THE BACKSTOP TO BREXIT?

It's that man again!

One of the key lines being continually pushed by the Brexiters is that the backstop (draft emergency provisions to ensure no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland) is fundamentally undemocratic and it has to go. Oddly enough it's not perceived as undemocratic in Northern Ireland - where pretty much every elected politician is in favour of it. Political opposition from within Northern Ireland to the Brexiters position may be one of the reasons why successive Conservative governments have dragged their feet when it comes to helping to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland that and their parties on-going cash induced relationship with the DUP - who themselves have their own reasons for avoiding local democratic scrutiny.

If nothing else this position in relation to the Irish backstop has exposed a few hard truths. It's very clear if not obvious that Brexiters (many of whom hail from a particularly narrow and actually quite unrepresentative narrow elite) have never had any meaningful or realistic understanding of Ireland - North or South or other matters. Not that long ago I can recall overhearing conversations (in another place for want of a better phrase) openly and genuinely bemoaning the fact that Ireland had left the UK and that Hong Kong had to be (sadly) returned to China, etc. This sort of thing, if nothing else displays a lack of understanding of recent and not so recent history, and is perhaps this is the backstop too Brexit. 

What's certainly true is that Ireland never appeared on this elites radar before or during or initially after the referendum campaign - one of the possible  consequences of a return to a hard border is the undermining of the peace process. Then late and very deeply missed Steffan Lewis flagged this up some years ago. Looking dispassionately at the Conservative and Unionist Party's often tortuous relationship with the Irish political dimension in these islands - it's clear that they have been happy from time to time to play the unionist card - with scant of little thought toward the short, medium or longer term consequences - particularly for Northern Ireland or the rest of us.

It should be clear to most people by now that if Boris Johnston had a clear Conservative majority in Westminster and was not dependent upon the support of the DUP then he would have been pushing even harder for a No deal - regardless of the consequences for Northern Ireland and the rest of us. None of this bodes well for the future of devolution in these islands, if the Conservatives don't understand Northern Ireland, are surprisingly indifferent to Scotland and genuinely don't even perceive Cymru / Wales, then they are very different in outlook to their pre 1979 conservative predecessors who could be said to have spoken for the Union as a whole.  

The Brexiter Conservatives are perhaps for the first time in the modern era (or at least since the early 17th century) quite openly focused on England (and its a particularly unrepresentative narrow view of England at that) or perhaps a Greater England. The problem is we are no longer living in the 17th century - the world and these islands have changed. At a very basic level the failure to understand the complexities of situation in Ireland is quite revealing. Unfortunately it masks (barely) what I believe to be a complete failure to accept or understand devolution (or a deliberate choice) in its varied formats across these islands. It gives a focus perhaps to the quietly as yet unarticulated politics and vision of the UK post Brexit - a unitary centralised non devolved state - which is not good for the rest of us on these islands. 

THE COMPANY THAT YOU KEEP...

Personally I prefer my politicians to be chosen from the ranks of those who ask and answer questions (awkward and otherwise); from those who inquire, who have open minds and who tend to actually think (coherent) thoughts. Not to mention ones that tend not to come from parties that have been in receipt of donations from Russian and Serb businesspersons or are very happy in the company of filthy rich oligarchs. 

Teresa May's conduct as Home Secretary deserves scrutiny as the failure to hold an inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko - there were a number of suspicious deaths amongst the Russian emigre community (and associates) during a certain person's tenure as Home Secretary. The decision not to investigate because it may have been prejudicial to business / city interests remains questionable to say the least. 

The Brit (and City) elite are too comfortable not asking questions (let alone answering them) particularly those related to where the cash has come from. This is something that has been noted by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs committee has reported that London was being used to hide the "corrupt assets" of President Vladimir Putin and his allies. It's also been noted that despite the poisoning of Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter it remains "business as usual" for the City.