The following was published on the ‘An Barr Buadh’ Substack and is syndicated with the permission of the author.
The proposal—floated at the protest by Michelle Keane, and likely influenced by her association with Loyalist Mark Sinclair—for a hard border on the island of Ireland is noxious for a number of reasons, both of principle and of practicality.
The border is a regrettable fact of life. It was imposed upon Ireland by Westminster—with the Government of Ireland Act 1920—during the War of Independence. That border has been fortified, blockaded, and checkpointed by the British military within living memory. The final checkpoint was removed only twenty years ago.
A hard border would require the consent of both polities on the island—Irish and British—and give the British government the power to patrol and conduct checks on the border. This strengthens and not weakens the power of Britain in Ireland, and would impose arbitrary limits on the freedom of Irish people to travel where they please on the island of Ireland, as is their natural right. A return to a hard border would worsen partition.
Implementing a hard border is contrary to Nationalist principles and a step backward for Irish Nationhood. One of the aims of Irish Nationalists is the removal of British government from Ireland and the undoing of the partition of Ireland. The Irish border should begin and end at sea.
Aside from objections on the grounds that the border contradicts the Nationalist ideological position, there are practical considerations that also weaken the argument in favour of a hard border.
The border runs for 310 miles. It is porous and difficult to control passage. During the Troubles the IRA and smugglers were more than capable of passing the fortified, checkpointed, blockaded, and patrolled border without official authorisation. A hard border is especially unpopular in border communities, large numbers of migrants using border commuinities to illegally bypass the hypothetical hard border would further wreak havoc.
Any migrant who presents at the border and claims asylum would be admitted into the state and put into the asylum system anyway. A rejoinder might argue that in such a hypothetical situation, prospective asylum seekers would be refused entry. Even so, the rejected migrants would still be present in the North, and would likely instead claim asylum there. The migrants would still be in Ireland. The proposal actually solves nothing, unless one considers that Ireland to stop at the border, and that whatever happens to Irish people north of the border is none of their concern. Such a person is no Nationalist.
There is no political will to bring back a hard border: during the Brexit negotiations, the proposal was refused by the Irish government, the British government, and the European Union. Lastly, the proposal will alienate the majority of Irish people, many of whom have to regularly cross the border for work, family, friends, or other facts of life. It alienates Nationalists and Republicans, especially those from the North.
The hard border cannot prevent mass migration into Ireland. The proposal alienates Irish people writ large, and Nationalists in particular. It plays directly into the hands of Loyalists, many of whom believe that migrants into the North are arriving from Dublin. It worsens the position of Nationalists and the long-term goals for the advancement of Irish Nationhood.
A Sea Border
The calls for a sea border are a much better proposal than those for the imposition of a hard border. There is already a de facto, though weak, sea border in place when it comes to the transport of goods between Britain and Ireland.
The 2022 Assembly Elections returned a majority in support of continuance for the sea border. There is support at the electoral level for maintaining the sea border as it stands. The objective then should be to push for an expansion of the sea border’s remit, to control migration before migrants even enter the island.
The sea border is less porous than the land border. Migration controls only need to be implemented at designated sea and air ports. It is much more difficult to pass through said ports unauthorised than through a 310-mile land border.
Support for a united Ireland is growing, and is especially popular among Irish youth, but the arduous process of manifesting that unified state is not underway at present. In lieu of this, it is better to push piecemeal toward the goal.
Given that Nationalists must have a comprehensive all-Ireland view of the problem mass migration poses, the problem must be addressed on both sides of the border. As mentioned prior, the hard border does not prevent migration from Britain into Ireland. Nationalists cannot simply stand by and let Ulster be planted a second time.
While hardline Loyalists may be opposed to the proposal, many in the Protestant community will likely see sense in the proposal. They would still be allowed to visit Britain, with some checks imposed for travel across the sea, but the benefit of reducing immigration is surely worth the hassle, especially as opinion polling consistently shows that opposition to mass migration is growing. People cross the border far more frequently than they travel to or from Britain, sometimes multiple times in a single journey.
During the Brexit negotiations, the British were faced with what was termed the ‘Brexit Trilemma’. The Trilemma being that three objects were desired but all three could not be accomplished—no hard border in Ireland, no Irish sea border, and no British participation in the European customs union. Boris Johnson opted to favour the sea border as a way to break the Trilemma.
The sea border is already the most agreeable of all the possible options, to all parties involved, except hardline Loyalists. This further weakens any argument in favour of co-operating with Loyalists. Hard border proponents have no legs to stand on.
The sea border solution manages to address the migration issue better than the hard border, has far fewer drawbacks, and pushes the Nationalist agenda forward rather than backwards. The Nationalist movement should call for a strengthening of an already existing border and the formal recognition of the border as such.
There should be a hard border in Ireland. Unfortunately, the UK is run by traitors, a fact exploited to the max by Dublin. That may not always be the case, of course. Or: Ireland could join the UK customs union and have no hard border in Ireland. This is a ridiculous situation purely created by the hostility and malevolence of the Irish government.
Why should English taxpayers pay welfare money to workshy layabouts on the Shankill who spend their days watching greyhound & horse racing from across the globe ?
By 2030 Britain will be bankrupt & delighted to offload the permanently troublesome bust 6 counties . Exoect a referendum to accept unity – 54 : 46 .
🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
When Government Failures become Wish Lists, not a Nationalist Fault.
The list is getting longer…the failures are increasing and getting bigger.
Borders are the responsibilities and duty of all governments, this includes
EU UK and Northern Irish Government, it is not solely but does include
the Irish Government…and they’ve all totally failed, by design.
To turn the focus on Nationalist responsibility, not represented in Irish
Governance yet, and not just a Sea Border which is needed now, but
highlighted with racist bonfires and treason headlines when all above just
stood by and let it all happen, knew it was going to happen as oft times
before with no punishment or accountability…
It makes one skeptic, and opens up the sectarian divide that thrives on
their annual sensational showboat of divide and conquer, all the time.
WE ALL KNOW WHO IS BEHIND IT…dogs on the street too.
What about a half hard Border? If you’re Irish, north or south, you get waved through. If you are any type of foreigner, your paperwork gets checked in detail.
There is definitely migrant movement across the border – both directions. The loyalists are right to point to dodgy foreigners coming up from the South. And we are right to point to dodgy foreigners coming down from the North.
Solution: open border for the Irish, detailed questions for the foreigner.
Is this the first time the Burkean has mentioned Michelle Keane? About time! She was thrown in jail for mentioning Garda involvement in rigging the elections. Whatever you may think about her views on mobile phone masts and angels, she is an inspiration to many of us.
Who is this Loyalist, Mark Sinclair? He sounds like a reasonable chap.
And big congratulations to the Moygashel Bonfire Association and their mockery of the refugee invasion. It was amusing to see the mainstream unionists condemn it: even the DUP said that burning effigies was “not part of the tradition”.
The worst that can be said about Mark Sinclair is that he is related to, and friendly with, a crazed killer, has a conviction for bank robbery and worked as a snitch for the Brits, informing on his own community. One should be very wary with such a person, of course.
But wouldn’t it be wonderful if he decided to visit, in a perfectly legal and peaceful way, the offices and residences of the 26 County Plantation enthusiasts?
His links to the Deep State might give him a get out of jail card.
Trump boasted that he could shoot someone in the head in the street in broad daylight, and get away with it. If Sinclair shot some bigshot 26 county Plantation Pusher in the head – say the Drogheda crime crew, to give just one target – would Harris’ Gardai be in any hurry to arrest him…? Or the cowards in the NIPS? Just asking, NOT inciting.
BTW, a huge logical gap in the article: “A hard border would require the consent of both polities on the island”.
Not really. If the Brits decided on a hard border, how can the 26 County govt stop it? Invade?
Similarly, if the 26 decided on a hard border, the only way the Brits could stop it would be by invasion.
Foreigners would try to smuggle themselves across the border, but that only works if at least some of the border population is sympathetic.
Apart from a tiny handful of deranged SF whores and traitors (I’m thinking of a certain person in Kinlough, north Leitrim!) there are very few, Catholic or Protestant, who would turn a blind eye to smuggling darkies across the border.
The border is 300 miles, but if you have 100,000 pro Remigration eyeballs observing it and phoning in reports of suspicious foreign looking people, we can keep darkie smuggling down to almost zero.
I think the half border concept is great. Of course the point of the border is not to stop Southern Irish people from crossing the border. It is to stop Africans and Asians from doing so. Basically it goes like this: the car rolls up to the border. The border guard sees their are all obviously white people who look Irish (ginger hair, fair hair, blue eyes would all be a clue), and so no need for any passports to be shown at all, they get waved through. Another car rolls up with Africans in – and they do have to show passports, and are probably not allowed in. This is the way is should be done on both sides of the border to everyone’s mutual benefit.
their are>they are
I travel a road leading to the border quite often. There are definitely lots of suspicious looking darkies driving both ways. It used to be just what appeared to my untrained eye to be Paki rape gang people. But in the last few months, there is a big increase in the number of Nigerian looking Africans.
One tactic foreigners use is to live in one area, but travel elsewhere to commit crimes.
Bad news for any UK people reading this: Much as our darkies enjoy the opportunities in Ireland to sell heroin, rape our grannies and mutilate our ordinary decent homosexuals, they all actually would prefer to be in dear old Blighty. Richer pickings and more fellow darkies.
The Paki heroin/rape gang member at Zim Zams in Sligo boasted to me a while back: “I’m so looking forward to getting my Irish citizenship.”
“Indeed?” says I. “What’s the advantage?”
He smirks. “It means I can go to England.”
God save us all!
(Speaking of whom, check out walkthecross.ie : Four walks, four nations.)