to identify the loophole that existed of people moving in through the Republic of Ireland, into Northern Ireland and then travelling across to the United Kingdom. We know, as I said, from anecdotal and sample evidence that that is a considerable number of people. Similarly, the Crown dependency routes are being maintained. So the common travel area is staying as it is.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do the Government not recognise the enormous symbolism of what they are doing with the map? What will be the security losses of including the province of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom instead of leaving it out?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there has been mention already of the common land border in Ireland. Those of us who have patrolled and walked along it know how permeable it is. That is part of the issue in terms of the ability of people arriving in the Republic of Ireland to get into Northern Ireland. Nothing that is being done makes any declaration about the status of Northern Ireland. It is for the safety of all the people of these islands that we are doing these things. There is a great deal of discussion going on. I think it is a sensible way forward.
21 Nov 2007 : Column 834
Lord Trimble: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that, when he spoke a moment ago of travelling from Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom, he demonstrated clearly his lack of understanding of the basic concept?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, it was a slip. I certainly understand it. As I said, I have served in Northern Ireland. It was rather like the slip that people make when they forget that the United Kingdom is in Europe. It is a slip that is made sometimes.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, will the Minister let me have details of how the projected security measures across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will be similar or different to the projected border controls within and without the European Community?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord in writing on those details.
Belfast Gonzo @ 11:44 AM
Gosh, you’ve certainly got a lot of fails to hand out then. 182,000 at the veyr least: http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GFRC_enGB207GB208&q;="British isles"&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 04:05 PMdoes the e-border thing mean that the westminster government is happy to allow terrorists have full access to NI once they are kept out of England? Oh wait!
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 04:10 PMGeography Teacher
Correct names? Let’s look up the index of my old school atlas… European Western Isles… nope… North Atlantic Archipeligo… nope… British Isles… there we go.
And guess what? Both the UK and the Irish Republic are on the page.
Go figure.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 04:21 PMBefore people knock themselves out about this eborder thing, there are some below the waterline considerations to think about.
- If there are to be common protocols established across the islands, which jurisdiction is going to set the standard?
- Would a shared list of ‘undesireables’ means, in effect, that the Republic’s government will be obliged to implement foreign affairs directives set by the British Home Office?
- That big building in Holywood is as clear a declaration that NI is likely to perform a critical role in the conduct of UK wide anti terrorist campaigns. It is unlikely to want to leave that or any of its UK citizens vulnerable or unprotected, surely?
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 05:21 PMI daresay this is a classically “British” political issue - stuff just “evolves” a certain way.
Now it needs sorted. I say join Schengen.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 05:35 PMJoeCanuck
“Is there any justification for believing that illegals, with evil intent or otherwise, find it easier to enter the mainland UK via the Republic rather than doing so directly through Birmingham or wherever?”
I don’t know about illegals with evil intent.
However, it is extremely common for people from South Africa, Australia or New Zealand whose UK working holiday visas have run out to leave the UK, travel to RoI, go into NI and then re-enter the UK.
This is technically illegal but they seem to get away with it.
I guess if they can, people with evil intent could also.
That’s why I personally think that this is a good idea. As far as I’m concerned, this is not a party political decision. This is the most effective method of tightening this method of illegal entry.
Surely, anything that affords more protection to citizens can only be a good thing.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 05:37 PMMick, that “big building in Holywood” is a good argument for reinstating border controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
It looks like Bertie will seek to compromise Irish sovereignty further on this issue and de facto surrender control of Irish borders to the British government, implementing a “British Isles” approach. And if he does, FF can go f**k itself at the next election as far as I am concerned. And I know I’m not the only one objection to Bertie’s weakness here. Fianna Fáil - The Colonialist Party
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 05:39 PMMore on the rest of that conversation - between the UK and the Republic of Ireland here
As somebody in the debate in the Lords said [and I don’t think it was Lord West]
My Lords, I wonder if the Irish Government have pointed out in their discussions with Her Majesty’s Government that British citizens make up the largest group of foreign nationals in the Irish Republic and that they, together with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Irish passport holders domiciled in Great Britain, have been accustomed to travelling back and forth between the two states without any formalities ever since the creation of a separatist Irish state. With the e-borders, there will of course be considerable inconvenience to them. Would it not be much better to take the existing informal common travel area and put it on a formal basis analogous to the Schengen agreement that applies elsewhere in Europe? This would solve the problems that arise in practice and relieve the difficulties experienced by the Home Office, which seems to be intellectually challenged by the idea of a land frontier.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 05:45 PMI do not entirely agree with outsider on this issue. I cannot claim to be, nor to have a barometer for unionists opinions. However, the majority of unionists I know do wish to remain part of the UK. I suspect only a minority wish to be independent. I can just remember as a teenager discussions about declaring UDI (kind of apt to mention this with Ian Smith’s death this week) years ago but very few recently. Maybe I move in the wrong circles but I suspect that the unionist population is pro union and as a second choice more might well choose independence rather than a united Ireland. The reality is, however, that independence would very possibly lead to violence and in that scenario I would be very dubious about its benefits and its popularity.
I also think you over estimate the dislike unionists are held in in GB. I think the British government is genuninely neutral and is quite happy for NI to remain in the UK.
In terms of the ordinary population; most people in GB of course have more pressing concerns on their minds (the normal isues of day to day life) than the position of NI in the union. During the year I spent in the South of England people seemed to be fully aware that NI was part of the union and I certainly never received any suggestion that people wanted rid of us. I travel a lot to GB with work and am often surprised by both the level of understanding which English / Welsh / Scottish people have of Northern Ireland, the acceptance and indeed popularity of the unionist position.
I agree that we should not stop selling the message and I agree that at times our politicians have not done a particularly good job of making themselves attractive to GB but I think those who see the GB population as wishing to get rid of us are being too negative / positive dependeing on their own wishes.
Incidentally one of the few quite passionate supporters of a united Ireland I met was many years ago. This lady was a student and a strong SNP supporter. She told me Ireland should be united because it was one landmass. I asked here where, in that case, the sea was between England and Scotland. She fell a bit quiet at that point.
On the specifics of this issue of course Lord West made a mistake. Yes it is a bit grating but I do not think we should elevate this into some sort of disaster. As someone has suggested on a previous thread: Is the DUP flying a kite so it can then pronounce a great victory when we do not need passports to travel to GB?
Pete Baker and others’ suggestion about formalising and essentially continuing the current arrangements seems the most sensible approach to what I suspect will become a non story. Still I guess the DUP could make it a manifesto committment to ensure we do not need passports to go to GB which would guarentee such a thing would not happen would not it?
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 06:04 PMMy own experience of this is that it is far easier to come in through Dublin than London. For years, I came to Ireland through Dublin and showed my American passport, then toodled off to the North.
On the one occasion I got a (cheap) flight from London, I was detained by Immigration at Heathrow. They were deadly serious about deporting me to the US, despite the fact I had a business and a home here. I was given 6 weeks to regularise my situation, and I obtained an Irish passport. They came to my house to check, and all!!
From my personal experience, I can confirm this idea of the porosity of the Irish border, and the fact it is very different in GB
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 06:24 PMTurgon
I would agree with what you say about the ordinary people of Geat Britain; just because we don’t express our undying love and loyalty on a daily basis doesn’t mean we want rid of you. I mean, just listen to the protests whenever the slightest change to the status of Gibraltar is proposed. Your place in the union is secure for as long as you want it…
...or for as long as the union exists. Not that there is any prospect of the UK dissolving in the forseeable future, but what if it did? What do you think the position of most unionists would be then? Would independence, maybe with some sort of association with former UK countries and the Republic of Ireland, be preferable to incorporation into the RoI?
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 06:40 PMso unionists wish to retain the union, failing that an independent ‘Ulster’, anything but joining their fellow irishmen in a prosperous secular society. perhaps if we renamed the presidency as the monarchy, with a king or queen, maybe that would make them feel more at ease. i would love to know why unionists fear a unified ireland, because the old rome-rule chestnut is null and void, as it has always been.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 06:43 PMThis is just a cop out from the UK government. It’s a token gesture to the media to make it look like they’re actually doing something about immigration. If there was such a huge problem with illegal immigrants spewing across the Irish border then why is it that NI is still the most ethnically homogenous region in the UK by far? The people who are brought into the UK illegally, are on the whole, victims of abject poverty. If they arrived in the UK via NI then they would more than likely stay in NI as they couldn’t afford to travel to Britain. The fact is that for the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants the main access point, by far, is still the Dover-Calais route.
I can understand why the government wants to opt for the e-borders scheme instead of re-opening border controls at the NI-RoI border. It would be particularly insensitive for British troops etc to be sent back to places like South Armagh etc when those places have just gotten rid of them.
I don’t like this scheme one bit. Either I’m British or I’m not. As a British citizen I should be able to roam throughout the UK as I please. The present arrangements should suffice for the reasons I’ve already given, the presently hospitable relationship between the RoI and the UK and that in the light of the GFA there is a large mix of Irish and British citizens who reside within NI, as such they should be able to live as freely as other British/Irish citizens do. This new proposal is an affront to the GFA, all Northern Irish people have a right to British citizenship if they so wish, they all (British or not) contribute to the UK economy by paying taxes etc the same as those in Britain do and as such should expect to have the same freedoms as people in Britain do. Politics aside this proposal is not going to have any impact whatsoever on immigration control in the UK.
If the British government are serious about tackling illegal immigration then they should be doing the following 2 things:
1. Actually have a clue how many illegal immigrants reside in the UK. They’re currently plucking figures out of thin air to try and fool people that they have the problem under control.
2. Allow asylum seekers to work in this country. Currently asylum seekers are not allowed to seek employment whilst their applications are being processed. What a waste! Many of these people are desperate to work and make a contribution to the UK but they are not allowed. Instead they are resigned to continuing their life of poverty and are often maligned because of it as they have no option but to live off benefits from the state.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 06:54 PM“Lord Rogan: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the same quality of protection against external terrorism will be afforded to citizens of the United Kingdom residing in Northern Ireland as to our fellow citizens who reside in the mainland?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the quick answer is yes. We are making sure that is exactly what happens.”
Gosh! Whoop-dee-do! ID Cards for all…an increased (if they get away with it) period of detention under “anti-terror” laws…a PATRIOT-esque act somewhere down the line…and so on and so forth! I can hardly wait! Now…where’s this wee protestant’s application for an Irish Passport…?
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 07:11 PMRepublicanStones,
You ask why unionists do not want and indeed fear a united Ireland. I may not be the best person to answer as those who have read my previous contributions (I know there have been far too many) may know that there are circumstances where I would consider a united Ireland the lesser of a number of evils.
However, in answer to your question.
The simple and most overwhelming reason is that I feel British and not Irish. When I tried to explain this point on a previous thread your reply was “simple fact remains, people from the north are not british”. This may make it difficult for you to understand some of my wish not to be Irish.
There is also the small matter of the IRA campaign. The simple fact is that there was a murderous campaign by the IRA against the unionist community (and lots of other people) in order to make them become part of a united Ireland. You can deny it as much as you want but the simple fact is that many unionists of my generation are very unkeen on accepting something which the IRA murdered our kith and kin to try to force us to accept.
You ask what we fear. In all honesty I fear that there are those in the republican community who favour overthrowing the RoI state and creating what they would describe as a 32 county socialist state (in reality I would submit national socialist). In pursuit of this goal I fear some sort of ethnic cleansing and in some way getting “revenge” for the famine, for fifty years of unionist misrule, or for something else and that they would start killing people again. In such a case I do not have confidence in the Republic of Ireland’s ability to prevent what was Northern Ireland sliding into bloody chaos even worse than that which we had before.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 07:23 PMRepublicanStones: i would love to know why unionists…
It’s an ‘identity’ thing. You needn’t share our identity, but if you have an identity yourself you could try to imagine having a different one…
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 07:26 PMSlightly misleading title just because Lord West proves and the Labour Govt prove themselves (yet again) to be incompetant prats doesnt mean unionists are unloved!
Interesting and sensible response from Tories:
http://www.conservativesni.comAs this will take a few years to set and by then we should be close to the return of a Tory lead Govt I wouldnt worry too much. They seem committed to restoring the CTA to the benefit of everyone on both islands
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 07:28 PMGroan. There is no evidence whatsoever that the government is going to require UK nationals going between GB and NI to use passports, either for journies by sea or by air. Much, *much* more likely (does no one actually read the Irish Times but me?) is that the Republic is very soon goin to knuckle under and join whatever e-borders scheme London comes up with for the entirity of the British Isles. This ‘debate’, therefore, is absurd. The only people who have a vested interest in keeping it going are the DUP, in order that they might, once this latest chicken-licken fantasy has been dispensed with, stand up on their hind legs and say: “ah ha! see the latest dire threat we have batean back!”
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 07:37 PMTD
That, at least, is a response which has the merit of being grounded in reality.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 07:37 PMso its ok for the irish in the north and their desire for an end to the partition of their country to be ignored, yet because you feel british in ireland, your feelings must be upheld. and to cross post a previous comment of mine -
armed republicanism entered the troubles because of unprovoked attacks on nationalists, remember the I Ran Away slogans unionism used to taunt nationalists with regarding the ABSENCE of the IRA. and when the ira then went on to go on the offensive against crown forces, loyalism/unionism continued targeting innocent people based solely on their religion, the IRA bit their tongue, most of the time. as evidenced by the vast majority of IRA activity being directed at crown forces and anyone who administered british rule in ireland. you might try and dredge up a few atrocities, but its documented fact loyalism/unionism was infintely more sectarian in their actions so don’t try that one. its also documented fact the IRA didn’t start the troubles, unionism/loyalism did, not only with the denial of civil rights but with their violent suppression of the attempts to gain as much. so it was pretty mature of the IRA to be the first to call a ceasefire, although if things were done in order, loyalists should have made the first move.
oh and you see ireland becoming a national socialist state, are you for real? tell me that bit was a joke.Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 08:03 PMOutsider,
Presumably you would like to have an independent Northern Ireland that was dominated by Unionists?
Even Sinn Fein would prefer to be ruled from London than to allow that scenario.
You had your chance!
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 08:11 PM“perhaps if we renamed the presidency as the monarchy, with a king or queen, maybe that would make them feel more at ease.” - RepublicanStones
You don’t get the ‘republican’ thing despite putting it into your moniker, do you? Here’s a clue: republics differ from monarchies due to equality of citizenship and the conspicious lack of an unelected regal elite who rules his or her subjects.In regard to the presence of MI5 on the island of Ireland: why are we allowing these people unrestricted access to the Republic via an uncontrolled border when it is clearly in our national interest to monitor spies, particularly ones who have an agenda to undermine Irish national interests? As Glenmore Trenear-Harvey wrote:
“If you were to make a broth including the spies, counterspies and spooks who’ve operated in Eire in recent years, you’d end up with an Irish alphabet soup: BOSS, BND, CIA, DEA, DGSE, DIA, FBI, FRU, GARDAI C3, GRU, IIS, 14 ISC, JCID, KGB, MIB G2, MI5, MI6, MOSSAD, RUC, SAS, SVR would be some of the ingredients. All are, or have been, operating there.
Ranged against them are the Irish Intelligence Services including the Irish Defence Forces Military Intelligence G2 Branch and the Gardai’s Special Branch C3 Section who deal with terrorism and counterintelligence.
I estimate that there are today at least 35-45 foreigners engaged in espionage, operating clandestinely in the Irish Republic. (Though, when, recently, I asked, Commandant Pauline O’Connell, Head of Irish Military Intelligence in Dublin, for confirmation, she said, “I couldn’t possibly comment on that.”)
Through the seventies, until today, such activities as intelligence gathering, subversion and counter-intelligence have been a constant, if largely hidden, part of the Irish political, military and economic scene. There have been main four main factors that have been responsible for this: The Troubles, The possibility of Eire joining NATO, Eire’s EU membership and Ireland’s emergence as the IT centre for Europe.
The main British intelligence services, SIS (MI6) and MI5, usually have distinct areas of responsibility and operation. MI6 tasked with overseas operations and MI5 (working with the British Police Special Branch) operating domestically in a counterespionage and anti-terrorism role. Exceptionally, both MI5 and MI6 operated, at the same time, in Eire.”
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 08:33 PMRepublicanStones,
I have stated before my opposition to loyalist violence which was indeed evil and sectarian.
To describe the IRA’s actions as mature is at least a new form of words for cheerleading. You say I “may be able to derdge up a few atrocities”; more like dozens. Also of course “administering British rule in Ireland” is a handy catch all justifying all manner of sectarian murders by the IRA. I do not regard collecting the census, catching muggers, rapists, poaedophiles, directing traffic etc. as making anyone a legitimate target.
Incidentally I do like your “documented facts”. Where is your big book of “documented facts” is it the same one as Bob McGowan has?
In terms of a national socialist state. The IRA and SF claimed they wanted to create a socialist state in Ireland. That is I believe a “documented fact”. I merely point out that to me (and many others) the socialist state they wanted to create would have looked very like a national socialist state. The people of the RoI would no doubt reject their wish to do so. Indeed the people of the RoI seemed to largely reject the IRA throughout the troubles with a few dishonourable exceptions. I do suspect, however, that in the event of a united Ireland some republicans would probably still be keen to impose their own socialist / national socialist state on Ireland and so would start killing people.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 08:36 PMI disagree!
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 08:48 PMthe dubliner….i do get the republic thing and i myself am an anti-monarchist, if you can’t spot humour then maybe its you who is confused and not I. turgon at least you did not attempt to deny the origins of the ‘troubles’. and im no cheerleader for the IRA, i am however sick of unionists who try and claim the IRA as the bogeymen and the sole reason the north descended into the mess it did. and for you to suggest that a unified ireland could possibly become a nationalist socialist state is ludricous. you seem to be unaware with the republican ideals of cherishing all children of the nation equally. again i await you to mention an event to try and rubbish this ideal, to unite catholic protestant and dissenter, in other words it doesn’t matter what anyones creed is. Unionism can never be accused of being blind to ones creed.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2007 @ 09:02 PM
