TotD: Brexit

I actually cannot believe I am writing a blog after the Leave vote won in the recent Brexit Referendum. It's a little shocking, it's a little scary, it's very exciting!

This article and blog is going to be super long. Most of you will probably be bored reading all of it.

Here's some divisions:

1. The History of the European Union's 'ever closer union' and the effects of such on Ireland.
2. As Irish people should we be mourning Brexit or congratulating Britain?
3. The future.
4. What Should Enda Kenny do right now?

1. The History of the European Union's 'Ever Closer Union' and the effects on Ireland:
I believe the European Union has been overstepping what is politically wise and good since as far back as 2004 when the Treaty for a European Constitution came on the scene, a treaty that effectively sought to create a United States of Europe akin to the United States of America, though a little less politically unified.

Basically, such a constitution would override the Irish constitution in constitutional matters.
It was rejected by some countries that held a referendum on it, meaning it moved into political limbo.

Until a couple of years later when Europe gave us the Lisbon Treaty, basically this treaty is the same without the slightly more federal nation slant.
This Treaty was one that was taken as seriously as the Constitution Treaty, it was said that if any nation state within the Union rejected it it would join it's predecessor in political limbo.

Ireland rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008, the EU did not respect the Irish people and their democratic right not to devolve power to the European parliament. As a nation we were walked all over, demoralised and told our voice was not important in a new, bigger, more powerful Europe.
It is true that the EU granted concessions to Ireland before Lisbon II could be voted on.

Those concessions included Ireland keeping:

• Taxation laws, so that the EU could not interfere with our corporate tax rate which attracts millions, if not billions in foreign investment annually. Hey, doesn't that sound like something Europe has been complaining about recently?

• Our neutrality even despite the creation of a united EU military. They're okay on this one so far.

• Our right to decide on the morality and legality of abortion in this country, something which in late 2010 the Human Rights court in Europe judged as against Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. Though the EU court did not go as far as the UN group did recently it was this decision that resulted in Ireland's first abortion bill, really meaning that Europe didn't stay out of Ireland's right to decide on the morality and legality of abortion ourselves.

On top of this the Lisbon Treaty took away the voice of Ireland by making voting based on population as well as country representation. So, 55% of countries representing 65% of the population of the EU now have to pass things in the Council of Ministers (the Council of the European Union) it acts a little like Seanad Éireann to the European Parliament (which by the way has 751 MEPs, of which 11 are Irish, that's 1.5% in comparison to Germany's 12.8%, France's 9.9%, Italy and the UK's 9.7% [up until today]).

There is some sense to the idea that a country of 4.5 million people cannot decide policy or block changes that those representing millions more have approved, but there is also some sense to the idea that each member state of the European Union should be treated equally, irrespective of how many people live in their country. Weighting by population will always unfairly favour bigger nations, allowing the present dominance in Europe that Germany has.

2. Should the Irish be mourning Brexit or congratulating Britain:

My honest thoughts on this is both.

Brexit changes the political landscape in Europe, especially on these two islands off the coast of Europe, in unprecedented ways. We are entering a situation that has never been seen before, one that could certainly qualify for the title of The Second Emergency of Ireland in the future dependent on how things go from here.

There is uncertainty about the border with Northern Ireland, there is uncertainty as the Scotland's [and maybe even Northern Ireland's] continuing position within the United Kingdom, there is uncertainty over the financial market and the position of the pound, there is uncertainty about trade with EU nations etc. etc.

Most importantly there is uncertainty for many many British people living in other EU member states and citizens of other EU member states living in the UK. That is hard, and in the coming days the first priority of a new United Kingdom government should be to clarify these things, to put people at ease or to allow them time to plan for leaving, if that is what will happen. That should be first priority for Boris once he becomes PM.

Change is always scary, but change is not always bad.

England and Wales have stood up for what they believe in. An England and Wales that are in control of their own future, who can decide on immigration themselves, who can make laws without being subject to the desires of France and Germany (which as we have seen above make up a fair amount of the decision making ability in the European Parliament).

It is exciting that a country would look at the current situation and think "you know, not better the devil you know" when that devil has become as bad as many UK voters believe. That's commendable. Certainly, it is a scary time, things definitely will be bleak and unclear for a year or two, but it is always great to see a smaller (even though the UK isn't small) power stand up to a bigger power and say "no, we've had enough".

I don't think Ireland should point the finger at Britain (or England and Wales specifically) and call them stupid, tell them they are unliked as a result of this, hate them etc. etc. Reacting in fear to things like this is what got Hitler into power, and will likely make Donald Trump the next US President. Time to learn from the mistakes of the past (even if they were the Leave campaign) and move forward, no more fear, no more accusations, but friendship.

3. The Future:

So, what does the future hold?

To quote Master Yoda, "clouded the future is", but here are some things I think could happen.

This is the big one, the one I really hope doesn't happen.

The European Union Reacts to Brexit (Worst Case Scenario).

If the EU chooses to react to Brexit in a negative way, attempting to make an example of the UK by imposing harsh export and import taxes on trade with the UK this would be a disaster!

The European Union is going to be shaking in their Italian shoes right now, and for the coming months, especially if (as many predict) a Brexit results in increased Euroskepticism.

If the EU see the possibility of more of the remaining 27 member states leaving then they may react by punishing and making an example of the British.

This would be disastrous for Ireland. The UK receive the second largest percent of our exports (15.1% in 2014, worth around €13.45 billion to our economy that year. Our biggest trading partner is the USA 22%, Belgium was next at 13%). The UK also send things to this country, making up 32.3% of our imports, or almost 1/3 of everything we import.

You can see that if the European Union were to place tariffs on exports to and imports from the UK it would have massive, devastating effects on the Irish economy.

In the event of an EU reaction to Brexit of this type Ireland would need to attempt to make our own trade agreements with the UK, despite the EU. If the EUs stance was hard enough it may result in Ireland having to give some serious consideration to Irexit.

However, we trade as much with our EU partners, more collectively, as we do with the UK. It is important for Ireland to maintain good relationships with the UK, as well as the EU and the USA. This will be tricky water to navigate, especially if my worst case scenario comes about.

The Norway Approach (Best Case Scenario for Ireland)

Norway is not part of the European Union, however, Norway have trade and movement of people agreements with the European Union.

This result would basically mean that the status quo continues as it has. Britain no longer are involved in the EU politically but are economically and demographically. The access to the free market and immigration rights of Europeans would remain the same, but the UK would be free of the undemocratic elements within the European Union for which it sought to leave in the first place.

However

I don't feel this scenario is the likely outcome (at least not immediately, perhaps in the future after a policy of self-sufficiency crippling the British economy is abandoned a la Ireland under DeValera). Sadly there was more to this Brexit than a dislike of the way Europe is run politically, there is also the issue of immigration. For Norway to have access to the European Free Market they also have to allow immigration and free movement of European citizens, that's the trade off. For the time being it is unlikely Britain would accept such an agreement.

My prediction is that in the next 20-50 years Britain (or what is left of her) will enter such an arrangement, but it is hard to see it happening in the next five or more.

Brexit Referendum II:

Europe have a long history of not accepting decisions of sovereign nations (part of why the UK are after voting to leave). Perhaps the EU will not accept the Brexit result and make concessions to the UK, as happened with Ireland, to secure their remaining in the European Union.

I imagine some people in Brussels are considering this line of talks right now.

This would surely only compound the perception of the EU as undemocratic in the UK and result in a Brexit anyway, just a delayed one.

Scottish Independence:

As they voted 'Remain' it is possible if not likely that a second Scottish independence vote will be held in the next five years and succeed this time. This is made even more likely if the vote comes in a time of instability in a year or two's time when Britain is struggling to stay relevant.

If Scotland become independent they will join the EU themselves.

A United Ireland?

Norn Iron also voted to 'Remain', the Republic is in the EU, already there are calls for a Referendum on a United Ireland and provisions exist for such an outcome since the Good Friday Agreement and other peace agreements.

A United Ireland Referendum will not pass, if it does go ahead.

EU Reform:

The opposite of my worst case scenario on the European Union side of things is that this Brexit makes people quake in their stylish Italian shoes and causes major reform in order to keep other countries from exiting with Britain in the coming years. This reform would need to be beneficial to Ireland, our sovereignty and democracy. It would be up to the government to fight for a fair outcome for Ireland, to take the initiative, seize the opportunity and lead, have their voices heard, instead of sitting back and allowing Europe to happen.

The potential negative consequences of an EU minus the UK is more power goes to Germany and France, the countries who have the most say in the EU right now.

The potential good consequences are an ever friendlier, but politically independent and democratic European community. This is the dream and the prayer.

4. What Should Enda Kenny Do Right Now?

1. Opportunity Knocks:

If I was Enda Kenny I would be very nervous, but also very excited right now. Enda Kenny has just been handed the opportunity of a lifetime. He could make himself the most important Taoiseach in Irish history, outshining even DeV, if he handles this right.

Unfortunately Enda and FG are not in a good position to rise to this challenge, they are a minority government being propped up by the opposition. However, I believe Kenny has the ability to be that Taoiseach if he is given the chance.

2. Government Stabilisation:

The first thing I would do right now if I were Taoiseach in his situation is hold a meeting with all the party leaders. Ireland needs to be united (the Republic parties, not the North and South necessarily), difficult change is coming and an unstable government is of no benefit to the Republic now. Difficult negotiations will have to be made in the lifetime of this government. Kenny needs to secure support from FF and maybe even SF that going forward the parties will discuss what is best to do in negotiations with the EU and the UK and not stand in the way of securing the best deal for Ireland within all of this.

That means that FF will need to concede to FG, but also FG will need to concede to FF, Lab, SF and others. There is no mandate on the government for dealing with this.

If the government parties cannot agree to move forward as one in these negotiations and areas then the government will collapse and a general election will be called. The benefit of this is the government would have a mandate going forward into EU and UK negotiations, the downside to this is it would waste valuable time as a hung Dáil is the likely outcome again.

3. Assure the People:

Of course this is hard, but there is a large British population living in the Republic of Ireland, there is the uncertainty over the borders with the North. It is important for Enda Kenny to reassure the people. To tell them he and his government, and all government parties, will do everything they can in order to minimise the disruption to life for these citizens.

Enda Kenny needs to lead here, not back down, not wait to see what happens, but to put his head on the chopping block, to provide a figure for people with concerns to rally behind. He may make the wrong promises, the EU may come down heavy and make what we hope for impossible, but Kenny needs to stake his career on protecting the open border and the right of British citizens to live and work and vote here.

4. Follow His Assurance Up At the Negotiating Table:

Kenny, now with his position of Taoiseach on the line, then needs to go to the EU and go to the UK and fight for the best outcome for Ireland. If I were him I would be calling Downing Street as soon as a new PM is appointed and arranging a trade and movement of people meeting.

The agreements we have with the UK come more as a result of our former stance as a colony, dominion and member of the Commonwealth than from any formal agreements and laws, it is the status quo, not the rule of law.

This needs to change, the agreements between Ireland and the UK need to be formalised, before the European Union has time to react and say anything. Securing this deal is good for Irish people and our economy and citizens in the same way as it would be beneficial for the UK to formalise these agreements for the good of its own economy and citizenship.

This agenda will not be a priority for a new UK administration. This is where Kenny needs to step up again. He needs to hound the future PM and make sure that the relationship with Ireland is put on the agenda really quickly.

5. Push for EU Reform:

It has been outlined above what I think is rotten in the EU in relation to Ireland and our representation within that Union. I have already expressed that I do not wish for an 'ever closer union', nor do I wish for Ireland to leave the European Union, but EU Reform is certainly required.

I hope for 

Conclusion:

This period offers us a great amount of uncertainty, but every challenge presents an opportunity far greater than the challenge. I hope and pray for greater relationships with the UK and Independent Scotland in the future and for great relationships with our European partners.

I see an ever friendlier, but politically independent and democratic European community as a real possibility for the future of the European Union.

Our politicians: Irish, UK and EU, all need to be sensible and reasonable with one another, maintaining friendship in the best interests of the country and in the relations between nations.

Irish politicians need to be 'aggressive' not passive. They need to keep the Irish agenda on the desk in Downing Street and the issue of an ever friendlier, but politically independent and democratic European community on the desk in Brussels and Berlin.

TotD: United Nations Human Rights Committee

On Thursday (09/06/16) it became widely known in the Irish media that the United Nations Human Rights Committee returned a verdict on a case brought to it by a Dublin lady who had to travel to England to get an abortion back in 2011.

The UN HR Committee has declared the treatment of this lady as inhumane and degrading. It is certainly an extreme case, the baby had a rare extra 18th chromosome that would likely have ended in still birth or death by the age of one. The pregnancy was also wanted, and the mother devastated by the news she would likely give birth to a stillborn baby when she was 21 weeks pregnant. She then had some psychological issues, imaging the baby already dead and other horrible things.

The reality of this situation has to be kept in mind, what this lady and those around her went through is undoubtably horrible, traumatic and difficult. However, we cannot make legal decisions based on extreme circumstances.

The UN has made a number of findings, or criticisms of Ireland's handling of abortion in circumstances like these.

The UN committee stated that options on abortion were not presented to this lady, bar from it being mentioned she could go to the UK. The UN points out a difficulty Irish support agencies have in providing information about abortion to those who want to go through with one and supporting and promoting abortion. Consequentially, she wasn't informed of where to go in the UK etc.
-This is a ridiculous comment. If something is illegal in a country it would never be a country's policy to tell you where you can do the illegal thing... That makes no sense. Obviously, issues surrounding abortion are sensitive and deep, but on a purely legal level the UN has suggested something similar to the following scenario:
A person addicted to cannabis moves from a country where it is legal to possess and use cannabis to Ireland. Consequentially, they suffer from various issues and distresses related to going cold turkey from not being able to get cannabis and wisely not trusting the black market. The person goes to a medical professional who tells them they can fly to Amsterdam, where it would be possible for them to get cannabis without having to use the illegal black market.
The person does so and comes back to Ireland, less financially stable than when they left, they decide to take Ireland to 'court' because of the distress they were caused in not being able to find cannabis legally in their familiar environment and not being provided with information such as where to go to get the cannabis once they got to Amsterdam.
Legally speaking, the system of not over providing information on abortion makes so much sense.


A second complaint was that she was unable to access public monies to pay for the abortion and so was out of pocket, not receiving the same support (otherwise and financially) she would have been able to receive had she decided to carry the child to stillbirth (or potentially birth).
-This actually makes me angry. This is from the UN's report:
"On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December she received further medication to induce labor. She was in labor for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford staying longer in the UK.a There is no financial assistance from the state or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad."
Really? Is she serious? There are a lot of other things not covered by medical cards that could do with coming under it faster than an abortion... like most dental work besides extractions (pretty much the only thing covered besides 2 metal fillings, and not on the same tooth within five years).

The lady in question stated that the reason she wanted to terminate the pregnancy was to avoid having to let the child go through pain. However, there is evidence to suggest that babies of 21 weeks can feel pain (this is difficult to tell as they cannot actually tell us they do); therefore her decision to kill the child to save her from pain is senseless. Her doctor attempted to dissuade her when they found a heartbeat after she heard the baby's diagnosis, but she chose to continue with the abortion. In this sense this case can be seen as euthanasia, the woman wanted to save pain for her daughter and so thought it best to kill her than to see her suffer. Euthanasia is also illegal (with the exception of switching off life support machines which is considered by some to be euthanasia).

The Irish State representatives responded saying that the current provisions regarding abortion, as expressed in the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, represented the electorate of Ireland's stance on this issue. The lady questioned this, saying opinion polls show support for abortion. While this is certainly true, from a purely legal standpoint the law is the law, and until the Referendum, which is likely to occur in the lifetime of the present government, it remains the law. Whatever you think of the law, you can't just say "yeah, but people don't actually like that law" and it be a viable prosecuting point.
Again, the UN has been idiotic here. They state that even though something might be illegal in domestic law that it could still be in violation of UN law.
-So now the UN, an unelected body, has decided that it has the right to decide on whether laws surrounding moral actions are right or wrong? Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice this should make your blood boil. If we truly hold that democracy is the best of a bad bunch of ways of governing ourselves then the United Nations, an unelected body, saying something like that should be an affront to you.
Presently, Britain debates Brexit, often stated grounds are the fact that the European Union, largely unelected, makes decisions and supersedes Britain's own made laws. In a time when countries are beginning to realise that being part of these bigger organisations sometimes presents a cost that is too great in terms of sovereignty, the United Nations would be wise not to step beyond its charter and start making pronouncements about the international legality of laws.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is perfectly entitled to believe what it will but to suggest as it has: "The State party should amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including if necessary its Constitution, to ensure compliance with the Covenant, including effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland, and take measures to ensure that healthcare providers are in a position to supply full information on safe abortion services without fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions." certainly oversteps that.



It has often been a question in the abortion debate as to whether a foetus counts as a human being, is a baby a baby from conception or from birth. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) unfortunately begins with "from birth", making its position known.

It is part of a repeating cycle of history that certain people are considered as less than human.
-In Sparta it was those who couldn't hold their own in a battle, and they would be left to die.
-In some cultures it was the elderly, who became an unnecessary burden and would be left to die or leave to die.
-Other times it has been baby girls.
-Other places it was children born with a disability.
-For a long time it was anyone who wasn't white.
-For a period in Europe it was someone who had a Jewish grandparent.

Over and over again we, as the human race, have devised these theories and schemes to convince ourselves that 'the other' (whoever that other is for the particular period) is so other that they could not be human as we are.

For this generation it is unborn babies that we have come up with theories and methods and ideas until, for many of us, we have convinced ourselves that unborn babies are not actually babies (except in the case of Kate Middleton's unborn babies, who were seldom if ever called foetuses, but unborn babies in even the most liberal of media outlets. So, is the difference between an unborn baby and a foetus not the amount of time, but how wanted the child is, because that's certainly the message!)

Some, if not most, of the above list are considered crimes against humanity now.
I am 100% sure that at some point in the future people will sit down and have a good think for themselves; I'm sure a cup of Barry's Tea will be involved in the scenario, and they will realise, "hey wait, unborn babies are people too." William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln and others like them will have to come on the scene again and fight this inhumane practice, this crime against humanity (because unborn babies are humans), in our courts and governments, and Civil Wars [let's hope not].
Then we'll have the word unbornists added to our vocabulary (please come up with a better word people of the future).

The distress caused to the woman who took out the case against Ireland was severe and intense, no one can deny that. However, distress, no matter how severe and intense, does not make her right in this instance.