BORDERS IN THE BRITISH ISLES: HOW A HARD BREXIT COULD DESTABILIZE IRELAND

Free Derry corner, Northern Ireland

Jenny Ryder
Staff Writer

Theresa May and the Brexit campaigners have jumped yet another hurdle in their crusade to take Britain out of the European Union as the House of Commons have overwhelmingly voted in favour of giving the Prime Minister permission to trigger article 50 and start the process of exiting.  Fears among EU citizens living in the UK have heightened by the failure of an amendment designed to protect their status as legal residents.  Additionally, the initial concerns from businesses regarding trade have not necessarily been cured by the release of the Brexit White Paper, which promises to, “forge ambitious free trade relationships across the world.”  Uncertainty has plagued all discussions surrounding Brexit, but nowhere is that uncertainty more daunting than in Northern Ireland.  Here, the ever present fear of sectarian violence reemerging over the border has been heightened by a breakdown of the Stormont Parliament.

With only 3% of the overall population of the UK, Northern Ireland voted alongside Scotland to remain in the EU.  While the broader issues of the referendum debate remained important, Northern Irish voters also had particular fears regarding the impact of Brexit on their shared border with the Republic of Ireland.  In 1922, the Anglo-Irish Treaty established the six counties that constitute Northern Ireland.  Today, these six counties contain the highest population of Protestants and Unionists on the island.  This area remained part of the UK while the other 26 counties became an independent state.  If they leave the European Union, then this will also be the only land border within the United Kingdom.  The problem is that currently no passports or immigration documents are required to cross the border.  Indeed, at the moment it is hardly noticeable when one crosses in and out of the North.  This was not always the case, however.  The memories of armed British forces and watchtowers along the border are still within living memory as the sectarian tensions known as the Troubles only ended in 1998 with the Good Friday (or Belfast) Agreement.

The rationale for re-introducing a hard border is theoretically simple.  With immigration control central to the Brexit campaign, the option of leaving an unchecked EU border within the UK presents obvious concerns.  The integration between North and South in terms of economics cannot be overstated as over 14,000 people commute across the border daily for work.  Trade is another concern as goods often cross multiple times in the process of manufacturing.  The White Paper published by Downing Street has used the Common Travel Area, a pre-EU agreement between the UK and Ireland, to assure residents of both countries that long standing ties between the nations will remain in place.  However, there are legal concerns over what the EU will allow, and moreover there is general uncertainty over what the extreme anti-immigration advocates will accept.  There are many questions over the feasibility of a hard border which the Irish ambassador to the UK dubbed, “invisible.”

The security issues that would arise from a hard border are also a source of concern.  The Northern Ireland police federation has warned against such a measure saying that it, “would make sitting ducks of Northern Ireland police.”  The relationship between police and nationalists (those who wish for a united Ireland and to leave the UK) is often tense.  There were high numbers of civilian casualties in the Catholic and Nationalist communities during the crackdown on Provisional-IRA terrorism.  This was further exacerbated by the 38 year involvement of the British Army and by special forces units, known as the B-Specials, who were particularly prone to harassing the nationalist community.  Following the Good Friday Agreement, the police force was restructured to be more inclusive of both communities.  If the police were to be employed to enforce an already-contentious border, the fear is that this imagery would fuel violence, resistance and restart the bloody conflict.

This uncertainty is exacerbated by the current political climate ailing Stormont, the center for devolved government in Northern Ireland.  Under the Good Friday Agreement, the Parliament in Stormont shared power between nationalists and unionists to ensure that no community was excluded from policy decisions.  The results of this have been largely successful, with the Unionists usually holding the position of First Minister and the Nationalists in position of Deputy First Minister.  However that arrangement was shaken when Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin, the Deputy First Minister, resigned his position in protest of a poorly executed renewable energy scheme on the part of the First Minister, Arlene Foster.  This resulted in the suspension of the Stormont Parliament, since the idea behind power-sharing requires both positions to be filled.  With a snap election scheduled for March 2, the lack of a Stormont government to shape the outcome of the Brexit-strategy is a cause for concern.  There is historical precedent of Westminster misunderstanding or underestimating the reality of the Northern Irish problem, with Margaret Thatcher being a particularly unpopular figure among Irish nationalists both north and south of the border.  Without a government in place to advise the Prime Minister, many fear that the implications of a hard border will not be fully articulated.

So what then are the possible solutions?  The option of maintaining the soft border is ideal but relies on the co-operation of the British and Irish governments, as well as approval from the broader European Union as a whole.  With many member states out for blood, the will to punish the UK may overwhelm the situation and limit the options available to avoid conflict.  Another proposition has been to introduce a border on mainland Britain only, as this would be easier and cheaper to enforce and would avoid the problems associated with a land border.  However, there is a risk that Unionists in Northern Ireland would view this as a betrayal, being fiercely protective of their status as citizens of the United Kingdom.  A more drastic option would be to allow Northern Ireland to remain in the EU because it voted in favour of staying, but this would create issues with Scotland and the feasibility of a United Kingdom half in and half out of the EU.  Now that Parliament has supported the right of the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, it looks as if any legal challenge to Brexit stemming from Northern Ireland or Scotland will not be valid.

Nothing reignites conflict as quickly or as bitterly as a fearful population and an uncertain future.  While this is obviously somewhat of a worst-case scenario, it is also not nearly as unlikely as Theresa May and others in Downing Street would like to believe.  Until Stormont regains its voice in British politics, and until the real negotiations begin, an uneasy peace will be temporarily maintained. In this instance both Unionists and Nationalists have the will to find a manageable solution, but the bigger players have to be willing to put aside their grievances and co-operate.  A hard won 20 year peace is what is at stake.

Image by Giuseppe Milo

WESTERN POLITICS 2016: BREXIT, TRUMP, AND THE END OF THE WORLD?

screenshot-15

By Jennifer Ryder
Staff Writer

2016 has been quite an eventful year for western political science. The two bastions of Anglo-Saxon capitalist democracy, the United Kingdom and the United States, have experienced political earthquakes in the form of Brexit and the election of Donald J. Trump. As professors of the discipline attempt to reorganize their syllabi and pollsters begin the search for a new profession, we have seen a number of explanations emerge for this shift. It is easy to lay the blame on a lack of education, inherent xenophobia and racism, as so many have. However, it is important going forward to recognise that even as we pour over demographic breakdowns and analyze shifting polling data, we must also identify these events exist as part of a larger narrative.

Our attention must first be turned toward pre-Brexit Britain. Central to the Leave campaign, as has been well-documented and discussed, is the idea that Britain was suffering both culturally and economically from its membership in the European Union. The argument that EU membership was a drain on the economy was debunked by numerous economists, especially when considering that the EU is the UK’s largest trading partner. Despite this, the gut feeling that remained for many voters was that Britain was somehow losing its core. In a country where Chicken Tikka Masala has been declared the unofficial national dish, what it means to be British has come under threat to certain people on a more basic level than the balance of trade.

Perceptions of the success of the EU vary from overwhelmingly positive (nearly 75 percent) from the perspective of Remain voters to the largely negative (58 percent) view over the past 30 years from Leave voters. The challenge in finding a fixed idea of ‘Britishness’ aligns with the dramatic disparity among the voting population. The generational gap is evident in the fact that 73 percent of citizens under 25 voted Remain, in comparison to the 60 percent of Leave voters who were over 60 years old. Younger generations grew up accustomed to, and planned their lives around, the freedom of Schengen-era travel. They also were raised with a strong EU role in their education and work habits. However, the same cannot be said of their older counterparts. Rather, the elder generations have no plans to utilise the majority of their rights as EU citizens beyond shorter queues in European airports. It is this type of disconnect between dichotomous sides of political arguments, I would argue, that forms the root of our current political problems.

Trump’s rise to power followed a similar route. The United States has been dividing itself into multiple different spheres for decades. There has been a widening gap between blue and red, the coasts and the Rust Belt as well as the educated elite and blue collar working class. These disparities have collided to create a political situation where the fear of possibilities is enough to drive droves of voters in the opposite direction. Trump’s rhetoric and promises were enough not only to galvanize voters to a win, but to outstrip all expectations. Democrats and anti-Trumpers from both sides of the political spectrum are left to handle the surprising outcome through witty rants from Stephen Colbert and online petitions calling for the popular vote (which Hillary won) to be expressed through the Electoral College vote. Once they pick themselves off the floor, they will find that the Republicans hold control of the House, Senate and White House, bringing an unprecedentedly right wing platform with them.

Up until this year, the center was the safest place for mainstream politicians. However the shift to the right has been tangible throughout the US election campaign and particularly in post-Brexit Britain. The shift away from the traditional all-encompassing welfare-state system of the UK has been evident as far back as the 2008 financial crash, as ‘austerity’ became the buzzword of Europe. The number of children in poverty spiked in the UK by 200,000 children this year, as the culmination of cuts to ‘lazy’ parents reached new levels. Similarly, the UK government has been chastised by a United Nations inquiry regarding cuts to disability support services and its subsequent impact on the lives of people with disabilities. The belief in a welfare state and the role of government in supporting its poorest citizens has developed in strangely contradictory ways. As demonstrated in the UK, the poorest are facing new challenges. Simultaneously, the Leave campaign centered much of its argument around saving British support services for ‘British’ people, as opposed to migrants. As poorer people voted for Brexit, the logical assumption would be that social services would be a priority. Instead, broader concerns regarding sovereignty and immigration have served to mask the fact that post-Brexit policies have yet to produce any tangible shifts in policy from Theresa May’s government, beyond her new role as face of the charge for Brexit to be achieved.

One tangible impact, however, is the rise in hate crime and racism following the vote. Though some would argue this is more a reflection of increased reporting of crimes, the numbers say otherwise. As soon as the 24th of June, the racially and religiously charged atmosphere in Britain felt intimidating to anyone who didn’t immediately identify as idealized ethnic British. Similarly, in the first few days after Trump’s election, the Southern Poverty Law Center had received 200 complaints. Whether this is simply a matter of increased reporting or not fails to negate the fact that at least 200 people felt they had experienced or witnessed a hate crime as a result of Trump’s election. The debate over causation versus correlation will likely continue but the reality is that at least a portion of those who voted against the establishment did so for more than simply political reasons.

Having established the basic emotions that were the driving force for so many of those voting to Leave and for Trump, it is important to examine the two campaigns themselves. In both cases, dramatic and controversial language were used alongside policies. In both cases again, there was a level of disdain for the ‘establishment’, as well as for supposed ‘experts.’ The threat of economic ruin or political anarchy, the former of which was somewhat confirmed by the disastrous devaluation of the pound, was simply not as frightening to voters as the overall threat to their culture. Be it preserving Britain for white British citizens or “Making America Great Again” for the white rural poor, the messages of the supposedly outrageous campaigns were effective and successful.

The historical patterns would be foolish to ignore. A disgruntled populace that feels their self-identity being threatened by outsiders, either ideologically or physically, are presented with an easy catch-all fix that has sinister undertones. Choosing to ignore the warnings of experts in favour of emotional appeals, the ‘outsider’ succeeds and the peoples’ champion is crowned. It doesn’t take comparisons to the second world war to link the rise of this kind of figure to a period of tumultuous change. Some muse on the implications of the Trump ascendance and impact of Brexit on the EU, fearing a stronger and more aggressive Russia. Others view it as a chance for a revolution akin to the 1960s post-Nixon backlash. Regardless, this period of time is an important turning point in a larger chain of events.

What is most concerning at present is not the fact that the earthquakes happened. After all, the world has not ended. The immediate concerns of those most at risk, be they immigrants, LGBT people or other targeted groups, are entirely valid and in the coming months we as a society must strive to protect these people. However we must also acknowledge the long-term threats that face us in the wake of these developments. Already we have seen a pull-back on campaign promises from both the Brexit and Trump camps. In the case of Brexit, the High Court ruling earlier this month has limited the ability of Theresa May to trigger article 50 and begin the process of EU withdrawal without the approval of parliament. Given the general uncertainty and regret expressed by many Leave voters immediately after the results, alongside the negative impact that Brexit has already had on the UK economy, it is not unreasonable to imagine that the Parliament will be the main actor involved in obtaining a ‘soft’ Brexit – devoid of economic ruin or political isolation. Whether that is possible given the atmosphere in Brussels is debatable. Should the Remain goal of no Brexit or a very low-impact Brexit be achieved, large swaths of Leave voters will be left even further dissatisfied with the political system they chose to rebel against.

Only a week removed from being elected, Donald Trump has similarly already pulled back from some of the many extreme elements of his platform. He most notably stated that he would not be pushing for changes regarding equal marriage rights for the LGBT community. He also expressed a willingness to examine Obamacare on “its merits and difficulties,” which is a sharp change from the aggressive discourse of his campaign. While many believe it would simply be impossible for Trump to follow through on every campaign promise (forcing Mexico to pay for the border wall springs to mind) the degree to which he is willing to push, and the amount that Congress allows through, is yet to be determined. The problem facing Trump now is balancing the reality of the situation with the image of the world he painted while on the campaign trail. Perhaps bluster and bravado will be enough to keep his supporters content. If he fails, however, the alternative routes that his supporters may be willing to go is perhaps more frightening than anything The Donald can do.

2016 has been an awakening for the political and academic elites of the United Kingdom and the United States. Gone are the days of predicable polling data and mild mannered politics. The new breed swept in under Trump and Brexit did not arise from thin air however, nor are they the final pieces of the puzzle. Rather, we have seen a year that seems to have separated society to a breaking point. Though some consider the election and referendum results to be a sign that the end is already upon us, I would rather argue that there is still time left to prevent the further deterioration of global politics. If these events are enough to bolster opposition to the Front National in France or inspire Democrats and Remain voters to truly look into healing the divide between them and their opponents, then it’s possible that these recent events will go down as nothing more than flukes. Perhaps they will be one day be viewed by historians as nothing more than a release of pressure from a system of government adapting to an ever-changing global landscape. If these events fail to inspire such actions, however, we may have to take what the doom-sayers prophesy much more seriously. As it currently stands though, Brexit and Trump are not the end of the world. At least, not yet.

Images courtesy of the public domain and Matt Johnson

2016: THE YEAR OF RUSSIAN SELF-DESTRUCTION?


By Julia Aurell
Staff Writer

While consumers have been enthusiastic about the decline in oil, and thus petrol prices, not everyone shares this vision. In December 2015, Vladimir Putin announced that the Russian economy had contracted by 3.9 percent in 2015, and inflation had risen to be just shy of 13 percent. He attributed the contraction to the fall in the price of oil and natural gas, Russia’s two largest exports. Nevertheless, he assured the public that the worst of the economic downfall had been surmounted, and released a new budget, which estimated that the price of a barrel of oil would remain at 50 USD during 2016. As the first month of 2016 comes to a close, one can observe that the price of oil has sunk to a mere 30 USD a barrel. Thus, the latest concern of the Kremlin is if the worst of the economic hardship has been endured, and how Russia will respond in the face of such economic backlash.

From 2010 until mid-2014, world oil prices remained fairly stable, averaging around 110 USD a barrel. However since June 2014, prices have plunged by nearly 70 percent. The collapse has been associated with the surge of US production as it attempts to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, as well as Iran’s renewed entrance to the market. However, the surge in supply did not need to equate to a decline in prices. Rather, the prices have declined due to the surprising decision by the oil cartel OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), and specifically Saudi Arabia, to not cut supply as a way to increase prices. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter and OPEC’s most influential member who could most easily fluctuate the price of oil by restricting its production, has chosen to keep pumping. The decision has stemmed from a political motivation, rather than an economic one. If Saudi Arabia were to cut its production, it would allow Iran, Saudi Arabia’s rival, to increase its market share. The continued ramping up of current tensions between the two rivals is likely to continue as they seek to outmaneuver one another for hegemony over the Middle East. Consequently, the supply of oil has outmatched the demand in the world market, pushing prices down.

The increase in supply of oil offers the economic giants, such as China, the opportunity to fuel economic growth, as they now pay a lower price for the same commodity. The euro area’s oil-import bill has fallen by 2 percent of GDP since mid-2014 , and the share of oil in China’s total imports is forecasted to decline by 7 percent. Additionally, cheap oil drags down the price of natural gas which in turn replaces coal, a dirtier fuel. However, not everyone has been equally pleased about the downturn in oil prices, most noticeably the Russian Federation, whose greatest exports are oil and natural gas.
When Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the world was experiencing an economic boom. With an economy growing at 7 percent, stock prices heightened and incomes tripled by 2007, Putin’s support base expanded and allowed Russia to regain a voice in the international arena. However, current oil crisis, intertwined with the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, has presented Putin with a deeply contrasting scenario. Russia is no longer a rising country, but rather one in relative, if not absolute, decline. Since the annexation of Crimea, and Russia’s proxy-war in Ukraine, Russia has endured continued sanctions from the European Union and the United States. Subsequently, the sanctions which targeted Russia’s energy sector have worsened the economic depression, as most of Russia’s exports until recently went to the European Union and Ukraine.

Looking ahead, some analysts predict that the Russian people will wait out the current recession, as they did during the Soviet era. However, such conclusions should not be drawn so quickly. During the economic boom in the early 21st century, Russian citizen’s experienced and adapted to a new lifestyle of increased incomes, life expectancy, and benefits. As these lifestyle changes began to decline, 400,000 people choose to emigrate from Russia in 2015 alone, compared to 35,000 in 2008. The display of the internal dissatisfaction can also be seen through the continuous protests around the country. Krasnodar, a city of nearly 1 million people located by the Black Sea, has seen continued illegal protests over the last months over suspended senior benefits in regards to public transportation. However, the senior citizens are not alone; members of Putin’s blue-collar support base have begun directing their anger at the state with the fear of increased prices and fees, as Russian truck drivers rallied in opposition to the proposed highway fee. While the government allows for protests regarding matters such as lost wages, the distinct authoritarian nature of the country emerges in the face of political critique, and such critique may be coming sooner than expected.
The New York Times Bureau Chief in Moscow, Neil MacFarquhar, notes “Russia spent around 50 billion to host the 2014 Winter Olympics, and a similar construction juggernaut is building stadiums nationwide for the 2018 World Cup.” In the face of the continued budget cuts, such expenditures may not sit well with the Russian public, and the continued military expenditures seem to be making matters worse. Similarly, citizen Sergei Titvo describes the Putin regime as a disappointment as he explains “What we [the Russian people] need is an effective manager, but what we got is the Olympics, soccer and war.”

To address said economic challenges, Putin may attempt a deepening relationship with People’s Republic of China, as PRC will want to take advantage of the decreased price of oil to reenergize her declining economy. Similarly, removing the countersanctions inflicted upon the European Union could improve the standard of living in the nation. However, the fact remains that last time that Russia was hit by an oil crisis of this magnitude, the Soviet Union collapsed. Vladimir Putin will need to work consistently and in uniform with both the citizens of the Russian Federation, as well as the international communities, to ensure that the economic downfall does not translate into a political downward spiral.

Image by NWFblogs