Will of the people wrong on Brexit

Brexit must still be seen for what it is: apocalyptic disaster ahead. Can’t we find a way to make Brexit so soft that it will actually amount to only a very superficial withdrawal from the EU, so that membership of the single market is retained as well as the obligations to keeping immigration quotas and maintaining the legal commiments laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights?

The latter is a vastly important legal net which for some unfathomable reason unionists believe is only there to be abused by republican terrorists seeking freedoms that are incompatible with criminality; this is utterly wrong - loyalists and unionists have as much right to avail of this should they find themselves in need of a court they can appeal to if they were to become victims of human rights violations that they could not find redress for in British courts. Human rights are not a republican preserve - they are a human one and as such, a loyalist and unionist right as much as a republican or nationalist right. The EU should be seen as a place all those in need across Europe may appeal to at the necessary moment and only fascists and absurdists or the gravely mislead are opposed to human rights protection: I ask you, would we have faced the horror of Hitler’s mass extermination of the Jewish people if we had had a European Convention on Human Rights and a EU federation of states to keep the immorality of members in check?

It we cannot convince government of the necessity for a capitulation on the notion of a hard Brexit by invoking the language of rights then we mustkeep enforcing two further key further points. First, Brexit will not in any way, shape or form reduce the number of Syrian and other Middle Eastern migrants arriving in Britain because only intra-EU immigration is completely under EU control.

Immigation fears about keeping Britain British will not be eradicated by any formal disengagement from Brussels because the issue of immigration is a global humanitarian problem that the EU cannot ever possibly hope to fully control even if it wished to do so. Secondly, the International Monetary Fund and a string of topnotch economists forsee further economic pain as a result of Brexit as opposed to less. With the pound at an historic 31-year-low - something we have heard suprisingly little about (if this happened under Corbyn instead of May goodness knows the whole world would be hearing about it on 24/7 rolling news channels until the man was found to be banished from parliament in the ignominy) -it is extremely unwise to diengage from an organisation that has granted us so many instances of economic triumph.

No country can have its cake and eat it. If Britain wants the boon of the single market and all the economic benefits of the common agricultural policy - which particularly protects farmers across Ulster - then it must also accept the free movement of people across Europe, stipulations on immgration and the sovereignty of the European Convention on Human Rights as an important last resort for those failed by the British judicial system.

The EU referendum seems to really have been the result of a patriotic backlash by a working class tired of disenfranchisement. This is understandable. But Brexit is not the panacea for the woes of those struggling to get by - fairer, inclusive, globally-minded government is what is urgently required

ties in applying terms across all member states who each have different political and socio-economic realities. Austerity was endorsed by Brussels and what all countries in the grip of financial crisis require is a more Keynesian approach - more investment at the very moment of bust rather than less.

But Brexit must still be seen for what it is: apocalyptic disaster ahead. Can’t we find a way to make Brexit so soft a Brexit that it will actually amount to only a very superficial withdrawal from the EU, so that membership of the single market is retained as well as the country’s conformity to the obligations to keeping immigration quotas and maintaining the legal commiments laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights? The latter is a vastly important legal net which for some unfathomable reason unionists in Northern Ireland believe is only there to be abused by republican terrorists seeking freedoms that are incompatible with criminality; this is utterly wrong - loyalists and unionists have as much right to avail of this should they find themselves in need of a court they can appeal to if and when they were to become victims of human rights violations that they could not find redress for in British courts of law; human rights are not a republican preserve - they are a human one and as such, a loyalist and unionist right as much as a republican or nationalist right. The EU should be seen as a place all those in need across Europe may appeal to at the necessary moment and only fascists and absurdists or the gravely mislead are opposed to human rights protection: I ask you, would we have faced the horror of Hitler’s mass extermination of the Jewish people if we had had a European Convention on Human Rights and a EU federation of states to keep the immmorality of members in check?

It we cannot convince government of the necessity for a hard Brexit capitulation on the issue of rights then we must enforce two key points. First, Brexit will not in any way, shape or form reduce the number of Syrian and other Middle Easter migrants arriving in Britain because only intra-EU immigration is completely under EU control. Immigation fears about keeping Britain British will not be eradicated by any formal disengagement from Brussels because the issue of immigration is a global humanitarian problem that the EU cannot ever possibly hope to fully control even if it wished to do so. Secondly, the International Monetary Fund and a string of topnotch economists forsee further economic pain as a result of Brexit as oposed to less. With the pound at an historic 31-year-low - something we have heard suprisingly little about although if it had happened with Corbyn as Prime Minister the whole world would be hearing about it on 24/7 rolling news channels until the man was found to be banished from parliament in the most ignominous way. It is extremely unwise to diengage from an organisation that presides over the manifold economic successes Britain has enjoyed within it at the time when the value of the pound has so plummeted and jobs growth is tentative. No country can have its cake and eat it. If Britain wants the successes of the single market and all the economic benefits of the common agricultural policy - which particularly protects farmers across Ulster - then it must also accept the free movement of people across Europe, some stipulations on immgration and the ultimate sovereignty of the European Convention of Human Rights as an important last resort for those who are failed by the British judicial system.

The EU referendum seems to really have been the result of a patriotic backlash by a working class that is tired of its disenfranchisement. This is totally understandable. But Brexit is not the panacea for the woes of those struggling to get by across Northern Ireland and the UK - better government at Westminster and at Stormont is what is required here, not a tougher stance on migrants or fear of an ever more cosmopolitan and culturally diverse UK.