Part of the openDemocracy Network

Power2010

Breaking the monopoly of the professional politician: Guy Aitchison's idea for popular forums in Parliament
 

When you're in a hole, stop digging: Pam Giddy's advice to MPs who still don't get it
 

Ending the divine right of political parties: Steve Hawkins makes a radical suggestion
 

Les Miserables and Power 2010: John Jackson diagnoses the political class's selective crisis-mongering
 

A call to oD readers: Helena Kennedy calls on oD readers to support Power2010
 

More in this series

Submit your idea for the Power 2010 pledge.

The British Crisis

Do the public really want to change ‘the system’?: Stuart Wilks-Heeg presents polling evidence
 

Don't trust MPs' constitutional poker: Guy Aitchison supports the call for a citizens' convention
 

Brown's 'National Council for Democratic Renewal': Anthony Barnett on the Prime Minister's desperate proposal
 

More in this series

Navigation

delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Syndicate content

E-border to put Northern Ireland beyond the pale

1 - 02 - 2008
delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Home Office's claim that its forthcoming e-borders programme will effectively 'count everyone in and out of the UK' is plausible only if one ignores Northern Ireland.

Both the British and Irish Governments confirmed early on that there were no plans to introduce controls on the 224-mile long border between the Republic and the North. Over the past month it has become clear that the Home Office intends to deal with this gaping hole in the scheme by introducing e-borders checks between Northern Ireland and Britain.

This outcome, and the rationale behind it, was predicted by The Register back in October:

Although e-borders is primarily aimed at policing international borders, it is heavily dependent on advanced passenger information that is gathered by airlines and ferry companies on behalf of the UK Government. This information can and will also be used for security on internal flights and ferry journeys, including those between Northern Ireland and the mainland. But being required to produce a passport or ID card as proof of identity prior to boarding a plane does not necessarily mean you're passing passport control at an international border. Got that?

Exactly this sleight of hand was employed by Gordon Brown in early January, when he wrote to Northern Ireland's First Minister, Ian Paisley, assuring him that "there is no question of instituting passport control for people travelling within the United Kingdom."

Accepting this statement at face value, Dr Paisley stated that: "It is only right and proper that British citizens in Northern Ireland are treated on a par with their fellow-countrymen in the rest of the UK."

Less than a week later, however, Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson secured a revealing parliamentary answer from Home Office Minister Liam Byrne, on new police powers to capture passenger information on air and sea journeys within the UK.

It is expected that this police power will only apply to air and sea routes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Passengers will not be required to use passports, but may be required to produce one of several types of documentation, including passports, when travelling, to enable the carrier to the meet the requirements of a police request

In the wake of this announcement, Paisley's DUP colleague Sammy Wilson branded Brown's assurances "meaningless...or indeed even worse."

If these proposals go forward people in Northern Ireland, who are citizens of the United Kingdom, will have restrictions placed on their travel to Great Britain yet, shockingly, this scheme will not be applied to those coming into Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland or France. If this plan goes ahead, the people of Northern Ireland will be treated worse than foreigners

In one respect at least, Wilson was exaggerating. Equivalent controls will be introduced between Britain and the Republic, according to a Freedom of Information response issued at the same time as Gordon Brown's letter to Dr Paisley.

"In the case of British and Irish passengers travelling between the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain by air and sea, passenger information will be required to conduct customs and policing checks but not immigration checks," e-borders programme director Julie Gillis said.

Although it is not currently mandatory to carry passports/national ID cards for travel within the CTA (Common Travel Area), for their own purposes the air and sea carriers require evidence of identity, which is normally photographic ID. It is not yet clear how passport data will be collected by HMG on CTA routes. It is possible that passports will need to be carried by CTA nationals in future to provide information to e-borders. Analysis suggests that passports are already carried by most passengers as tokens of identity on CTA routes. Differing levels of scrutiny are necessary for passengers travelling to and within the UK

Gillis' response also states that these security checks will be maintained irrespective of any possible arrangements that might be reached between the British and Irish Governments. There seems little prospect therefore of bringing the Republic within the e-border zone, as suggested by Lord Trimble.

Short of scrapping the scheme entirely, there is no obvious way of reconciling e-borders with unionist sensibilities. And by trying to impose a cordon sanitaire around the UK, the British Government has effectively opened up a new faultline in the union. As things stand, travellers from Belfast will soon find that they require identification to travel to London, but not to Dublin. The symbolism of the situation will be missed by nobody in Northern Ireland.

This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

P T (not verified) said:

Thu, 2008-07-24 13:27

"which split them into the factions that fought the civil war"

"It was anti-Treaty Republicans who fought against pro-Treaty Republicans as a result"

No

The Civil War was not fought because of the border or Northern Ireland.

It was fought over the status of the New Irish State and the required Loyalty/Fidelity to the King.

P Rainey (not verified) said:

Wed, 2008-03-12 14:33

"The British state invented that Border, so I suppose they could take it away too."

One half of the story I'm afraid. The British state AND the fledgling Irish Republic 'invented' the border - ratified in an international agreement.

That agreement, as ratified again in several international agreements since, including the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Belfast Agreement of 1998, states clearly that Northern Ireland shall continue to exist for so long as the majority of the people there wish it.

I believe, therefore, that central government suddenly deciding to "take away" the border, would be illegal in international law, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

Ray Bell (not verified) said:

Wed, 2008-03-12 18:54

"The British state AND the fledgling Irish Republic ‘invented’ the border - ratified in an international agreement."

This is wrong, the British invented this border, and then forced it upon Irish nationalists/republicans, which split them into the factions that fought the civil war.

P Rainey (not verified) said:

Thu, 2008-03-13 11:43

I'm afraid it's right Ray. While I concede that although Republicans were invited to the conference on the border and none attended, the border itself was ratified in the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921, and passed through the Dáil (the Free State government) and the Parliament of Southern Ireland the following year.

It was anti-Treaty Republicans who fought against pro-Treaty Republicans as a result.

B Clarke (not verified) said:

Sat, 2008-03-08 00:57

Another of Pa McBroons blundering statements that mean absolutley nothing. No I am not a Labour supporter, then neither am I a Conservative supporter. I am just an ordinary 'Joe Public' who is getting more than a bit fed up with the fools and morons who run this country and turned it into the 'Job Centre' and DHSS Office' of Europe where benefits and other social handouts are scammed and scrounged by the whole World and His Wife.

No doubt I will be deemed a 'Threat to NU Labour' honesty and be given an Orange Boiler suit to wear when I go out shopping.

Alan James (not verified) said:

Fri, 2008-02-01 20:55

1. These controls were not implemented during Britain "darkest hour". How would the fascist govenment answer the question "Why did we fight"? coming from the dead of two world wars?

2. Britain has survived the IRA bombing campaigns, the German bombings, so why should we worry about people who fight only to get foreign troops out of their country.

3. Terrorist bombings were worse in the 80's than they have been in the whole of the 21st century, so why do we need these curtailments of our freedom?

Ray Bell (not verified) said:

Fri, 2008-02-01 18:36

The British state invented that Border, so I suppose they could take it away too.

oneill (not verified) said:

Sat, 2008-02-02 16:38

“Terrorist bombings were worse in the 80’s than they have been in the whole of the 21st century, so why do we need these curtailments of our freedom?”

Those also occurred at a time when there were very stringent checks at ferry ports and airports transporting passengers between N.Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Ray Bell (not verified) said:

Sat, 2008-02-02 02:24

"Britain has survived the IRA bombing campaigns, the German bombings, so why should we worry about people who fight only to get foreign troops out of their country."

The German bombings that the UK got were NOTHING compared to what most of Continental Europe suffered. Sorry, but that should be pointed out.

"Terrorist bombings were worse in the 80’s than they have been in the whole of the 21st century, so why do we need these curtailments of our freedom?"

You make an excellent point here, and it annoys me when people talk about Al Qaeda's "terrorism" as if it were something new.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Books from Amazon

Email Alerts

Fill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

They say about OK

"the ever-stimulating OpenDemocracy"
Ekklesia

"See OurKingdom to keep up"
South Belfast Diary

"...an essential guide to understanding the dynamic constitutional situation..."
Peter Oborne

"...becoming a daily read for me."
Iain Dale

"To make sense of it all, check out OurKingdom..."
Matthew d'Ancona

"Worth a look...it is, however, recommended by Matthew d'Ancona."
The Wardman Wire

"Fast becoming the best political website around"
Tom Waterhouse, CEP

"...attracting energy from a range of contributors."
thenextwave

"...looks very promising..."
The England Project

"The excellent new OurKingdom blog from OpenDemocracy..."
The Green Ribbon

"On the internet, I keep in touch with openDemocracy, a website on global current affairs, and its useful offshoot, OurKingdom"
Andreas Whittam-Smith

"thanks to the fine folk at OurKingdom, (who manage to communicate a variety of perspectives in the way that only a decent group blog can)"
Nostalgia For the Future