Opinion

Jim Gibney: Abstention only response to waste-of-time Westminster

Whose border is it anyway? Picture by Margaret McLaughlin
Whose border is it anyway? Picture by Margaret McLaughlin Whose border is it anyway? Picture by Margaret McLaughlin

A friend said to me recently that the border in Ireland should be described as a 'British/English' border.

He said the references in the media to the 'Irish' border, which have reached saturation level as a result of the commentary around Brexit, are misleading.

He said describing the border as 'Irish' implies that the people of Ireland are responsible or supportive of it; when in fact the opposite is the case - except for unionists - whether the border being referred to is that imposed by the British government in 1920 or the economic border, which would be another British government imposition, should that arise from the Brexit debacle.

Describing the border as 'British' simplifies an understanding of its origins, especially for people in the EU who might not be familiar with Britain's colonial history in Ireland.

Calling it 'the British border' also helps with the confusion resulting from the fact that although the people of the north voted to remain in the EU, the British government ignores the result while politicians and journalists refer to the 'Irish' border being the problem... when in reality the problem is 'the British border' in Ireland.

For nearly one hundred years the British border has been the source of political and armed conflict.

It defines politics on this island like no other issue. Its removal has been at the centre of politics.

It has shaped the formation of political parties and the two states that emerged after partition.

Failure to remove it has led to a distortion of the political reality especially for parties in the south.

They have created a political fantasy world in which the north does not exist, unless the parties and people of the north remind them of their existence.

To them they live in an independent nation - not an independent state.

And while the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Tanaiste Simon Coveney are to be commended for their handling of Brexit as a national, and not a state, crisis, there is serious concern in the north that the Irish government revert too quickly to the pre-Brexit partitionist outlook of ignoring the north when it suits it.

Two examples which have occurred over the last few weeks support this view.

The Taoiseach called on Sinn Féin to resign from their seven Westminster seats and hand them over to a party which would attend Westminster.

In doing so he insulted the thousands of people who vote Sinn Féin, in the clear knowledge that it is an abstentionist party, and he contradicted his own advice that the Irish government would not interfere in the internal affairs of Britain by offering a view on how MPs should vote on the EU proposed deal.

The Taoiseach's comments also fundamentally misunderstands the mood of the nationalist people of the north.

They have correctly decided, after decades of attendance by SDLP MPs at Westminster, that it is a waste of time.

And Brexit, more than any other current issue, confirms this.

The British government's decision to leave the EU is based on a vote, primarily by the people of England.

It ignores the will of the people of the north who voted to remain in the EU and it cares little for the economic implications on the economy of Ireland.

The Irish government's decision to deprive citizens in the north of membership of the EU parliament by refusing to allocate the two extra EU seats, allocated to it as a result of Brexit, is reinforcing a sense of isolation and rejection among the people of the north.

It adds to a belief that the views of the people of the north are secondary to the needs of the Irish government in exactly the same way that they are secondary to the needs of the British government who ignored the vote in the north to remain in the EU.

These two issues are having a corrosive effect on the confidence that the Irish government had built up among the people of the north in recent years.

It was seen as representing the national interest in its handling of Brexit.

Its meetings with the north's civic nationalist group was also warmly received as was its public commitment not to abandon the people of the north.

It needs to continually act in the national interest and not its party interest.