It is five years since the referendum and the United Kingdom is a house divided.
Perhaps it always has been. But Brexit has exposed and deepened divisions that threaten to tear the country apart.
When Scotland voted against independence in 2014, it voted for Scotland to remain in a UK that was in the EU. Since 2019, support for independence has gradually grown, driven by remainers who opposed independence in 2014, but would vote for it if they were asked again today.
Taking the UK out of the EU, when Scotland voted to remain in the EU, has significantly increased the likelihood that Scotland will take itself out of the UK.
In Northern Ireland, Brexit has put a delicate peace on the line. The Protocol leaves Northern Ireland’s constitutional status within the UK unchanged, but it does change the practical relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The realities of Brexit have been more evident in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the country. There has been disruption. Life is not quite as it was before.
While the practical challenges and annoyances that have resulted from Brexit could be eased, many politicians seem more concerned with stoking dissatisfaction with the new settlement amongst a proportion of the unionist community.
Divisions and tensions in Northern Ireland did not end with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, but they did ease. Brexit has re-energised them. Now, a settled peace is making way for a renewed dispute about Northern Ireland’s status within the UK.
Divisions in Wales are, of course, not accompanied by anything like the tension seen in NI, but there are divisions, nonetheless. And while the independence debate is not as advanced as it is north of the border, it is accelerating at a rate far greater than we have seen in Sco.
A linguistic divide is now accompanied by an identity divide not least over the question of Brexit, with those who primarily identify as Welsh voting remain, while those who primarily identify as British voting leave.
Competing visions for Wales’ future are emerging. One British and Welsh, one Welsh and European. One pro-Union, leaning towards being anti-devolution; one pro-devolution and increasingly indy curious.
It is against this backdrop that support for Wales’ independence has grown, and while it seems unlikely that Wales will suddenly leave the Union, the question of its status within it is definitely live.
Then there is England. Divided by Brexit just like every other part of the country. However, unlike Wales (and Scotland) where those who primarily identify as British voted leave, in England, they voted remain.
It was voters who primarily identify as English who provided the weight of numbers needed to bring about the decision to leave the European Union.
As the leave/remain debate recedes in England, it leaves in its wake an identity divide, and politicians scrapping over ill-defined notions of patriotism and Englishness.
The decision to leave our continental union, & the way that that decision has been executed, has brought into serious doubt the continuation of our home Union in its current form.
Identity politics have been unleashed. Distinct, and often competing, polities are now embedded across the four nations.
The United Kingdom is a house divided.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It has become commonplace for senior members of the DUP to state that the Protocol changes the constitutional position of NI within the United Kingdom. This is not true.
The Protocol is unequivocal with regards to NI’s position within the United Kingdom. The preamble affirms that “the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement…shld be protected in all its parts”...
...that agreement (the GFA), in turn, sets out a clear process for bringing about a change in the constitutional status of NI within the UK. That process has not been undertaken.
The most cursory glance at the Protocol wld have shown that what was being proposed was permanent; a frontstop, not a backstop, as many said the time.
And even if the Protocol could have been superseded by a UK/EU trade agreement, what type of arrangements did Mr. Jones think would be agreed that could solve the conundrum of the border?
What can change is how far either side is willing to move from their red lines (protection of the SM for the EU, defence of sovereignty for the UK), as implementation of the Protocol proceeds.
If what Lewis has in mind when he says a “significant win” is the EU diluting its protection of the SM, he is going to be disappointed.
"Banning the Great British banger" is classically Johnsonian. It's a memorable turn of phrase, & points to EU nonsense in the straight banana mold. This is brand building (or reinforcing, given how long Johnson has been doing this), but not yet point of sale marketing.
To put it another way, the pitch is being rolled to try to bring an end to the protocol when the first consent vote takes place. That's the long game.
There is no divine or natural reason why the United Kingdom as currently constituted should exist. History did not end with the creation of the United Kingdom. Other polities may yet still be imagined.
We grow up believing that we live in an ancient country. Yet, the United Kingdom as currently constituted is less that one hundred years old. This is rarely discussed. We do not teach it in schools. Few of us know that our United Kingdom was created in 1922.
Of course, today’s United Kingdom did not simply leap out of the void. It was preceded by another, larger, United Kingdom, which was in turn, preceded by a further, smaller, United Kingdom.
Last yr’s trade negotiations were unique, not least because they began with the negative intent of pushing the two negotiating partners further apart (trade negotiations normally start from the positive intent of bringing partners closer together).
The UK & EU spent 2020 deciding how distant they wanted to be from each other, and the extent to which they were willing to damage their strategic relationship. The negotiations were acrimonious by nature.