Gordon Brown Predicts Irish Unity Is Inevitable

Gordon the moron was wrong on so many things, like selling off the UK's gold to just being out-of-touch because he belongs in the 90s and not being PM material in the first place. He was so wrong on so many things that he should now STFU.

35 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Gordon the moron was wrong on so many things, like selling off the UK's gold to just being out-of-touch because he belongs in the 90s and not being PM material in the first place. He was so wrong on so many things that he should now STFU.

I agree that the labour of Blair's and Browne's era made mistakes. But saying he should stfu because of that doesn't make sense.

The unification of Ireland and the dissolution of the United Kingdom is an inevitable consequence of the devolution changes in the late 1990s. The reforms were intended to head off separatist arguments, by making membership of the Union voluntary and through consent rather than assumed. There were already differences between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland before devolution (less so with Wales). English people would, in general, be quite shocked how NI was run on a day to day basis. We see the news about the IRA etc, but are generally unaware how different it is (I was there for 6 years).

Blair may have intended devolution to save the Union by accommodating national difference; instead, he gave that difference permanent institutions through which it could reproduce itself. The Union had previously depended upon a substantial degree of institutional and political uniformity. Devolution replaced that uniformity with separate governments, separate policy-making and separate democratic mandates. Every generation subsequently grows more accustomed to being governed differently.

The democratic deficit is England; technically, Westminster is the English Parliament. Non-English MPs do not vote on English matters, there there is inevitable greyness. I am not arguing for an English Parliamenr, far from it.

What devolution created is constitutional mechanisms for Scotland, Northern Ireland and even Wales to leave the United Kingdom. But there isn't a way for England to leave. Blair was worried that the Separatist parties were creating an unconstitutional drive for separation. He thought that all he needed to do was grant some autonomy to apparently satisfy the silent majority. It merely reinforced division, allowed the SNP to set themselves up as a credible government.

The dissolution might not come from Scotland, or Northern Ireland, but possibly from England, and a lot more messily, inevitably involving essentially incompetent single issue parties who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. The outcome would not be an orderly end to the UK, but messy disintegration, probable complete destruction of the English economy, and by dint, because of their integration, the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish (if its still around) economy. An English Parliament wouldn't stop dissolution, but it might allow a more managed dissolution.

Referenda are terrible ways to run a country. They cause nothing but division, over a yes-no answer. Czechoslovakia didn't dissolve with a referendum. Slovakia declared independence, and that was that. 30+ years on, they seem happy enough with the Velvet Divorce. Actual polls indicated that only 30% of Slovaks were supportive of independence.

The dissolution of the UK will be a catastrophe, but now unavoidable.. British society is now fractious. Reform is basically an English-Welsh Party. Restore is an English Party. Ironically only one party puts forward candidates in all 4 nations, and that is the Conservative Party (not that they ever do well in Northern Ireland). We live in a period of politicians who delight over division and not unity. Yes, Reform claim the credit for "winning" the Brexit poll, but with the result that 50% of the country now hates the other 50%. The SDP are just as bad. Burnham I see as principally an English Prime Minister, rather than British. His parochialism means he naturally focuses on English issues, and not British ones. And Reform better be aware; he is also a populist, coming out with a bunch of popular sounding but equally pointless policies.

When left- and right-wing populists face each other, elections are more likely to become deeply polarised, as both can portray themselves as the voice of “ordinary people” against a corrupt establishment while depicting their opponent as an existential threat. This will intensify negative partisanship, institutional distrust and hostility toward political opponents.

In this case, the establishment that gets attacked by both sides is what used to be called Middle England. The Middle England that eschewed the extremist politics of 1930s Europe.

The next British General Election won't be the last, but its nearly the last.

Here's the thing; the most common issue Scots have for rejecting independence is economic. The relatively small Scottish economy does benefit from being part of the British economy. That argument is weaker for English voters.

What happens. By 2025, Westminster is dominated by MPs with English agendas, not British agendas. They will demand a constitutional settlement, an English Parliament. The language used will be quite Left-sounding, and warm and fuzzy. They will want the UK to change into a Confederation. Wales and Scotland will discover a new love of the UK, because of the financial benefits of the UK Treasury system, will oppose this. The English will then push for political separation without economic separation, through economic treaties. The UK ends as a sovereign state about 2045, complete economic separation by 2050. Its inevitable.

The reality is no one cares about this - except the Republic and 'Ulstermen'. The rest of the UK wishes it would just end. I remember the loyalists, 30 years ago, saying 'we are British, and you British better remember that!'