Britain rejects all

elements of backstop
during EU
Commission talks
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019

Talks between the UK and the EU Commission are to resume in

Brussels tomorrow

By Tony Connelly
Europe Editor

Britain has proposed stripping all elements of the

backstop out of the Withdrawal Agreement leaving
only a commitment to the all-island electricity market,
the Common Travel Area and the rights of EU
citizens.
That is according to diplomats briefed on a meeting
between Boris Johnson's chief negotiator and the
European Commission.
The UK has instead proposed that both sides would
make a commitment to no hard border, but only after
Britain had left the European Union.
It is understood London will insist that over time
alternative arrangements, such as technology,
exemptions, trusted traders schemes and so on can
ensure there is no infrastructure at the border.
EU sources say the UK's chief negotiator David Frost
suggested that any arrangements for the Irish border
should not be seen as a bridge to a future trade
relationship, but rather as a fixed arrangement.
UK officials also said the future trade agreement
should be an arms length one from the EU and that
Britain would not seek to mirror EU social and
environmental legislation.
British officials return for talks in Brussels again
tomorrow.

https://www.rte.ie/ne
ws/brexit/2019/0905/
1074163-brexit-eu-
commission/

How Brexit Was Engineered by Foreign Billionaires

to Bring About Economic Chaos – for Profit
October 2017.

In this truly alarming story I connect three significant articles to show that Brexit, far
from being the result of representative democracy, is in fact a campaign of covert
intervention by foreign billionaires to bring about economic chaos in Britain in order
create the circumstances for making huge profits. This is not the stuff of mere conspiracy
theories. Clear evidence has emerged that Brexit was engineered and is already proving
to be a catastrophe, as confirmed by the mainstream media frenzy over Theresa May’s
political mis-management of the greatest post-war challenge of our time. In part-one (by
left leaning, The Guardian newspaper) we see how Brexit really came about and who
influenced it. In part-two (by centre newspaper The Independent) we see how opaque and
deceptive think tanks have heavily influenced Brexit and in part-three (by right leaning
EUReferendum) we see that economic chaos is being planned in a post-Brexit era, who is
involved and why. These articles identify the actors behind the current attack on Britain
and what has happened to date so far. At the end, the reader should get a sense of the
impending disaster being constructed by the super-rich against the people of Britain
purely for profit. Just as oil speculators pushed up global energy prices to $145 a barrel
just prior to the financial crash in what was termed the London Loophole, and then
profited from short bets on the way down – Britain is being set up for a fall where those
with big money will ultimately clean up.
PART ONE: Carole Cadwalladr from The Guardian wrote a searing piece last May
on what really happened in Britain’s EU referendum vote. Her first sentence led
the reader into a 7,000 word setting of foreign actors and corporations intent on
usurping democracy in Britain. “A shadowy global operation involving big data,
billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced
the result of the EU referendum.” The article entitled “The Great British Brexit
Robbery: How Our Democracy Was Highjacked” is now the subject of a bitter legal
battle between the accused; Cambridge Analytica LLC and SCL Elections Limited
and The Guardian newspaper. Several amendments to the article have been
made since the original publication in a climate of legal threats. The stakes are
very high just for reporting it.
The article went deeply into how technology and data was illegally used in
Britain’s EU referendum voting process. One former employee of the main
company involved, Cambridge Analytica, confirmed that they were using
psychological operations – the same methods the military use to effect mass
sentiment change. It’s what they mean by winning ‘hearts and minds’. “We were
just doing it to win elections in the kind of developing countries that don’t have many
rules.” Except they were doing it in Britain, and at a historical moment for its
future.
As the reader continues, names like Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of
PayPal, Facebook, Google, MI5 and other vested interests such as hedge funds
and banks litter the story.
It is clear from Cadwalladr’s investigation that British democracy was subverted
through a covert, far-reaching plan of coordination enabled by US billionaires and
she shows how Britain is in the midst of a massive land grab for power by them.
These determined individuals bypassed Britain’s electoral laws and swung the
margins in favour to Brexit. She also highlights some political activities much
closer to home – note the involvement of the DUP, now the balance of power
in Theresa May’s government.
“Vote Leave (the official Leave campaign) chose to spend £3.9m, more than half its
official £7m campaign budget. As did three other affiliated Leave campaigns: BeLeave,
Veterans for Britain and the Democratic Unionist party (DUP), spending a further
£757,750. “Coordination” between campaigns is prohibited under UK electoral law,
unless campaign expenditure is declared, jointly. It wasn’t”.
The story gets darker as it accuses the British military-industrial complex, old-school
Tories, a former parliamentary under-secretary of State for Defence procurement, director
of Marconi Defence Systems, and David Cameron’s pro-Brexit former trade envoy – of
involvement. Allegations are made that the head of psychological operations for British
forces in Afghanistan are in on the game. One alarmingly frank quote says:
“SCL/Cambridge Analytica was not some startup created by a couple of guys with a
MacBook. It’s effectively part of the British defence establishment” using “military
strategies on a civilian population.“
Data, algorithms, micro-ads, emotional manipulation, voter
engagement/disengagement, and psyops strategies are just some of the buzz
words in use to ensure enough votes go the right way. These strategies are all
connected to names such as the aforementioned Cambridge Analytica, but also
Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, AggregateIQ, Leave.EU, Vote Leave, Nigel
Farage, the DUP and big financial donors.

“We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are
then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying
situation.”
David Miller, a professor of sociology at Bath University and an authority in psyops and
propaganda, says it is “an extraordinary scandal that this should be anywhere near a
democracy. It should be clear to voters where information is coming from, and if it’s not
transparent or open where it’s coming from, it raises the question of whether we are
actually living in a democracy or not.”
This all conjures up the characteristics of a great novel, a story that helped to
bring about the biggest constitutional change to Britain in a century. In the end,
the article concludes that “we, the British people, were played.”
This conclusion is best described by Cadwalladre’s final words.

“This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy.
Paid for by US billionaires. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And
enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent.
This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first
step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.”
Unfortunately, Cadwalladr’s article is not a work of fiction or theory. And if you
think that is depressing – that foreign billionaires can usurp Britain’s democracy
at will, then it does in fact, get much worse, because obviously there must be
reasons why so much time, effort and money has gone into such a dangerous
high stakes game in the first place.

PART-TWO – In February 2016, The Independent newspaper published an

article about the role of think tanks and Brexit entitled: “EU referendum: Think-tanks
conducting ‘independent’ research to support Brexit have close links to Vote Leave.”
Their conclusions revealed that there was a network of right-wing organisations
whose staff, board members and even offices were linked to one of the main
Leave campaigns, in fact, Vote Leave.

Dr David Green, the chief executive of think tank Civitas, and Ryan Bourne, head
of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), are both listed as
supporters of Economists for Britain, a group that was run by Matthew
Elliott, who was chief executive of the Leave Campaign (all names you will read
about in Part-Three).
Elliot is described as a ‘political strategist and lobbyist’ who was also co-founder
of right-wing The Taxpayers Alliance, was campaign director for the
successful NOtoAV campaign in the 2011, which left the UK as one of very few
modern democracies left with its archaic First-Past-The-Post electoral systems.
Elliot was the subject of a lengthy Guardian investigation who described TPA as
a right-wing lobby group with close links to the Conservative party. Vote Leave
ultimately garnered the support of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove for the Brexit
campaign.
Mark Littlewood, the director general of the IEA, was on the editorial board of
“Change or Go” – Business for Britain’s 1,000-page “bible” on the case for Brexit.
The multimillionaire hedge fund boss Sir Michael Hintze is a trustee of IEA, and is
also on the advisory council of Business for Britain. He has also been linked to
Vote Leave.
Vote Leave used reports generated by these think tanks to heavily promote the
case for Brexit.

Both Civitas and the IEA insisted that their work was entirely independent of the
Brexit campaigns and their organisation reflected a wide range of views.

Daniel Bentley, editorial director at Civitas, said:

“Civitas is an independent think-tank which conducts its research without fear or favour.
We have no formal links with either Vote Leave or Business for Britain. There is
absolutely no evidence, nor can it be reasonably deduced, that Civitas’s work is anything
less than robust and accurate. Those claiming otherwise are committed pro-EU
campaigners, who self-evidently have an agenda to undermine evidence which conflicts
with their position.”
At his point it should be noted that both Civitas and the IEA have been identified
by Transparify (who rate the financial transparency of major think tanks), as being
‘highly opaque’ about how they are funded and who by. Transparify went on say
the following:

“A closer look at the highly opaque institutions on our list confirmed our hypothesis that
think tanks that hide their donors usually have something to hide. For example, according
to research compiled by TobaccoTactics, the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy
Studies, and the Institute for Economic Affairs have all previously received undisclosed
funding from tobacco companies, and all have produced research that was then used to
lobby against stronger anti-smoking regulations. We found that the Adam Smith Institute
has created a structure so opaque that it concealed not only who gave money, but also
who took it, leaving us unable to determine where close to one million pounds given by
American donors had ended up. Meanwhile, Policy Exchange has previously used
evidence that appears to have been fabricated; the resulting report led to fake news
headlines in several media outlets that had naively trusted “research” conducted by an
opaque think tank.”
All of these names you will read about in part three.

PART THREE: By adding part one of this story to part two, you will start to gather
that all these actors are connected one way or another. Part three identifies yet
more actors whose end game is to bring about economic chaos in Britain, one
which has been described as “disaster capitalism“, designed to significantly profit
from a hard Brexit. “Here, a comparison could be made with Hong Kong, where a
similar situation might arise in a UK under the stress of a hard Brexit, where many
traditional firms have run for cover, or relocated in the EU, leaving many assets under-
priced.”
In other words – Brexit has been engineered to bring about economic chaos for no other
reason than making huge profits. Read on…

EUReferendum writes: Currently making something of an impact in the Brexit

debate is an operation calling itself the Legatum Institute, based in fashionable W1
with the address of 11 Charles Street.
The Foundation is registered with Company House as a company limited by
guarantee. But, according to the 2015 accounts (submitted to the Charity
Commissioners in October 2016), the bulk of its income comes from the Legatum
Foundation Limited, a company registered in Bermuda.
The Bermuda company in turn is controlled by the Institute’s parent undertakings.
The ultimate parent undertaking is the Legatum Partnership LLP, a limited liability
partnership registered in Jersey., all of which are offshore tax havens.

The Institute itself is part of the Legatum Group, set up in 2006 by the multi-
billionaire New Zealand born Christopher Chandler, formerly president of
Sovereign Asset Management.
In the 2015 report to the Charity Commissioners, senior management personnel
of the Legatum Institute were listed as Anne Applebaum, Giles Dilnot, Alexandra
Mousavizadeh, former newspaper columnist Christina Odone and Shanker
Singham, the latter acting as chairman of the Institute’s Special Trade
Commission, fronting most of the Brexit propaganda.
Applebaum is firmly on the political right, having been an adjunct fellow of the
American Enterprise Institute. She has an extensive career as a journalist,
working for the Washington Post, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and the Economist.
She was deputy editor of the Spectator and political editor for the Evening Standard.
However, she resigned from the Legatum Institute in 2016, having disagreed with
the director over the Institute’s support for Brexit. She now works for the LSE. If
Applebaum was described as ‘politically right’ – one can only imagine where
Legatum stands.
Currently top of the hierarchy is Philippa Stroud, CEO of the Institute. Previously. She
used to be Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), a right-wing think tank
that she co-founded with Iain Duncan Smith in 2004. Prior to the CSJ, she was also
Special Adviser to Iain Duncan Smith MP (then Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions) from 2010-15. Another of the Legatum Institute directors is Toby Baxendale.
He is also on its board of trustees. As to other interests, he was director, alongside co-
director Steve Baker, of the now defunct Leadsom4Leader, a limited company set up to
support Andrea Leadsom’s Conservative Party leadership bid.
Baxendale is also co-founder, again with Steve Baker, of the Cobden Centre, a free
market libertarian think tank that influenced Margaret Thatcher). He also set up the
Hayek Visiting Fellowship at the London School of Economics and has been a significant
donor to the Conservative Party.
A senior fellow of the Cobden Centre is Professor Kevin Dowd, who is also an honorary
fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Dowd is a professor of finance and
economics at Durham University and a member of the lobby group, Economists for Free
Trade and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute – an American right-wing think located
just down the road to the Whitehouse in Washington DC that is funded by the billionaire
Koch brothers. The brothers allegedly spent nearly $900 million dollars trying
to influence the outcome of the last presidential race that saw Donald Trump move into
the Whitehouse.
The links with the Cobden Centre bring us to Matthew Elliott, who just happens to be
a senior fellow of the Legatum Institute (and you thought he was chief executive of the
Leave Campaign!). Elliott, founder of the aforementioned Taxpayers Alliance and one-
time director of Vote Leave, sits with another Legatum senior fellow Tim Montgomerie,
founding editor of Conservative Home and former Times columnist. At the Cobden
Centre, he sits on the Advisory Board with Sam Bowman, research director of the Adam
Smith Institute (categorised by Transparify as almost the most ‘highly deceptive’ think
tank in Britain), Ewen Stewart – a managing board member of the Freedom Association
(right-wing pressure group) – and Douglas Carswell.
Yet another senior fellow Legatum Institute is Danny Kruger, former chief speechwriter
to David Cameron, chief leader writer at The Daily Telegraph, and director of research
at the Centre for Policy Studies (categorized as highly opaque/deceptive think tank by
Transparify).
Listed as a Legatum fellow, along with many others, one also finds Graeme Leach,
founder and chief economist of Macronomics, a macroeconomic, geopolitical and future
megatrends research consultancy he launched in 2016. He is a visiting professor of
economic policy, a member of the IEA Shadow Monetary Policy Committee and has a
weekly column in the City AM newspaper. Between 1997 and 2013 he worked as Chief
Economist and Director of Policy at the Institute of Directors (IoD), where he was also a
main board director.
A trustee of Legatum is Richard Briance, the Chairman of PMB Capital Limited, a
newly formed merchant banking business and former Chief Executive of Edmond de
Rothschild Ltd. Before that, he had been Managing Director of Credit Suisse First Boston
Ltd, Vice-Chairman at UBS Ltd and Chief Executive of West Merchant Bank Ltd.
In terms of his other political activities, Briance was a Non-Executive Director at Oxford
Analytica from 1999-2010 and he has been a trustee of Policy Exchange, the think tank
(categorised as ‘opaque’ by Transparify) created in 2002 by Michael Gove, now
environment minister, Nicholas Boles and Francis Maude.
One of the key figures in the Policy Exchange was Lord (James) O’Shaughnessy,
formerly Deputy Director. He then worked for the Prime Minister, David Cameron, as his
Director of Policy between 2010 and 2011 and for three years (2007-2010) worked in the
Conservative Party as Director of Policy and Research. He has now become a senior
fellow at the Legatum Institute.
Another network is created with the use of Sian Hansen as chair the Institute’s
development committee. Formerly managing director of the Policy Exchange, she went
on to become executive director of the Legatum Institute”.
She is also also holds non-executive directorships with JP Morgan Income and Capital
Trust PLC, Pacific Assets Trust and EBF International (Shanghai) Ltd.
In October 2016, The Legatum Institute sponsored a report called The Road to
Brexit. The foreword was by Iain Duncan Smith, Philippa Stroud’s former boss.
Also writing for the report were the MPs John Redwood, Peter Lilley, Owen
Paterson and Bernard Jenkin – leading members of the “Ultras”.
As well as Shanker Singham, there were two other authors, Sheila Lawlor and James
Arnell. Lawlor directs the economic, education, constitutional and social policy
programmes of think tank Politeia who advocates the abolition of the NHS – while
Arnell is a partner as Charterhouse, displaying ultra right-wing views on Brexit.
The picture one gets of Legatum, therefore, is of an exceptionally well-endowed think-
tank with fingers in many pies and strongly networked with other think-tanks and the
media. With offshore finance, though, this is redolent of foreign interference in UK
politics.
The greatest concern, though, comes from reading the Legatum website. Having invested
heavily in Russia and developing countries, the business speciality is moving into markets
at times of crisis where assets are mispriced.
EUReferendum continues: With an eye for emerging trends and undervalued assets, it
invested heavily in the telecommunications sector in Brazil, just after the country
emerged from hyperinflation. It describes its own “investment heritage” in navigating
through choppy markets, following the great financial crisis.

The company takes great pride in its investments in Hong Kong real estate, a market
which investors had fled after the signing of the Sino-British Accord, an agreement that
promised to give Hong Kong back to the Chinese government. It saw assets mispriced,
and noted that “opportunities arise in times of crisis”.

This is a business style which has been described as “disaster capitalism“, which would
benefit significantly from a hard Brexit. Here, a comparison could be made with Hong
Kong, where a similar situation might arise in a UK under the stress of a hard Brexit,
where many traditional firms have run for cover, or relocated in the EU, leaving many
assets under-priced.
Looking also for opportunities arising from deregulation and further privatisation –
especially in the NHS, with Legatum having considerable healthcare interests – hard
Brexit presents multiple opportunities. This, after all, is a business

that openly states that it “finds value where disruptive transitions create unique
opportunities“.
In this, the Legatum Institute seems to be paving the way for its “parent undertakings”,
engineering a “disruptive transition” for Brexit, then to reap the profits from chaos. Its
task is assisted by useful fools and fellow travellers on the Tory right. What we have
often characterised as incompetence, therefore, may be more sinister. There is money to
be made out of a hard Brexit.

Brexit – The Evidence that W e’ve All Been Conned Keeps Piling Up
Finally, there are others who agree that Brexit on its own is one thing but what is
actually happening is something quite different.

Tax Justice Network, (one of the most transparent think tanks in Britain) are
very concerned:
“It was never quite made clear who would be the major beneficiaries of Brexit. One thing
was certain at the time: it wouldn’t be ordinary people. Instead, power is being
consolidated by the same old political and economic elites and the state is becoming
more, not less, beholden to big business and its demands. These are the real consequences
of Brexit.”
It is also becoming clear with this strategy, that a right-wing Tory Brexit will end
with huge deregulation. This will be sold to the general public as freedom from
the red tape of an EU bureaucracy that Britain escaped, not the public protections
put in place over decades to ensure civil society thrives. But as George
Monbiot opines;
“Ripping down such public protections means freedom for billionaires and
corporations from the constraints of democracy. This is what Brexit is all about. The
freedom we were promised is the freedom of the very rich to exploit us.”
EUReferedum states in its overall aims for a post-Brexit Britain that:

“Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people
who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and
national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core
of true democracy.”
On its current trajectory, Brexit is not going to deliver any of those noble
outcomes, unless of course, you happen to be a foreign billionaire with significant
interests in the game.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.
The original source of this article is TruePublica
Copyright © Graham Vanbergen, TruePublica, 2018
https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-brexit-was-engineered-by-foreign-billionaires-to-bring-about-economic-chaos-
for-profit/5614194

Measuring Poverty 2019 – A report of the Social Metrics Commission The

Social Metrics Commission’s 2019 report reveals the scale of the challenge
when it comes to tackling poverty across the UK
https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/SMC_measuring-poverty-201908_full-report.pdf

Follow the data: does

a legal document link
Brexit campaigns to
US billionaire?
This article is more than 2 years old
We reveal how a confidential legal agreement
is at the heart of a web connecting Robert
Mercer to Britain’s EU referendum
Carole Cadwalladr
@carolecadwalla
Sun 14 May 2017 08.00 BST
Last modified on Thu 18 Apr 2019
US billionaire Robert Mercer in Washington DC in March this year

n 18 November 2015, the British press gathered in a hall in Westminster

to witness the official launch of Leave.EU. Nigel Farage, the campaign’s
figurehead, was banished to the back of the room and instead
an American political strategist, Gerry Gunster, took centre stage and
explained its strategy. “The one thing that I know is data,” he said.
“Numbers do not lie. I’m going to follow the data.”

Eighteen months on, it’s this same insight – to follow the data – that is
the key to unlocking what really happened behind the scenes of the
Leave campaign. On the surface, the two main campaigns, Leave.EU
and Vote Leave, hated one other. Their leading lights, Farage and Boris
Johnson, were sworn enemies for the duration of the referendum. The
two campaigns bitterly refused even to share a platform.

But the Observer has seen a confidential document that provides clear
evidence of a link between the two campaigns. More precisely, evidence
of a close working relationship between the two data analytics firms
employed by the campaigns – AggregateIQ, which Vote Leave hired,
and Cambridge Analytica, retained by Leave.EU.
The leaked intellectual property licence document that shows a link between AggregateIQ and SCL
Elections (the company behind Cambridge Analytica)

British electoral law is founded on the principle of a level playing field

and controlling campaign spending is the key plank of that. The law
states that different campaigns must not work together unless they
declare their expenditure jointly. This controls spending limits so that
no side can effectively “buy” an election.

But this signed legal document – a document that was never meant to
be made public and was leaked by a concerned source – connects both
Vote Leave and Leave.EU’s data firms directly to Robert Mercer, the
American billionaire who bankrolled Donald Trump.

British electoral law is founded on the principle of a level playing field

and controlling campaign spending is the key plank of that. The law
states that different campaigns must not work together unless they
declare their expenditure jointly. This controls spending limits so that
no side can effectively “buy” an election.

But this signed legal document – a document that was never meant to
be made public and was leaked by a concerned source – connects both
Vote Leave and Leave.EU’s data firms directly to Robert Mercer, the
American billionaire who bankrolled Donald Trump.

his is a deeply complex story. It has taken three months of investigation

to unravel the web of connections – both human and contractual. But
these connections and threads linking two separate foreign data
analytics companies – one based in Canada and one based in London –
raise profound and troubling questions about our democratic process.
Because these intricate links lead, in not many steps, to Robert Mercer.

This ordinary-looking document is at the heart of a web of relationships

that link Mercer with the referendum to take Britain out of the EU.
What impact did Mercer have on Brexit? Did the campaigns know of the
link? Did they deliberately conceal it? Or could they, too, have been in
the dark?
Because, legally, these two companies – AggregateIQ in Canada and
Cambridge Analytica, an American company based in London, have
nothing to connect them publicly. But this intellectual property licence
shown to the Observer tells a different story. This created a binding
“exclusive” “worldwide” agreement “in perpetuity” for all of
AggregateIQ’s intellectual property to be used by SCL Elections (a
British firm that created Cambridge Analytica with Mercer).

The companies may have had different owners but they were legally
bound together. And, the Observer has learned, they were working
together on a daily basis at the time of the referendum – both
companies were being paid by Mercer-funded organisations to work on
Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign in America. What is more, several
anonymous sources reveal the two companies, working on two separate
British Leave campaigns, actually shared the same database at the time.

In fact AggregateIQ had a non-compete clause. Leave.EU announced in

November 2015 it was working with Cambridge Analytica which means
that AggregateIQ must have had explicit permission to work with Vote
Leave.

And yet none of this was visible. Dominic Cummings, a

former Tory special adviser who was Vote Leave’s
chief strategist, was a vocal critic of Ukip, Farage,
Leave.EU and its millionaire backer, Arron Banks. And
the two campaigns followed different strategies –
Leave.EU targeting Ukippers and disaffected working-
class Labour voters with images of queues of
refugees. Vote Leave targeted middle England with a
message about returning £350m a week from Europe
to the NHS.
Advertisement
Follow the data, however, and another story is
revealed, which leads directly to Mercer and his close
associate, Steve Bannon, now Donald Trump’s chief
strategist in the White House. Mercer was the owner of
Cambridge Analytica, a firm which, as the Observer
detailed last week, was spun out of a British firm with
30 years experience in working for governments and
militaries around the world, specialising in
“psychological operations”. At the time of the
referendum, the Observer has learned, Bannon was
the head of it.
What was not known, until February, was the
relationship between all these figures and the Leave
campaign. That was when Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s
communications director, revealed to this paper that
Farage was a close friend of both Bannon and Mercer.
He said that the Leave campaign was a “petri dish” for
the Trump campaign. “We shared a lot of information
because what they were trying to do and what we were
trying to do had massive parallels.”
Wigmore also said that Mercer had been “happy to
help” and Cambridge Analytica had given its services
to the campaign for free. It was the general secretary
of Ukip, a British lawyer called Matthew Richardson,
who effected Leave.eu’s introduction to Cambridge
Analytica, Wigmore said. “We had a guy called
Matthew Richardson who’d known Nigel for a long time
and he’s always looked after the Mercers. The Mercers
had said that here’s this company that we think might
be useful.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/
robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-
referendum-brexit-campaigns

Follow the Data: Does a Legal Document Link Brexit Campaigns to US

Billionaire? The Guardian
By Carole Cadwalladr
May 14, 2017

Taxation Cross-Border
Trade Bill, If Passed In Its
Current Form, Would
Fatally Undermine The
British Manufacturing
Sector
9th January, 2018
As Parliament reconvened after the Christmas recess we hit the ground running with the Taxation
(Cross-border) Trade Bill. This seeks to establish a new post-Brexit trade defence regime, but as I said
in my speech in the House, in it’s current form it would fatally undermine the British manufacturing
sector, including the steel industry in my Aberavon constituency.
You can read my speech below.
https://www.biicl.org/documents/1773_bingham_centre_eu_withdrawal_bill_-
_discussion_document_-_09_10_2017_-_final.pdf?showdocument=1

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE,

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK Finalising
preparations for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 1 November 2019
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/com-2019-394-final_en.pdf
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART FIVE: EXTERNAL ACTION BY
THE UNION - TITLE IV: RESTRICTIVE MEASURES - Article 218 (ex Article 300 TEC)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E218:en:HTML

Stephen Kinnock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill
Grant), even though large parts of his speech were based on magical thinking.
I rise to address schedules 4 and 5, which propose the introduction of a new post-Brexit trade defence
regime. Trade remedies enable countries to defend themselves against underpriced and state-subsidised
goods, so they play a pivotal role in the rules-based WTO system. Governments would never have
agreed to the radical trade liberalisation of the past half century were they not reassured that they could
act to step in and defend their industries, if necessary. Trade defence remedies have therefore played a
central role in tearing down the walls that prevent free and fair trade. How ironic, then, that this Bill is
the work of a Conservative Government. The party that claims to be the voice of enterprise, free trade,
business and industrial strategy has produced a Bill that, if passed in its current form, would fatally
undermine the British manufacturing sector.
To illustrate my point, I wish to focus on what the Bill, in its current form, would mean for the British
steel industry, which is centred on the Port Talbot steelworks in my Aberavon constituency. Over a
third of the EU’s 92 trade defence instruments relate to steel, and over the years those 30-odd measures
have played a vital part in stemming the flow of the dumped Chinese steel that almost led to the total
collapse of the British steel industry. The Chinese Communist party owns 80% of that country’s steel
industry. The party subsidises the industry to the hilt and sells the steel at well below cost on the global
market. It is a well-established strategy that the Chinese state pursues relentlessly and ruthlessly in its
bid to extinguish all competition and establish monopoly status.
The all-party group on steel’s “Steel 2020” report, which was supported and signed by Members who
now serve in government, concluded that trade defence instruments exist not to unfairly protect certain
sectors of the economy, but rather
“to support the free, fair and efficient functioning of the market.”
I will certainly not stand here and claim that the EU’s trade remedies regime works perfectly; it does
not. It has often been too slow and bureaucratic, and it has unfortunately been hamstrung by the lesser
duty rule. The fact of the matter is that the European Commission acts on behalf of 28 member states
and 500 million consumers, so when it threatens action, even behemoths such as China sit up and take
notice. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that were it not for the anti-dumping measures taken by
the Commission at the height of the steel crisis, our precious steel industry would probably have gone
under.
I speak today not only to raise concerns about the Bill’s implications for our steel industry, but to
highlight the fact that this is about the future of our entire manufacturing sector. Indeed, the chief
executive officers of the British steel, paper, ceramics, minerals and chemicals associations, along with
their trade union counterparts, put it very well in their letter of 5 January to the Financial Times. They
said:
“Without a robust approach to trade remedies the UK government will be unable to achieve its
international trade or industrial strategy ambitions. The UK’s manufacturing base and tens of
thousands of jobs around the country…will be at risk if parliament gets the bill wrong.”
I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they have any form of manufacturing in their
constituency, the Bill really matters to them.
As an MP who represents a constituency whose local economy relies almost entirely on manufacturing,
I desperately want the Government’s industrial strategy to succeed, but the fact is that it will not be
worth the paper it is written on if it is not underpinned by a robust trade remedies regime. It is in that
constructive spirit that I urge the Government to undertake a radical rethink of schedules 4 and 5, with
particular reference to five issues. First, the Bill contains very little detail about how the post-Brexit
trade remedies regime will operate in practice. Instead it enables the Secretary of State to legislate for
all-important details through statutory instruments. That really matters not only because it is yet
another example of Ministers attempting to sideline Parliament, which has become a recurring theme
of this whole Brexit process, but because there will be deep and widespread industry uncertainty until
the secondary legislation is in place. Labour Members have raised the issue of steel in this place more
than 300 times since 2015, but if this Bill passes in its current form, steelworkers and their families can
kiss goodbye to the idea that they will have a voice in Parliament standing up for their interests and
fighting their corner. We will not be able to do so because all the key decisions will be taken behind
closed doors and implemented by statutory instruments.
Secondly, it is imperative that the Bill includes a cast-iron commitment to scrapping the lesser duty
rule. This Government have been the ringleader of attempts to block EU moves to reform the rule,
which means that we have only been able to impose tariffs of 13% to 16%, whereas the Americans, for
example, can impose import duties of over 200% on dumped Chinese steel. An unreformed lesser duty
rule must not be retained in UK law. We therefore call on the Government to state precisely how they
intend to calculate the margin of injury to ensure that the process is at least as robust as the reformed
EU system, and to lay out all that detail in the Bill.
Thirdly, the economic and public interest tests would create an unnecessarily high barrier to
introducing any form of trade defence. None of those tests is required under WTO rules, so why are the
Government intent on placing multiple obstacles in the path of an industry that wishes to file a
complaint?
Fourthly, we need changes to the proposed remit and composition of the Trade Remedies Authority,
bringing it in line with global norms and ensuring proper representation of trade unions and industry.
Fifthly, the Bill must be amended to ensure that British courts are able to correct decisions made by the
Government that deny British industry WTO-complainant rights that our competitors across the world
enjoy. Without those changes, the Bill will fail in its essential task of establishing a fit and proper trade
defence regime.
Once we have decoupled ourselves from the EU’s trade defence regime, it is simply beyond debate that
we will have less leverage. Therefore, if anything, the post-Brexit regime that we create must be far
tougher and more robust than the one that we have left. That is why we simply cannot allow schedules
4 and 5 to pass unamended. Unless the Bill is amended, it will deny us even those scant protections.
For that reason, I urge hon. and right hon. Members to join me in the Lobby to amend and fix this
broken Bill.
https://www.stephenkinnock.co.uk/taxation-cross-border-trade-bill-if-passed-in-its-current-form-
would-fatally-undermine-the-british-manufacturing-sector/

PM statement on
priorities for the
government: 25 July
2019
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's
statement in the House of Commons
on the priorities for the government.
Published 25 July 2019
From:
Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP

Delivered on:
25 July 2019 (Transcript of the speech, exactly
With Mr Boris Piggy s it was delivered)

Mr Speaker, I with permission, shall make a

statement on the mission of this new
Conservative Government.
But before I begin, I am sure the whole House
will join me in paying tribute to my Rt Hon Friend
the Member for Maidenhead - for all that she has
given in the service of our nation.
From fighting modern slavery to tackling the
problems of mental ill-health – she has a great
legacy on which we shall all be proud to build.
And our mission is to deliver Brexit on the 31st of
October for the purpose of uniting and re-
energising our great United Kingdom and making
this country the greatest place on earth.
And when I say the greatest place on earth, I’m
conscious that some may accuse me of
hyperbole. But it is useful to imagine the
trajectory on which we could now be embarked.
By 2050 it is more than possible that the United
Kingdom will be the greatest and most
prosperous economy in Europe – at the centre of
a new network of trade deals that we have
pioneered.
With the road and rail investments we are
making and propose to make now – the
investment in broadband and 5G – our country
will boast the most formidable transport and
technological connectivity on the planet.
By unleashing the productive power of the whole
United Kingdom - not just of London and the
South East but of every corner of England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – we will
have closed forever the productivity gap and
seen to it that no town is left behind ever again;
no community ever again forgotten.
Our children and grandchildren will be living
longer, happier, healthier, wealthier lives.
Our United Kingdom of 2050 will no longer make
any contribution whatsoever to the destruction of
our precious planet brought about by carbon
emissions – because we will have led the world
in delivering that net zero target.
We will be the home of electric vehicles – cars,
even planes, powered by British made battery
technology being developed right here, right now.
We will have the freeports to revitalise our
coastal communities, a bioscience sector
liberated from anti genetic modification rules,
blight-resistant crops that will feed the world -
and the satellite and earth observation systems
that are the envy of the world.
We will be the seedbed for the most exciting and
most dynamic business investments on the
planet.
Our Constitutional settlement, our United
Kingdom will be firm, will be secure.
Our Union of nations beyond question.
Our democracy robust.
Our future clean, green, prosperous, united,
confident, ambitious – this my friends is the prize,
more still the responsibility that it falls on us to
fulfil.
And to do so, we must take some immediate
steps.
The first is to restore trust in our democracy and
fulfil the repeated promises of Parliament to the
people by coming out of the European Union –
and doing so on October 31st.
I and all ministers in this government are
committed to leaving on this date, whatever the
circumstances. To do otherwise would cause a
catastrophic loss of confidence in our political
system. It will leave the British people wondering
whether their politicians could ever be trusted
again to follow a clear democratic instruction.
I would prefer us to leave the EU with a deal. I
would much prefer it. I believe that is still
possible even at this late stage and I will work flat
out to make it happen. But certain things need to
be clear.
The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by my
predecessor has been three times rejected by
this House. Its terms are unacceptable to this
Parliament and to this country. No country that
values its independence and indeed its self-
respect could agree to a Treaty which signed
away our economic independence and self-
government as this backstop does. A time limit is
not enough. If an agreement is to be reached it
must be clearly understood that the way to the
deal goes by way of the abolition of the backstop.
For our part we are ready to negotiate in good
faith an alternative, with provisions to ensure that
the Irish border issues are dealt with where they
should always have been: in the negotiations on
the future agreement between the UK and the
EU. I do not accept the argument that says that
these issues can only be solved by all or part of
the UK remaining in the customs union or in the
single market. The evidence is that other
arrangements are perfectly possible, and are
also perfectly compatible with the Belfast or
Good Friday Agreement, to which we are of
course steadfastly committed.
I, my team, and my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary
of State for Exiting the European Union are ready
to meet and to talk on this basis to the
Commission or other EU colleagues whenever
they are ready to do so.
For our part, we will throw ourselves into these
negotiations with the greatest energy and
determination and in the spirit of friendship.
And I hope that the EU will be equally ready and
that they will rethink their current refusal to make
any changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.
If they do not, we will of course have to leave the
EU without an agreement under Article 50. The
UK is better prepared for that situation than many
believe. But we are not as ready yet as we
should be. In the 98 days that remain to us we
must turbo-charge our preparations to make sure
that there is as little disruption as possible to our
national life. I believe that is possible with the
kind of national effort that the British people have
made before and will make again. In these
circumstances we would, of course, also have
available the £39bn in the Withdrawal Agreement
to help deal with any consequences.
I have today instructed the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster to make these preparations
his top priority. I have asked the Cabinet
Secretary to mobilise the Civil Service to deliver
this outcome should it become necessary. And
the Chancellor has confirmed that all necessary
funding will be made available.
I will also ensure that preparing for leaving the
EU without an agreement under Article 50 is not
just about seeking to mitigate the challenges but
also about grasping the opportunities. This is not
just about technical preparations, vital though
they are. It is about having a clear economic
strategy for the UK in all scenarios, something
which the Conservative Party has always led the
way, and it’s about producing policies which will
boost the competitiveness and the productivity of
our economy when we are free of the EU
regulations.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, we will begin right away on
working to change the tax rules to provide extra
incentives to invest in capital and research.
And we will be now accelerating the talks on
those free trade deals.
And we will prepare an economic package to
boost British business and lengthen this
country’s lead as the number one destination in
this continent for overseas investment.
A status that is made possible by the diversity
talent and skills of our workforce and,
Mr Speaker, I also want therefore to repeat
unequivocally our guarantee to the 3.2 million EU
nationals now living and working among us. I
thank them for their contribution to our society –
and for their patience - and I can assure them
that under this government they will have the
absolute certainty of the right to live and remain.
Mr Speaker, I want to end by making clear that
my commitment to the 31 October date for our
exit.
Our national participation in the European Union
is coming to an end.
This reality needs to be recognised by all parties.
Indeed, Mr Speaker today there are very many
brilliant officials trapped in meeting after meeting
in Brussels and Luxembourg when they could be
better deploying their talents in preparing to
pioneer new trade deals and promoting a truly
Global Britain.
I want to start unshackling our officials to
undertake this new mission right away.
So we will not nominate a UK Commissioner for
the new Commission taking office on 1
November – though clearly this is not intended to
stop the EU appointing a new commission.
Mr Speaker, today is the first day of a new
approach, which will end with our exit from the
EU on 31 October. Then I hope we can have a
friendly and constructive relationship – as
constitutional equals, as friends, and partners in
facing the challenges that lie ahead. I believe
that is possible and this government will work to
make it so.
But Mr Speaker, we are not going to wait until
31st October to begin building the broader and
bolder future that I have described.
We are going to start right away, providing vital
funding for our frontline public services, to deliver
better healthcare, better education and more
police on the streets.
Mr Speaker, I am committed to making sure that
the NHS receives the funds that were promised
by the last government in June 2018 and that
these funds go to frontline as soon as possible.
This will include urgent funding for 20 hospital
upgrades and winter-readiness. I have asked
officials to provide policy proposals for drastically
reducing waiting times and for GP appointments.
To address the rise of violent crime in our
country I have announced that there will be
20,000 extra police keeping us safe over the next
three years, and I have asked my Rt Hon Friend
the Home Secretary to ensure this is treated as
an absolute priority.
We will give greater powers for the police to use
stop and search to help tackle violent crime. I
have also tasked officials to draw up proposals to
ensure that in future those found guilty of the
most serious sexual and violent offences are
required to serve a custodial sentence that truly
reflects the severity of their offence and policy
measures that will see a reduction in the number
of prolific offenders.
On education, I have listened to the concerns of
many colleagues and we will increase the
minimum level of per pupil funding in primary and
secondary schools and return education funding
to previous levels by the end of this Parliament.
We are committed to levelling up across every
nation and region across the UK, providing
support to towns and cities and closing the
opportunity gap in our society.
We will announce investment in vital
infrastructure, fibre rollout, transport and housing
that can improve people’s quality of life, fuel
economic growth and provide opportunity.
Finally, we will also ensure that we continue to
attract the brightest and best talent from around
the world. No-one believes more strongly than
me in the benefits of migration to our country. But
I am clear that our immigration system must
change. For years, politicians have promised the
public an Australian-style points based system.
And today I will actually deliver on those
promises - I will ask the Migration Advisory
Committee to conduct a review of that system as
the first step in a radical rewriting of our
immigration system. I am convinced that we can
produce a system that the British public can have
confidence in.
Mr Speaker, over these past few years, too many
people in this country feel that they have been
told repeatedly and relentlessly what we cannot
do.
Since I was a child I remember respectable
authorities asserting that our time as a nation has
passed, that we should be content with
mediocrity and managed decline.
And time and again – even the sceptics and
doubters - by their powers to innovate and adapt
the British people have showed the doubters
wrong.
And Mr Speaker I believe that at this pivotal
moment in our national story we are going to
prove the doubters wrong again.
Not just with positive thinking and a can-do
attitude, important though they are.
But with the help and the encouragement
government and a Cabinet that is bursting with
ideas, ready to create change, determined to
implement the policies we need to succeed as a
nation.
The greatest place to live
The greatest place to bring up a family
The greatest place to send your kids to school
The greatest place to set up a business or to
invest
Because we have the best transport and the
cleanest environment and the best healthcare,
And the most compassionate approach to care of
elderly people.
That is the mission of the Cabinet I have
appointed.
That is the purpose of the government I am
leading.
And that is why I believe that if we bend our
sinews to the task now,
There is every chance that in 2050,
When I fully intend to be around, though not
necessarily in this job we will look back on this
period, this extraordinary period, as the
beginning of a new golden age for our United
Kingdom.
And I commend this future to the House just as
much as I commend this statement.
Published 25 July 2019
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-priorities-for-the-government-25-july-
2019
Parliamentary debates in the House of Commons on the Schuman Plan (27 June 1950)
https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/0e88cf11-7b12-4ca2-ba4f-00207d49415f/publishable_en.pdf

Schuman Declaration - 9 May 1950

Schuman Declaration. Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of West Germany, said of the
declaration, "That's our breakthrough.". The ECSC was created by the Treaty of Paris (1951)
and on 18 April 1951, the leaders of the six member countries (including Schuman) signed a
European Declaration stating that 'the signing of this Treaty ...
 Schuman Declaration – 9 May 1950. It proposed the creation of a European Coal and Steel
Community, whose members would pool coal and steel production. The ECSC (founding
members: France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) was the
first of a series of supranational European institutions that would ultimately become today's
"European Union".
Schuman Plan, with the commitment which His Majesty's Government had to accept before
they went into the conversations, is a planwhich one could not possibly consider carefully
without having in advance the fullest understanding

http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/attachments/293_Schuman%20Declaration%20-
%209%20May%201950.pdf

Assessing the risks to the euro area financial sector

from a no-deal Brexit – update following the
extension of the UK’s membership of the EU
The extension of the UK’s membership of the EU agreed by the European
Council on 10 April avoided a no-deal Brexit scenario over the FSR review
period. But the risk of a no-deal scenario occurring at the end of the extension period
cannot be excluded. The additional time should be used by both financial and non-
financial sectors to continue to prepare for all possible contingencies, including a
disorderly Brexit. Furthermore, banks should use the period in which the UK remains
in the EU to make progress towards their target operating models within the timelines
previously agreed with their supervisors.
A no-deal Brexit poses manageable risks to overall euro area financial stability
and authorities have prepared for this scenario.[6] Action has been taken where
necessary (for example, in the area of market infrastructures), and the private sector
has made progress in certain areas to address Brexit-related risks. Nevertheless, there
remain tail macro-financial risks whereby a no-deal Brexit interacts with other global
shocks, in an environment where risks to the euro area growth outlook are tilted to the
downside. If such a scenario occurs, the impact would likely be concentrated on
particular countries, such as those with significant ties to the UK. This could be
further amplified by any lack of preparedness among clients in the financial sector
and certain key sectors of the real economy. It is also important to acknowledge that
the extent of non-linear effects which might occur in such a scenario cannot be fully
predicted.
The materialisation of a no-deal scenario may entail substantial financial market
volatility and an increase in risk premia. Market intelligence suggests that financial
market prices reflect only a low probability of a no-deal scenario, although
uncertainty among market participants remains elevated in light of on-going political
developments. So a no-deal outcome could lead to substantial market turbulence. On
5 March, the Bank of England and the ECB announced the activation of the currency
swap arrangement for the possible provision of euro to UK banks. As part of the same
agreement, the Eurosystem would also stand ready to lend pounds sterling to euro
area banks. The activation marks a prudent and precautionary step by authorities to
provide additional flexibility in their provision of liquidity insurance, supporting the
functioning of markets that serve households and businesses.
Combined with an impact via trade channels, potential financial market shocks
related to a no-deal scenario pose a material downside risk to euro area GDP
growth. Beyond having an impact on euro area growth, a no-deal Brexit is also likely
to precipitate an even more significant macroeconomic shock in the UK.[7] In terms of
the implications of this potential macroeconomic shock for the euro area banking
system, it should be noted that direct exposures to the UK only accounted for about
7% of SSM significant institutions’ assets at the end of 2018. Of this, loans represent
less than 5% of total assets, with much of the remainder made up of derivatives
contracts held with UK counterparties. At the same time, these macro-financial tail
risks would likely have concentrated effects on particular countries and banks.
In relation to derivatives markets, cliff-edge risks in the area of cross-border
centrally cleared derivatives have been addressed through the temporary
equivalence decision of the European Commission for UK central counterparties
until 30 March 2020. Issues related to uncleared derivatives are also unlikely to pose
a systemic risk. In a no-deal scenario, euro area institutions will continue to be able to
hedge risks through uncleared derivatives markets using non-UK counterparties –
indeed, business with UK counterparties comprises less than a third of outstanding
contracts held by euro area institutions. The private sector has also made some
progress in addressing risks associated with the existing stock of contracts. Should
market participants wish to adjust the remaining stock of contracts, there are a range
of options available to them to do so. The private sector should make use of the risk
mitigants available to them over the coming months to ensure that they are fully
prepared for a no-deal scenario.
Financial stability risks are not expected in the area of cross-border insurance
contracts. In particular, UK insurance companies servicing EEA30 policyholders
have several options to mitigate any disruption and these options are being actively
used by firms. As a result, the vast majority of outstanding cross-border insurance
contracts are covered by credible contingency plans, with the residual contracts
primarily pertaining to non-life insurers.[8]
In terms of relocation planning, the majority of authorisation procedures related
to the establishment of new banks or the expansion of existing banks in the euro
area have been completed. The remaining ongoing authorisation procedures are
expected to be finalised before the end of October 2019. So no major disruptions in
the servicing of EU clients are expected. Banks are now in the process of
implementing their Brexit plans, including the transfer of capital, assets and client
activities. Going forward, the ECB expects banks to build up their capabilities in the
EU27 and to reach the agreed target operating models within the previously agreed
timelines.
Overall, the risk that the euro area real economy would be deprived of access to
financial services following the UK’s departure from the EU appears limited. But
macro-financial tail risks may have implications for parts of the euro area financial
system. The extension period should be used by both financial and non-financial
sectors to continue to prepare for all possible contingencies, including a disorderly
Brexit.

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/financial-
stability/fsr/html/ecb.fsr201905~266e856634.en.html#toc15

I’ll kick you out of

party, Boris Johnson
tells Tory rebels
Gauke warning over ‘95 per cent chance of no-
deal’ if MPs do not act
Francis Elliott, Political Editor
September 2 2019, 12:00pm,
The Times
• Politics
Boris Johnson
Michael Gove
Conservative Party 
Brexit

Boris Johnson cancelled a meeting with Tory rebels, citing a “diary

clash”
JEREMY SELWYN/REUTERS

Boris Johnson raised the stakes against Tory rebels

last night by promising to remove the whip from
anyone who votes to block a no-deal Brexit and ban
them from standing as a Conservative candidate at
the next election.
The prime minister issued the threat as opposition
leaders and some Tories prepared to force through
legislation compelling the government to secure
another delay if there was no agreement with the
European Union.
No 10 is braced for John Bercow, the Speaker, to
allow the coalition opposed to no-deal to seize
control of the Commons agenda as soon as MPs
return from their summer break tomorrow.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said
yesterday that the so-called rebel alliance had
settled on a “very simple plan”…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ill-kick-you-out-of-party-boris-johnson-tells-tory-rebels-
gd3rvhpzr
Letter to David Davis EU Agencies
12th December, 2017
Stephen Kincock to DD EU Agencies Letter
EU 'gradual
approach' to border
checks in no-deal
Brexit - sources
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019
The EU will assume a partnership role in the immediate aftermath
of a no-deal Brexit

By Tony Connelly
Europe Editor

The EU will take a gradual approach to the question

of how Ireland will have to comply with checks and
controls along the Irish border in the event of a no-
deal Brexit, RTÉ News understands.
Sources have portrayed a scenario where on day one
of a no-deal Brexit, it will be acknowledged that
Ireland is not fully in compliance with the obligations
that come when a member state shares a border with
a third country.
There are some 63 checks and controls that
potentially apply on goods entering the EU from a
third country.
It is understood that for a period afterwards, the EU
will assume a "partnership" role, allowing the Irish
Government to apply the rules of the single market
and customs union as best it can, while providing
advice and support, whether technical or financial,
over time.
There have been several meetings between Irish and
European Commission officials in recent months on
how a no-deal Brexit should be managed on the Irish
border, but these have tended to be high-level
political, rather than technical, and involving a small
core group of senior officials.
It is understood that a distinction is being made
between how to envisage the impact of a no-deal
Brexit ahead of time, and how it is actually responded
to from day one.

RTÉ News
✔
@rtenews

Fianna Fáil’s leader has accused the Government of

failing to be upfront about the impact of a no-deal #Brexit
7
6:54 PM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

See RTÉ News's other Tweets

Taoiseach and British PM to meet

Imagine the patience Ireland has forced on them until fg and ff can be gotten RID of?
Taoiseach is due to meet British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Monday. Leo Varadkar
has said he doesn't expect any breakthroughs
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/2425239554356329/?__tn__=%2C
d%2CP-R&eid=ARBfNYslVcf-AS2T8Pc4W6S7jWKL-Ocdk_o5aZeJ6xha-
HANWElYzhnkBOz4-P_xwbp99zzIa9l8OLnZ

Brexit Slums of FG an FF
Oh no Michelleen you can't put your head above the parapet now, and expect people to
believe you, Most people have lost complete trust in both FG/FF for their globalist agenda.
and their knee bending to herr merkel and the eu
The British Government is causing the mess. A united front is needed now more than ever in Ireland.
Ff would have folded on the backstop a year ago...now their playing politics with Brexit when
we need to maintain a unified front
Mickey Martin last stint drove the country off a cliff. Stop being silly now Mickey.
These W..... FF, FG, LB and SF have Helped set up this TTIP AND CETA BREXIT TRADE
NOW THE BACKSTOP FIRES BACK TO BITE THEM, THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT
WITH OPEN BORDER IS NOW A BIGGER PROBLEM BACK TO SQAURE ONE, THE
DISSIDENT IRA WILL BE BACK IF BORDER IS THE PLOT BY EU AND BRITAIN AND
IRISH GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE ALL F.CKED NOW, THEY F.CKED THIS ONE UP BIG
TIME. THEY ARE ALL A BLOODY JOKE KICK THEM OUT NOW, NO DEAL WILL BRING
BACK THE BORDER. IT WAS THE BIG PLAN ALL ALONG TO CHARGE TAXES ON THE
BORDER, THE BRITS GOT GREEDY AND WANT CAKE ON BOTH SIDES, THE
FORGOTTEN IRISH PEOPLE ARE BEING THREATENED WITH CHEAPER FOOD BRAND,
REMOVING EVERY IRISH NAME BRAND, THEY ARE REMOVING IRISH-NESS
COMPLETELY AND TURNING IT INTO A EUROPEAN AND UN NATION CULTURE.
DESTROYING ANY IRISH IDENTITY OF IRISH LANGUAGE AND IRISH PEOPLE,
TURNING IT INTO A NORTHERN IRISH UK IN GENERAL
Absolutely correct they are just going around scaremongering about the border. Just go and
look at Switzerland who have no borders and trade with the EU no problem.
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/379225709442595/

In this scenario, a full technical assessment of how

Ireland's obligations will be managed will only happen
after 1 November in "real world" conditions.
Individuals familiar with the situation say that only
then can the "political dynamics" of no-deal on the
island of Ireland be properly assessed.
It is understood that the EU will initially take what
might be described as a passive role, given that
under EU treaties it is up to member states to apply
the rules governing customs collection, food safety,
animal health and product compliance.

42:41
Over time, the Government would be expected to
communicate to the EU how it is managing different
checks and controls, if some controls are simply
politically too perilous, and what flexibility might be
available.
However, it is understood both Dublin and Brussels
acknowledge that there can be no derogations from
EU law.
"There will be an understanding on our side that
things are not exactly how they should be," according
to one person familiar with the issue, "but an
understanding on the [Irish] side that they need to
demonstrate they are progressing and that they have
a plan.
"The help they need will come afterwards. They'll
say, this is how we're doing it, we need help and we
need interaction."

It is likely that the EU would resist an open-ended time gap in

compliance
It is understood a phased approach could be taken to
how a no-deal situation is managed.
This would involve an initial period during which the
Irish authorities carefully assess which checks are
manageable and which are politically too sensitive in
the immediate aftermath of a no-deal exit.
The Government could then make an assessment
after several weeks or months which would be
communicated to Brussels.
If there remains a gap between limited compliance
and full compliance with single market and customs
rules, both sides would then work on how the gap
can be bridged, taking all the "specificities" of the
Irish border question into account.
However, it is likely that the EU would resist an open-
ended time gap in compliance.

Read more:
• Johnson wants no more 'dither and delay'
to Brexit
• UK High Court rejects legal challenge over
parliament suspension
• Govt working to maintain invisible border in
case of no-deal - McEntee

It is acknowledged in Brussels that when assessing

the most acute difficulties the Irish Government is
facing, over time technical talks will become "political
talks".
On Wednesday, the European Commission issued its
most explicit statement to date on the Irish border,
when it published its sixth communication on no-deal
preparedness.
The communication stated: "EU law will require that
all goods entering Ireland from the United Kingdom
be subject to the relevant checks and controls to
protect the safety and health of EU citizens, preserve
the integrity of the internal market and enforce
compliance with fiscal obligations (duties, indirect
taxes).
"The commission and Ireland continue working
together, in the context of the unique situation on the
island of Ireland and their twin objectives of
protecting the integrity of the internal market while
avoiding a hard border, to identify arrangements both
for contingency solutions for the immediate aftermath
of a withdrawal without an agreement and for a more
stable solution for the period thereafter."
Under EU rules each member state is responsible for
applying the rules governing product safety, food
safety, animal health, as well as other controls for
dangerous substances, endangered species, and
prohibited goods.
Plenty of 'lead-in time' for businesses to
adjust, says Varadkar
The Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has assured business
leaders that there will not be a "big surprise" when it
comes to the introduction of checks near the border
in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Speaking in Waterford this evening, he said there will
be plenty of what he called "lead-in time" for business
to adjust.

RTÉ News

@rtenews
'I don't expect any breakthroughs on Monday ... ':
@LeoVaradkar on his expectations for his meeting with
@BorisJohnson on Monday #Brexit

25
6:58 PM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

See RTÉ News's other Tweets

Mr Varadkar said: "One thing I can assure business

is they are not going to wake up one morning to a big
surprise. There will be a lead-in time and they will
have plenty of time to prepare ... and plenty of
information about any changes that take place."
Responding to criticism from Micheál Martin about
the absence of information for business to date, the
Taoiseach said the Fianna Fáil leader's commentary
was "not accurate".
Asked about his expectations for his first bi-lateral
meeting with the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
in Dublin on Monday, Mr Varadkar said: " I don't
expect any breakthroughs on Monday.
"It's the first time that we are meeting, Taoiseach and
Prime Minister. It's an opportunity to establish a
personal relationship... and discuss each other's
opinions, and explore where there might be common
ground."

https://www.rte.ie/ne
ws/2019/0906/10742
98-eu-border-checks/
No infrastructure at
Irish border after
Brexit, says Foster
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019

Arlene Foster says the will be no infrastructure at the Irish border

after Brexit

DUP leader Arlene Foster has said that there will be

no infrastructure at the Irish border after Brexit.
She was speaking after Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said
that in the event of a no-deal Brexit there will be
checks on goods and live animals, which he said
would take place "as far as possible" in ports, airports
and at businesses.
"But some may need to take place near the border,"
he said.
Today, Mrs Foster said that the British government
has made it clear that it will not put infrastructure on
the Irish border.
"To be fair to our own government, to the British
government, when Theresa May was there and
indeed our new Prime Minister, they have all made it
clear they will not put infrastructure on the border,
and I think that is very important to remember that.
ADVERTISEMENT

"There will be a lot of speculation over the coming

weeks, I have no doubt about that, there has been a
lot of speculation up until now. But what we need to
do is to look at the facts, the facts are the
government has said very clearly they will not be
putting infrastructure at the border."
Earlier, Minister for European Affairs Helen McEntee
has said that the Government is still working with the
European Commission to determine how to configure
border controls and customs checks in the event of a
disorderly Brexit.
Ms McEntee said it hoped most of these checks can
take place away from the border, in businesses, at
ports or at airports.
Speaking on RTÉ's Today with Sean O'Rourke, she
said that the Government cannot allow checks to
happen on the border.
Minister McEntee said protecting the Good Friday
Agreement is paramount and Ireland is working to
maintain an invisible border and Government still
wants to hear from the UK about any alternative
arrangements to the backstop.

She said the backstop not only removes the threat of

a border but also protects the all-island economy and
co-operation north and south.
Minister McEntee later added that the Government
hopes to be as clear as it can in the coming weeks as
to where checks will be in the event of a no-deal
Brexit.
She said they want to let people know as soon as
possible as we are just eight weeks away from the 31
October deadline, with British Prime Minister Boris
Johnson saying that - deal or no deal - the UK is
leaving.
She said people need to prepare in whatever way
they can, adding that the Government is still hoping
that they will have a deal.

Read More:
Johnson wants no more 'dither and delay' to
Brexit
 U K High Court rejects legal challenge
over parliament suspension
 L atest Brexit
stories

Sinn Féin MEP Matt Carthy called on the

Government to look at the issue of Irish unity as a
means of mitigating against the impact of a no-deal
Brexit.
Mr Carthy said that if necessary we must have the
"constitutional conversations to ensure that we
actually get rid of the border if that is the only way we
can protect the Good Friday Agreement".
He said we cannot countenance "any hardening" of
the border, adding, that the Government must
oppose anything that makes it more difficult for
businesses to operate on an all-island basis.
He also called for a financial package to be agreed at
an EU level that would protect regions and sectors
that are going to be most affected by Brexit.
Meanwhile, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs
Simon Coveney is in London to meet British Cabinet
ministers.
He was due to speak to Michael Gove and Northern
Ireland Secretary Julian Smith, as well as Labour's
Brexit spokesperson Keir Starmer.
Last night, the Taoiseach said there was a
"significant and growing" risk of a no-deal Brexit.

RTÉ News

@rtenews

Taoiseach @LeoVaradkar says there is a "significant and

growing risk of no-deal" | Follow live updates:
https://
bit.ly/2kwtdXJ
15
8:32 PM - Sep 5, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

22 people are talking about this

This morning, Mr Varadkar tweeted about Charles

Stewart Parnell, who was referenced by both Jacob
Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage this week.

Leo Varadkar

@LeoVaradkar

Charles Stewart Parnell, one of my great political heroes

has been invoked this week in another place. Parnell
believed that our future prosperity depended on us being
‘hopeful, energetic and determined’.

1,277
10:06 AM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

297 people are talking about this

Leo Varadkar

@LeoVaradkar

They are three qualities which are needed now more than
ever as we deal with the challenge of Brexit. We must be
hopeful about finding a solution, energetic in preparing for
the worst that might happen, and determined to defend the
all island economy, peace, and all that we value
https://
twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/st
atus/1169899647411769346
…
Leo Varadkar

@LeoVaradkar

Charles Stewart Parnell, one of my great political heroes has been

invoked this week in another place. Parnell believed that our future
prosperity depended on us being ‘hopeful, energetic and
determined’.

303
10:07 AM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

101 people are talking about this

Increase in price for 'limited number' of
grocery products
A "limited number" of grocery products will increase
in price quite substantially in the event of a no-deal
Brexit, according to a group which, represents Irish
retailers.
Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, Thomas Burke of
Retail Ireland said that retailers may not be able to
absorb those cost increases.
However, he said that retailers have been working to
establish which products are most at risk and to
source alternatives.
His comments come after the Taoiseach said last
night that food will remain on shelves after a no-deal
Brexit, although possibly not all the same brands.
In terms of which products will be most affected by a
no-deal Brexit, he said the WTO tariffs list provides
hints.
"I think we need to look at the WTO tariffs list to get a
sense of where the challenge may lie. I think we
know from looking at that it is grocery products that
are most exposed - it is cereals, it is bakery products,
it is biscuits, it is products of that nature."
He also said that a lot of fruit and vegetables that
arrive in Ireland via the landbridge route are not going
to be subject to tariffs, but there are concerns about
potential delays at ports in Dover and Dublin.
Mr Burke added that there are also challenges for
retailers who operate on an all-island basis.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0906/1074284-brexit-ireland/
UK High Court
rejects legal
challenge over
parliament
suspension
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019

The case was brought by businesswoman Gina Miller and

supported by former prime minister John Major

A legal challenge brought over British Prime Minister

Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament for
five weeks has been rejected by leading judges at the
High Court in London.
The court dismissed a claim brought against Mr
Johnson by businesswoman Gina Miller.
Rejecting Mrs Miller's case, Lord Justice Burnett said:
"We have concluded that, whilst we should grant
permission to apply for judicial review, the claim must
be dismissed."
Their ruling comes in the same week the prime
minister fought off a similar legal challenge in
Scotland.
Ms Miller's QC had argued that Mr Johnson's advice
to Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament for five
weeks was an "unlawful abuse of power".
The judges were urged to make a declaration that the
decision taken on 28 August to advise Queen
Elizabeth to prorogue parliament was unlawful.
The urgent judicial review application brought by Ms
Miller, who successfully challenged the government
at the High Court in 2016 over the triggering of the
Article 50 process to start the Brexit countdown, was
supported by a number of other parties, including
former prime minister John Major.
The action was contested by Mr Johnson, whose
lawyers argued that the advice given to the Queen
was not unlawful and that Ms Miller's claim was in
any event "academic".

Read More:
Corbyn to discuss UK election vote with
opposition
 L atest Brexit stories

During the hearing, Lord Pannick QC, representing

Ms Miller, told the judges: "The prime minister's
decision to prorogue parliament is contrary to
constitutional principle and constitutes an abuse of
power.
"There is no justification for closing parliament in this
way and, accordingly, it represents an unjustified
undermining of parliamentary sovereignty which is
the bedrock of our constitution."
Lord Pannick said the prime minister's decision to
advise the Queen to suspend parliament was
"extraordinary", both because of the "exceptional
length" of the suspension and because parliament
will be "silenced" during the critical period leading up
to the 31 October Brexit deadline.
In submitting that the judges should reject Ms Miller's
arguments, James Eadie, on behalf of Mr Johnson,
said: "The exercise of this prerogative power is
intrinsically one of high policy and politics, not law."
Arguing that the claim was "academic", he pointed
out that each house of parliament will sit before the
UK leaves the EU on 31 October "and may consider
any matter it chooses".
He told the court: "The prorogation does not prevent
parliament from legislating on any matter it wishes.
Parliament is capable of legislating at pace if it
chooses to do so."
The three judges are expected to give their reasons
for dismissing the case in writing next week.
They also granted permission for the case to go the
Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on
17 September.
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after
the ruling, Ms Miller said she was "very disappointed
with the judgment".
She added: "We feel it is absolutely vital that
parliament should be sitting. We are therefore
pleased that the judges have given us permission to
appeal to the Supreme Court, which we will be doing,
and they feel that our case has the merit to be
handed up.
"Today, we stand for everyone. We stand for the
future generations and we stand for representative
democracy."
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0906/1074197-judges-decision-on-uk-
parliament-suspension/

House of Lords
approves bill that
seeks to delay Brexit
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019

Boris Johnson says thinks the British public really 'want us to get
out'
The British parliament's upper chamber has
approved a bill that aims to block a no-deal Brexit at
the end of October by forcing Prime Minister Boris
Johnson to seek a delay to Brexit.
The legislation, which requires Mr Johnson to ask for
a three-month extension to Britain's EU membership
if parliament has not approved either a deal or
consented to leaving without agreement by 19
October, is expected to be signed into law by Queen
Elizabeth on Monday.
The House of Lords approved the bill without a formal
vote at its final stage.
Mr Johnson has dubbed it the "surrender bill" and
said it has scuppered his Brexit negotiations with the
EU by removing the threat of leaving without a deal.
Yesterday, he said he would rather be "dead in a
ditch" than delay Britain's EU exit.

He expelled 21 MPs out of his Conservative Party's

parliamentary group earlier this week for working with
opposition parties in the House of Commons to pass
the legislation against the government's wishes.
Mr Johnson says Britain must now hold a general
election on 15 October to let voters decide who they
want to negotiate Britain's EU exit at a summit in
Brussels later that week.
Opposition parties have so far rejected his call for an
election, which would require the backing of two-
thirds of the lower chamber's 650 MPs, saying they
are not willing to let him dictate the timing of such a
vote.
Labour had originally said they would support an
election once the bill to prevent a no-deal Brexit at
the end of October had become law, but now it says
it wants to see the delay to Brexit secured before an
election is held.

Earlier, Mr Johnson said he did not want "more dither

and delay" to Brexit.

Speaking on a visit to Scotland, Mr Johnson said:

"The bill that is still before parliament would, in
theory, mean that the government of the UK was
obliged to write a letter to Brussels asking for a
pointless delay to leaving the EU.
"I don't think that's what people want and I think we
were very clear about that, and not only would it
oblige the government to do that, it would give the EU
the power to decide how long the UK had to stay in
and I really can't think for the life of me that that is a
democratic way forward.
"The big picture is, look, we've spent a long time
trying to sort of fudge this thing and I think the British
public really want us to get out.
"They don't want more dither and delay."
Asked if he would not seek the extension, even if
passed in law, Mr Johnson said: "I don't want a
delay."
On whether he would sack his aide Dominic
Cummings, he said: "Look, advisers advise and
ministers decide."

Read More:
• UK High Court rejects legal challenge over
parliament suspension
• Taoiseach warns of 'growing risk' of no-deal
Brexit
• Latest Brexit stories

Mr Johnson said "We can get out of the EU on

October 31 and that's what we intend to do.
"I must say I'm perplexed by the decision of the
leader of the opposition and the SNP to run away
from an election.
"I've never known an opposition in the history of
democracy that's refused to have an election but
that's their choice.
"I think obviously they don't trust the people, they
don't think that the people will vote for them, so
they're refusing to have an election.
"And so what we will do is we will go to the summit
on the 17th (October), we'll get a deal and we'll come
out on October 31."
Regarding the split in his party and when asked at
what point he might resign, Mr Johnson said: "What I
said is that we had to deliver Brexit, unite the country
and defeat Jeremy Corbyn, that's what we're going to
do.
Asked again at what point he might resign, he said:
"Well, I mean, after those three objectives have been
accomplished I will ... at some point after those three
objectives have been accomplished."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn held "positive" talks
with other opposition parties as they seek to prevent
the UK leaving the EU without a deal, according to a
party spokesperson.

The spokesperson said: "They discussed advancing

efforts to prevent a damaging no-deal brexit and hold
a general election once that is secured."
Earlier, a Labour Party source said it would not back
Mr Johnson's bid on Monday for an election under
the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
Opposition parties are worried an election in mid-
October might still allow Mr Johnson to lead the UK
out of the EU without a deal.
Separately, the Prime Minister of Finland, which
holds the EU's rotating presidency, said it was
obvious that Britain was set to leave the EU without a
deal.
"The situation in Britain is quite a mess now, we don't
know what is happening there. It seems pretty
obvious now that we are not getting Brexit with
agreement," Prime Minister Antti Rinne told a news
conference in Helsinki.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0906/1074230-brexit-uk/

UK opposition parties
will not back PM's
demand for election
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019

Jeremy Corbyn spoke with leaders of the main opposition parties

today

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's demand for a

general election on his own terms became
increasingly far-fetched when opposition leaders
agreed to not vote with him during his fresh bid.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke with the leaders
of the main opposition parties today to discuss their
resistance to holding a vote before the prospect of a
no-deal Brexit on 31 October is eliminated.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNPs and Plaid
Cymru are all understood to be planning on voting
against or abstaining from the Fixed-Term Parliament
Act when it returns to the Commons on Monday.
Opposition leaders including the Lib Dems' Jo
Swinson, the SNP's Ian Blackford and Plaid Cymru's
Liz Saville Roberts discussed tactics this morning as
Mr Johnson returned to the campaign trail of the
election he is yet to successfully trigger.
SNP Westminster leader Mr Blackford said he was
"desperate for an election", but it could not be until an
extension to Article 50 was secured.
He told the PA news agency: "It's not just about our
own party interests, it's about our collective national
interests.
"So we are prepared to work with others to make
sure we get the timing right, but the timing right on
the basis of securing that extension to Article 50."
But he did anticipate that an election would be
successfully called "over the course of these weeks".

SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford

A Lib Dem spokeswoman said: "The Liberal
Democrat position for a while now is that we won't
vote for a general election until we have an extension
agreed with the EU. I think the others are coming
round to that.
"As a group we will all vote against or abstain on
Monday."
Ms Saville Roberts said voting for an election next
week would "play into Boris Johnson's hands", giving
the PM the opportunity to ignore Parliament and force
through a no-deal.

"We were in unity in our opinion, our priority is of

course to stop a no-deal Brexit," she told the BBC.
"In the short time we need to make sure that we get
past the October 31 and an extension to Article 50.
"We have an opportunity to bring down Boris, to
break Boris and to bring down Brexit, and we must
take that."

Taoiseach awaiting
'realistic' and 'legally
binding' backstop
alternatives
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said there was a 'growing risk' of a no-
deal Brexit

By Will Goodbody
Business Editor

The Taoiseach has reiterated that the Government is

open to alternatives to the backstop, but they must be
realistic, legally binding and workable in practice.
In a speech to a British-Irish Chamber of Commerce
dinner in Dublin, Leo Varadkar said no such
proposals have been received to date.
Mr Vardakar said avoiding the return of a hard border
on this island is a Government priority in all
circumstances and that peace on the island and the
success of the all-island economy must be
protected.
"This is why the backstop continues to be a critical
component of the Withdrawal Agreement, unless and
until an alternative is found," he said.
He added that a Withdrawal Agreement that does not
include the backstop is no good for Ireland as it
merely "kicks the can down the road" until the
transition phase ends.
The Taoiseach told the gathering that political
developments in the UK mean there is a significant
and growing risk of a no deal Brexit.
He said the Government's preferred outcome is a
deal based on the Withdrawal Agreement.
Government efforts will continue to avoid a crash out
Brexit, he added, but not "at any cost."
Whatever happens, Ireland will not be dragged out of
the Single European Market, he stated.
Mr Varadkar added that unlike some people, he does
not see upsides to a No Deal.
He said he does fear it, but claimed that he is
prepared for it politically.

04:38
Government contingency planning has identified that
some sectors have low levels of Brexit preparedness,
he said, with smaller and independent businesses, as
well as retail and construction sectors particularly
underprepared.
That needs to change, the Taoiseach stated, and all
businesses need to listen to the advice and help on
offer.
Even if the UK leaves the EU on 31 October, that will
not be the end of the story, the Taoiseach warned.
If there is a deal, a new difficult and fraught phase will
begin involving several years of negotiations on a
new free trade agreement and an economic and
security partnership.
A no-deal, on the other hand, which could last for a
period, will also require negotiations to begin again
he claimed, with the first and only items on the
agenda being citizens' rights, the financial settlement
with the EU and a solution to the Irish Border.
"All the issues we spent the last two years on," he
remarked.
Despite the challenges and permanent changes in
the political and economic environment, the
Taoiseach expressed the view that Ireland can
withstand the challenge.
"The UK is geographically and culturally our closest
neighbour and will continue to be a vital trading
partner, no matter what shape Brexit takes," he said.
He said certain things like the Common Travel Area
and the rights of Irish and Dual British-Irish citizens in
Northern Ireland and Britain to travel, work, do
business and study through the EU without a visa or
permit will not change.
Significant changes in medicine supplies are not
anticipated, and food will remain on shelves, although
possibly not all the same brands, he added.
Mr Vardakar said there will have to be checks on
goods and live animals and, as far as possible, they
will take place in ports, airports and at businesses,
although some may take place near the border.
The details of this are currently being worked out with
the European Commission, he said.
Taxes would have to be paid on goods bought from
the UK and EU consumer protections will no longer
apply, he said.
Tariffs will also apply to goods imported into Ireland
from the UK, he warned, and vice versa, and
importers and exporters will need to make customs
declarations.
Flights, trains and business will continue to operate
normally for a period, the Taoiseach stated, but a
permanent agreement would be required.
He added that while a no-deal Brexit will have
adverse effects on the economy here, a recession is
not anticipated and as a result there will be no need
for tax increases, spending cuts or reduction in pay,
pensions or welfare.
'Nobody should be surprised' by no-deal
implications - Coveney
Earlier, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs
Simon Coveney said Tuesday night's briefing to
Cabinet was not his first on the potential impact of a
no-deal Brexit, so nobody should be surprised that
there are vulnerable sectors such as fishing, agri-
food or tourism.
His comments come following newspaper reports
that some ministers were taken aback by the severity
of the warnings he gave yesterday.
Speaking in Cork, he said that no report he gave at
the Cabinet meeting referred to a figure of 10,000 job
losses in three months in the tourism and hospitality
sectors in the event of a no-deal.
However, he said it was important to level with
people and feels he has always been straight up in
terms of the impact of a no-deal Brexit, and why it
should be avoided because everyone loses in a no-
deal scenario.
Mr Coveney said the onus was on the UK
government, who now want the backstop removed
from the Withdrawal Agreement, to put forward an
alternative, but that has yet to be given.
"They want the backstop removed from the
Withdrawal Agreement, we know that that creates
huge problems and the onus is on the UK who are
looking to change things to be able to put an
alternative that solves those problems on the table
and we haven't got that yet," he said.
Asked about any potential border arrangements, Mr
Coveney said that the Government had some sense
of arrangements, but did not have the detail yet, as it
had not been agreed with the European Commission.
The Tánaiste said the public would know once he
knew.
"As soon as we know, you will know because this is
not just an Irish border we are talking about, it is also
an EU frontier with the UK so the solution has to be
worked out collectively with Ireland and the EU," he
said.
"It needs to take into account the unique
circumstances on this island and the unique
circumstances in Northern Ireland, and we need a
dual objective here - to protect Ireland's place in the
single market so that we don't get dragged out of the
single market against our will as a result of Brexit,
and secondly, we have to try and do all we can to
protect the all-Ireland economy as it function."

Read More:
Boris Johnson's brother resigns as junior
minister
 L atest Brexit stories

Commenting on the strengthening of sterling

yesterday, Mr Coveney said it was more about a no-
deal Brexit being marginally less likely than it was
before the votes at Westminster over the past 24
hours.
Asked about the British Prime Minister's intended
visit on Monday, Mr Coveney said his understanding
is that he is coming on Monday morning and he has
no reason to believe that this will not happen.

00:53
Elsewhere, Minister for Finance and Public
Expenditure Paschal Donohoe said the risk of a no-
deal Brexit had "grown" in recent days amid
continued turmoil in the UK parliament.
Mr Donohoe also warned of the need to maintain a
"stable political environment" in Ireland, while it waits
for the British government to make a final decision on
what it will do about Brexit and when it will leave the
EU.
Speaking in Waterford after attending a council
presentation on regional infrastructure projects, Mr
Donohoe said: "I believe that the risk of a no-deal
Brexit has grown.
"Of course it is a significant development to see that
within the current House of Commons, there is a
majority there that is in favour of avoiding a no-deal
Brexit, but of course it's equally apparent to all of us
that that there's a really high level of uncertainty and
volatility now afoot in British politics."
Mr Donohoe's comments came after a night of further
House of Commons defeat for Prime Minister Boris
Johnson, with MPs backing legislation to try to
prevent a no-deal Brexit, and not backing in sufficient
numbers Mr Johnson's call for an October election.
The visit of Mr Johnson to Dublin next Monday to
meet Taoiseach Leo Varadkar would be "really
important" in that context, Mr Donohoe said.
He added: "But as we're looking at uncertainty
developing there, as we're looking at risk growing
there, it's very important that the stable political
environment that we have here in Ireland be
maintained.
"It will be maintained, our sole political focus is on
doing all we can to try and get Ireland ready to deal
with consequences that might develop after the end
of October."
Mr Donohoe said he and his Cabinet colleagues were
"well aware of what will be the employment
consequences of a no-deal Brexit," and reiterated the
Government's warning from earlier this year that, in
that eventuality, "up to 50,000 jobs would not be
created in our economy that would otherwise be
created".
Next month's Budget will involve him "outlining the
supports and the plans that we will put in place to
deal with the consequences of a no-deal Brexit if we
get to that point," he said.
Asked if he thinks there will be border checks in
place in six months' time, the minister said: "All that
depends on the decisions that are made by the
British government in the coming weeks."
Elsewhere, the British minister in charge of no-deal
preparations has said he had not talked to members
of the Irish Government about what will happen on
the border in a no-deal Brexit.
Michael Gove told a House of Commons committee
that no tariffs would be collected on goods moving
from Ireland to Northern Ireland in a no-deal
scenario.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald has said
Ireland must not lose its nerve as a potential no-deal
Brexit draws nearer.
Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, Ms McDonald said
that we need to maintain focus and not get tied up in
"the theatrics of the zoo that is Westminster".
Ms McDonald also called on the Government to be
more forthcoming with information about Brexit.
She also said the Government should not think its
way into a position where it is making a choice
between the single market and the Good Friday
Agreement, and also said her party has begun
preparations for a potential general election at
Westminster.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0905/1074042-brexit-no-deal-ireland/

Boris Johnson's
advice to Queen over
suspending
parliament 'unlawful'
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
The High Court in London was told Boris Johnson's advice over
suspending parliament was an 'unlawful abuse of power'

British Prime Minister's Boris Johnson's advice to

Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament for five
weeks was an "unlawful abuse of power", leading
judges in the UK have heard.
The claim was made today at the start of the latest
legal challenge to the prime minister's move.
The judicial review application to contest Mr
Johnson’s decision has been brought by
businesswoman Gina Miller, who successfully
challenged the government at the High Court in 2016
over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start
the Brexit countdown.
Her case is supported by a number of other parties,
including former prime minister John Major.
The action is being contested by Mr Johnson, whose
lawyers will argue that the advice given to the Queen
was not unlawful.
Lord Pannick QC, representing Ms Miller, told the
judges that the prorogation was timed to occur at a
period of "acute political crisis".
"There is no justification for closing parliament in this
way and, accordingly, it represents an unjustified
undermining of parliamentary sovereignty which is
the bedrock of our constitution," he said.
"The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue parliament
is contrary to constitutional principle, and constitutes
an abuse of power."
Lord Pannick submitted that a note "in the Prime
Minister's own handwriting" dated 16 August
"demonstrates that the Prime Minister simply does
not understand the role of parliament during the next
five weeks."
The hearing in London comes the day after he fought
off a similar action in Scotland. That judgement is to
be appealed.
A judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled
that the planned prorogation was lawful.
That challenge had been brought by a cross-party
group of 75 MPs and peers.
Lord Doherty said choosing when to prorogue
Parliament was for politicians and not the courts, but
an appeal against his decision is being heard today.
He ruled: "The power to prorogue is a prerogative
power and the prime minister had the vires (powers)
to advise the sovereign as to its exercise."
The appeal against that ruling will go before three
judges of the Inner House, which is the supreme civil
court in Scotland.
Judge Lord Malcolm agreed to timetable the hearing
at the earliest point requested, as "expedition is
important".
Whatever the outcome of the challenges against the
decision to prorogue Parliament, it is likely that the
dispute will end up at the UK's highest court.
A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court in London
has said that "should any parties choose to appeal to
the UK Supreme Court following the prorogation
appeal hearings in the lower courts", the court has
set aside 17 September "as a date to hear such an
appeal".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0905/1073968-prorogue-challenge/
Brexit: Public urged
not to panic over
medicine supplies
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019

IPHA said there is no need to stockpile medicines

By Fergal Bowers
Health Correspondent

Ireland's pharmaceutical industry has said there are

always two to three months' supply of medicines in
the system and these stocks will help absorb any
short-term delays that could arise from a disorderly
Brexit.
The Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association said
the advice to patients is "not to panic".
It repeated its previous advice that there is no need
for patients, or pharmacists, to stockpile medicines.
The association said it is satisfied that arrangements
are in place to mitigate against a shortage of
medicines, in the event of a disorderly Brexit.
IPHA said that in some cases, companies are re-
routing transport away from the UK, to mitigate
against problems with the supply chain.
The organisation said that Irish authorities have been
working closely with the pharmaceutical industry on
detailed scenario-planning.
It said there is no need for hospitals, pharmacists or
patients to order extra quantities of medicines, or for
doctors to issue extra prescriptions.

The Irish Pharmacy Union said pharmacists were

naturally very concerned about medicine supplies for
patients and so it is in constant contact with health
authorities and wholesalers and manufacturers to
plan for any problems that might happen.
"We have been told that everything that can be done
is being done to plan for and prevent any potential
problems that could crop up", the union said.
The IPU said it was still advising pharmacy members
that they do not need to stockpile extra medicines.
It said it had been assured that none of the shortages
that currently exist are directly attributable to Brexit.
The Department of Health said that significant work
had been undertaken, in so far as possible, to
anticipate potential vulnerabilities in medicine
supplies after Brexit.
It said that Brexit may cause those with a small share
of a particular medicine market, to consider the
ongoing viability of supply to Ireland.
But it added that any products that may be affected
would be unlikely to be critical to continuity of care as
there and and will be alternative suppliers, or
therapeutic alternatives available.
The department said that there are already extra
stocks of medicines routinely built into the Irish
supply chain and that Ireland's medicines supply
model is different to what operates in the UK.
It said that the pharmaceutical industry and
wholesalers have provided assurance that they are
confident they will have sufficient stocks, to bridge
any initial issues at ports, should they occur.
The department said that similar work has been
underway to protect the medical devices area, which
covers a wide range of products from sticking
plasters and bandages, to more complex equipment
like hip implants and coronary pacemakers.
In relation to continuity of health services, the
department said that the Irish and British
governments have committed to the shared objective
of maintaining the Common Travel Area (CTA)
arrangements, which have allowed Irish and UK
residents to access health services, in each other's
jurisdictions.
This will include maintaining current arrangements for
access to routine, planned and emergency health
services for UK/Irish residents and visitors in the
other jurisdiction.
It also includes health cooperation on access to
specialist health services in the other jurisdiction, for
example on an all-Island basis, for paediatric
cardiology and cancer care.
Following Brexit, EU regulations will no longer apply
to the UK.
It looks likely to result in an end to the EU Cross
Border Directive system, whereby patients from the
Republic of Ireland can get operations in another EU
member State and be reimbursed afterwards for the
cost by the Health Service Executive.
While there remains much uncertainty over what will
exactly transpire, it may mean patients no longer
being able to have operations in Northern Ireland, or
the UK but they would continue to have access to
care in another EU country under the EU scheme.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0905/1074021-brexit-ireland-
medicines/


Serious claims
against McGuinness
and Paisley in BBC
documentary
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019

Archive pictures of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness featured i

the documentary (Pic: BBC NI)

By Tommie Gorman
Northern Editor

The two now deceased politicians who led Sinn Féin

and the DUP into power-sharing are the subject of
serious allegations in a BBC Northern Ireland
television series.
Footage from 1972 of Martin McGuinness handling
guns and bullets and showing them to young children
features in the first episode of the Spotlight BBC's
'On The Troubles' series.
The programme also shows pictures which it claims
link Mr McGuinness to the preparation of a car bomb
that later exploded in Derry city centre, causing
extensive damage.
The bombing took place in March 1972 and added to
the pressure on the Unionist-led Stormont
government that collapsed the following day.

The programme shows footage of Martin McGuinness showing

bullets to young children (Pic: BBC NI)
The programme makers also claim that DUP leader
Ian Paisley financed the UVF bombers who attacked
water and infrastructure installations in Northern
Ireland in 1969.
The same loyalist paramilitary gang attempted to
blow up an ESB sub-station in Ballyshannon, Co
Donegal, in October 1969 and one of the bombers,
Thomas McDowell, was electrocuted.
The first documentary in the series, presented by
Darragh McIntyre, will be screened on Tuesday 10
September.
It claims that the Provisional IRA was set up at a
meeting in the Athlone home of a Protestant
republican, Victor Fagg, in December 1969.

The house in Athlone where the programme claims the Provisional

IRA was set up (Pic: BBC NI)
It also refers to what it says was a confidential
assessment made by the most senior British Army
officer in 1972 that the British Army should gradually
escape from its commitment to the border.
The programme says the officer who served as the
British Army’s chief of the General Staff was
effectively recommending a united Ireland.

The Martin McGuinness footage is US material that

was never broadcast.
It shows Mr McGuinness, then in his early 20s, sitting
in a car in Derry, handling a revolver with a rifle
alongside it and allowing a group of young boys to
see the weapons and bullets through the windows of
the parked vehicle.
It also has film material of an IRA car bomb being
prepared in Derry.
A former IRA member, Shane Paul O'Doherty, now
living in Spain, identifies the person who walks
behind the blue Volkswagen vehicle as Martin
McGuinness.

00:21
The bomb was subsequently detonated at the bottom
of Shipquay Street in Derry city centre and caused
extensive damage to property, but no deaths.

The scene in Derry city centre following the explosion (Pic: BBC
NI)
The footage featuring McGuinness was from
1972. The following year, he was convicted of IRA
membership by the Special Criminal Court in
Dublin. He refused to recognise the court and was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Rev Ian Paisley, who died in September 2014,
always denied allegations linking him to Loyalist
paramilitary organisations.
But the BBC programme includes an interview with a
former British Army officer who claims the founder of
the DUP had financed the loyalist bombers who
carried out a bombing campaign in 1969.
The officer, David Hancock, who was a British Army
Company Commander in Northern Ireland from 1968
to 1970, said the local (RUC) District Inspector told
him that "Paisley had supplied the money that
financed the Kilkeel explosion".
A reservoir at Kilkeel, Co Down, was one of the
facilities attacked by the bombers in 1969.

00:35
The programme also alleges that one of Ian Paisley’s
bodyguards, Samuel Stevenson, was involved with
the bombers.
A founding member of the SDLP, a former Fine Gael
TD and a former Fine Gael Presidential candidate,
Austin Currie, claims during the documentary that Mr
Stevenson told him in October 1969 the gang
intended to blow up an ESB sub-station in
Ballyshannon, Co Donegal.
In the subsequent attack, one of the loyalist bombers,
45-year-old Thomas McDowell, a father of ten from
Kilkeel, was electrocuted and died from his injuries.
The claims about the establishment of the Provisional
IRA are made by Republican Sinn Féin veteran Des
Long.
He alleges that a meeting took place at the Athlone
home of Victor Fagg in the days immediately before
Christmas in 1972. (Victor Fagg was interned in the
1940s and following his death in 1988, Ruairí Ó
Brádaigh spoke at his graveside in Athlone).
Victor Fagg (Pic: BBC NI)
Lord Michael Carver, who died in 2001 aged 86, is
one of the senior British Army officers who features in
the programme.
In 1971, he was appointed the British Army’s chief of
the general staff and his role involved providing
advice to the British government on the response to
the early stages of The Troubles.
The programme makers suggest that a 1972
assessment by Carver, so sensitive that it was seen
by only one British government minister,
recommended that "the British government gradually
escape its commitment to the border" and that his
report amounted to the recommendation of a united
Ireland.
A picture of the assessment by Lord Michael Carver (Pic: BBC NI)
Another former British Army officer who features in
the programme is 84-year-old Lord David
Ramsbotham. He subsequently served as the
Inspector of Prisons in England and Wales for a five-
year period.
In the early 1970s, he was the military aide to Lord
Carver. In an interview, Lord Ramsbotham tells how
a fellow British Army officer described members of
the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment as
"hooligans in uniform".
The criticism came in a conversation in the days
immediately before Bloody Sunday when the soldiers
were involved in killing 13 civilians in Derry city.

Ian Paisley Junior has criticised what he called "a

scum" programme.
In a phone call to the BBC's Stephen Nolan
programme, Mr Paisley said there is no truth to the
allegations made by a "minor functionary" in the
British Army.
He said the BBC documentary is due to be broadcast
on the fifth anniversary of his father's death and is
"calculated to be deliberately hurtful".
The North Antrim MP said the allegations were
"based on evidence that nobody was allowed to see"
and he also claimed that nobody had contacted his
father about them.

'Spotlight On The Troubles: A Secret History' is a

seven-part series investigating The Troubles in
Northern Ireland.
Presented by Mandy McAuley, Jennifer O’Leary and
Darragh McIntyre, it will be broadcast simultaneously
on BBC One NI and BBC Four. The first programme
will be screened on Tuesday next at 8.30pm.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/0906/1074165-
mcguinness-paisley-bbc-programme/
New report: A Northern
Ireland border poll
26 March 2019
A careful assessment is needed of how any
future “border poll” in Northern Ireland would
best be carried out. That is the core
recommendation of a new report published
today by the Constitution Unit.

The prospect of a poll in Northern Ireland about Irish

unification, provided for in the Good Friday Agreement
and often termed a “border poll”, is now widely
discussed. But the provisions and wider implications of
the law and the Agreement – extending to both parts of
the island – are little explored. The report – written by Unit
Honorary Senior Research Associate and former civil
servant Alan Whysall – outlines the current state of
opinion on a border poll, and the provision in law and the
Agreement. It is the fullest and most comprehensive
analysis of the issues to date.
There is scant evidence at present of a majority for a
united Ireland, but if the political situation becomes still
more fractured, it could arise, perhaps quickly. The
provision in law and the Agreement is stark and minimal.
There are hence serious gaps and ambiguities in the
process to be followed. The report argues that it is
important that the issues are considered and as far as
possible resolved before the machinery is invoked. A
move to Irish unity could be shaped in accordance with
the principles embodied in the Agreement seeking
consensus and respecting identity, but the way in which
this is done needs reflection, and careful stewardship by
the British and Irish governments.
The Constitution Unit is planning a project to address
these questions, with partners from both Northern Ireland
and the Republic. The purpose of this report is to set out
the key issues, and stimulate discussion.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-
unit/files/185_a_northern_ireland_border_poll.pdf
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-
unit/files/185_a_northern_ireland_border_poll.pdf

Working Group on
Unification Referendums
on the Island of Ireland
A project examining how any future
referendum on the constitutional status of
Northern Ireland would be best designed and
conducted.

The Constitution Unit has teamed up with partner

institutions in Belfast and Dublin to examine how any
future referendum on the constitutional status of Northern
Ireland (often known as a ‘border poll’) would best be
designed and conducted.
Such a vote is envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement.
Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland is obliged to call one if a
majority for a united Ireland appears likely. Recent
developments have increased the chances that this
condition could be met in the coming years. Yet no
detailed public thinking has been done on what form the
vote should take. Fundamental problems may therefore
arise: a badly structured process could become chaotic,
the results might not be accepted as legitimate, and there
could be civil unrest.
The project, which is made possible by generous funding
from the British Academy under its Humanities and Social
Sciences Tackling the UK’s International Challenges
programme, responds to this challenge by bringing
together a Working Group on Unification Referendums on
the Island of Ireland. Comprising scholars with expertise
in politics, law, sociology, and history, this group will
consult and deliberate, and expects to produce a report
in autumn 2020. The members of the Working Group are
listed below.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-
unit/research/elections-and-referendums/working-
group-unification-referendums-island-ireland

Project Information
This project is led by Dr Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of
the Constitution Unit.
Project Dates: September 2019–March 2021
Funder: The British Academy
Scheme: Humanities and Social Sciences Tackling the
UK’s International Challenges programme
Contact: a.renwick@ucl.ac.uk
PM letter to_His_Excellency_Mr Donald_Tusk

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
826166/20190819_PM_letter_to_His_Excellency_Mr_Donald_Tusk.pdf

document certifying permanent residence, or EEA ...-03-19

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
786255/eea-_pr_-03-19.pdf
NORTHERN IRELAND TROUBLES OF deceased politicians who led Sinn Féin and the
DUP into power-sharing are the subject of serious allegation Sept 6th 2019
There is nothing new in this...Martin was a proud self proclaimed IRA man..never denied it , and was
proud of it..rightly so. What a lot of people may not know however is the founder of the DUP (now in
partnership with the British government) were responsible for the first bombing of the troubles...and
indeed the first gun attack on the British army
Dead people can't defend themselves
Serious alegations? They were the orchestraters on both sides, what did everyone think they were up to,
backgammon?
It’s war, it wasn’t pretty. What’s the news here? More Stockholm Syndrome nonsense from the West
Brits at RTE.

https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/2356348941291097/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARBfNYslVcf-
AS2T8Pc4W6S7jWKL-Ocdk_o5aZeJ6xha-HANWElYzhnkBOz4-P_xwbp99zzIa9l8OLnZ
Boris Johnson in London, US Vice President Mike Pence said negotiations on a free
trade agreement between the US and UK would begin immediately after Britain's
departure from the European Union.
Burgers and more , from the U.S...We can then call them, North Korea and Britain ,would be very a
like, we can then say hello fat boys..

https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/2404440746482940/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARBfNYslVcf-
AS2T8Pc4W6S7jWKL-Ocdk_o5aZeJ6xha-HANWElYzhnkBOz4-P_xwbp99zzIa9l8OLnZ
PM calling David Cameron a 'girly swot' have been uncovered during a court battle.
Earlier this week, Boris Johnson called Corbyn a 'big girl's blouse' in the Commons.
So why have the Tories got Johnson critics spitting feathers?

https://www.facebook.co
m/itvnews/videos/742774
972812290/
Boris Johnson’s team is ready for Brexit
What elements of
Britishness would be
incorporated into a united
Ireland?
Republic should consider what it would be willing to give
up in event of unity
Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 01:12
Hugo MacNeill

Bandsmen march during the annual Twelfth of July parade in Belfast.

Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images
It can be debated whether it is helpful to be talking now
about a future united Ireland.
However, when such a central figure in Ulster unionism as
Peter Robinson says it must be discussed – whilst being
very clear that this is not something he would support –
such views must be listened to. What is clearly unhelpful is
loose talk about Border polls and other issues without
setting them in the wider context.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-elements-of-britishness-would-be-incorporated-into-a-united-ireland-
1.4009247?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhat-
elements-of-britishness-would-be-incorporated-into-a-united-ireland-1.4009247
Major new project on Irish
unification referendums
6 September 2019
The Constitution Unit is teaming up with
partner institutions in Belfast and Dublin to
launch a major new investigation into how any
future referendums on the constitutional status
of Northern Ireland would best be designed
and conducted.

The Constitution Unit is teaming up with partner

institutions in Belfast and Dublin to launch a major new
investigation into how any future referendum on the
constitutional status of Northern Ireland (often known as a
‘border poll’) would best be designed and conducted.
Such a vote is envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement.
Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland is obliged to call one if a
majority for a united Ireland appears likely. Recent
developments have increased the chances that this
condition could be met in the coming years. Yet no
detailed public thinking has been done on what form the
vote should take. Fundamental problems may therefore
arise: a badly structured process could become chaotic,
the results might not be accepted as legitimate, and there
could be civil unrest.
The new project, which is made possible by generous
funding from the British Academy under its Humanities
and Social Sciences Tackling the UK’s International
Challenges programme, will convene a Working Group on
Unification Referendums on the Island of
Ireland. Comprising scholars with expertise in politics,
law, sociology, and history, this will consult and deliberate
over the coming year and produce a report. The members
of the Working Group are:
• from the Constitution Unit: Alan Renwick (project lead),
Robert Hazell, and Alan Whysall
• from Queen’s University Belfast: John Garry, Katy
Hayward, Christopher McCrudden, and Brendan
O’Leary (also at the University of Pennsylvania)
• from Ulster University: Arthur Aughey and Cathy
Gormley-Heenan
• from Trinity College Dublin: Oran Doyle, David Kenny,
and Etain Tannam
• from University College Dublin: Paul Gillespie.
Some of the questions that will be explored by the
Working Group were set out in a background report
written earlier this year by Unit Honorary Senior Research
Associate Alan Whysall. They cover referendums both
north and south of the border and processes before,
during, and after the vote itself. They include:
• How would the process of a border poll in Northern
Ireland be triggered? What objective evidence
should be used to gauge whether the majority of
people in Northern Ireland might favour a united
Ireland?
• What options for Ireland’s and Northern Ireland’s future
governance could be considered if there were votes
 in favour of Irish unity, and what implications would
these have for the nature of the decision-making
process? Who should make such decisions about
the process, and on what basis?
• How and where in the process should citizens be
engaged in discussions about the options? Might
citizens’ assemblies be employed, as has happened
in Ireland recently on matters such as same-sex
marriage and abortion?
• On what basis should a referendum be held in the
South? Would there need as a matter of law and
practicality to be both pre-negotiation and post-
negotiation referendums there? And if so, is it
feasible to have a post-negotiation poll in the South
but not in the North?
• How would the campaigns during the referendum be
regulated? How should the ballot papers be
designed? What provisions would be made to
ensure that voters could make an informed choice
free from unfair campaign practices?
• What should be the qualifications for voting in border
polls, North and South?
The Working Group expects to report in autumn 2020.
Further details of the project and how to engage with it
will be available in due course on its dedicated webpage.
The project will build on a wealth of expertise among the
Working Group members, including the Constitution
Unit’s recent projects on the role and conduct of
referendums in the UK, the quality of information and
discourse in election and referendum campaigns, and
citizens’ assemblies.
Key links:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/news/2019/sep/major-new-project-irish-unification-referendums

Independent Commission on Referendums

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/ICR_Final_Report.pdf
W orking Group on Unification Referendum s on the Island of Ireland, A
NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER POLL

The Constitution Unit University College London

March 2019

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-
unit/files/185_a_northern_ireland_border_poll.pdf

EU was rejected on the basis that it would create a hard border between
Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Although the talks, which culminated
on 11 March, produced new ‘legally binding’ documents,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/instrument_0.pdf
I know you must all be sick of me pointing out to ye how corrupt our country is: Well today
i would like you all to question yourselves on how stupid the government think ye are:
The Taoiseach made a statement some months ago that the Irish [His Government]
would not be responsible for the reintroduction of the border on the island of Ireland why
then has he now made another statement saying that the government have employed
more soldiers, more guards, and more custom and excise, and revenue inspectors.
Now maybe he is going to sublet these people to Britain: well i believe Leo Varadkar is a
liar

Boris Johnson's
advice to Queen over
suspending
parliament 'unlawful'
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
The High Court in London was told Boris Johnson's advice over
suspending parliament was an 'unlawful abuse of power'

British Prime Minister's Boris Johnson's advice to

Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament for five
weeks was an "unlawful abuse of power", leading
judges in the UK have heard.
The claim was made today at the start of the latest
legal challenge to the prime minister's move.
The judicial review application to contest Mr
Johnson’s decision has been brought by
businesswoman Gina Miller, who successfully
challenged the government at the High Court in 2016
over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start
the Brexit countdown.
Her case is supported by a number of other parties,
including former prime minister John Major.
The action is being contested by Mr Johnson, whose
lawyers will argue that the advice given to the Queen
was not unlawful.
Lord Pannick QC, representing Ms Miller, told the
judges that the prorogation was timed to occur at a
period of "acute political crisis".
"There is no justification for closing parliament in this
way and, accordingly, it represents an unjustified
undermining of parliamentary sovereignty which is
the bedrock of our constitution," he said.
"The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue parliament
is contrary to constitutional principle, and constitutes
an abuse of power."
Lord Pannick submitted that a note "in the Prime
Minister's own handwriting" dated 16 August
"demonstrates that the Prime Minister simply does
not understand the role of parliament during the next
five weeks."
The hearing in London comes the day after he fought
off a similar action in Scotland. That judgement is to
be appealed.
A judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled
that the planned prorogation was lawful.
That challenge had been brought by a cross-party
group of 75 MPs and peers.
Lord Doherty said choosing when to prorogue
Parliament was for politicians and not the courts, but
an appeal against his decision is being heard today.
He ruled: "The power to prorogue is a prerogative
power and the prime minister had the vires (powers)
to advise the sovereign as to its exercise."
The appeal against that ruling will go before three
judges of the Inner House, which is the supreme civil
court in Scotland.
Judge Lord Malcolm agreed to timetable the hearing
at the earliest point requested, as "expedition is
important".
Whatever the outcome of the challenges against the
decision to prorogue Parliament, it is likely that the
dispute will end up at the UK's highest court.
A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court in London
has said that "should any parties choose to appeal to
the UK Supreme Court following the prorogation
appeal hearings in the lower courts", the court has
set aside 17 September "as a date to hear such an
appeal".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0905/1073968-prorogue-
challenge/?fbclid=IwAR1iMbb2yqidstokPIuG39xHA741sTlLS8PGkJXWwsXGrQ5
4kKg1TATA2kU

Carry on, Supreme court decided that Section 29 of the Offences
against the State Act, 1939 (as inserted by 5 of the Criminal Law Act,
1976) was unconstitutional.
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014
•
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
•

Damache v DPP, Ireland & the Attorney

General, IESC 2012
In (“Damache”) the Supreme court decided that Section 29(1) of the
Offences against the State Act, 1939 (as inserted by s. 5 of the Criminal
Law Act, 1976) was unconstitutional.
https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2012/S11.html

The Section permitted a person, not independent of an investigation, to

issue a search warrant for the purposes of the investigation. The court
found that a police officer engaged in an investigation is not an
independent person for these purposes and therefore that his warrant
was issued in breach of the constitution.
The case illustrates some of the disadvantages of declaring law through
cases. In passing, it approves the practice of the issuing of warrants by
District Justices and/or Peace Commissioners, without stipulating what
the level of presumed oversight to be exercised by those office holders
ought to be.
It does recommend that the reasons for the issuing of a warrant should
be recorded, but it makes no reference to the reality of the issuing of
warrants; a District Court Judge or Peace Commissioner will have no
access to the facts of a case beyond the facts revealed to them by the
investigating police/revenue officer. Indeed, it is the officer who decides
what offence is being investigated and, as (“Damache”) shows, the
accused may ultimately be charged with an offence other than the one
ostensibly being investigated. Indeed, there is little or nothing in this
procedure to prevent an accused being arrested and charged with an
offence of which he is innocent (even one for which there is no
evidence).
It is misleading, as (“Damache”) assumes, to suggest that there is
independent oversight of police investigations by District Justices and/or
Peace Commissioners (or any similar office holder).
https://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2014/04/07/carry/

New Appeal: Is s 9(1)(b) of the Offences

Against the State (Amendment) Act
1998 unconstitutional?
In this determination, Sweeney v Ireland & Ors, the Supreme Court granted the
State leave for a leapfrog appeal from the High Court decision that s 9(1)(b) of the
Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is repugnant to the Constitution.
In the High Court, Baker J held that “the offence created by s 9(1)(b) is impermissibly
uncertain as, in the absence of statutory protection, it can result in a person being
unable to discern the relationship between the right to remain silent and the
consequences of so doing” [110].
S 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998
(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he or she has information which he or she
knows or believes might be of material assistance in—

(a) preventing the commission by any other person of a serious offence, or

(b) securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for a
serious offence, and fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as
soon as it is practicable to a member of the Garda Síochána.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on
indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.

Background
The facts of the case are not in dispute. Gardaí arrested Sweeney on suspicion of
murder and advised him of his right to silence. They did not advise him of the
consequences of s 9 of the 1998 Act. The Gardaí questioned Sweeney and released
him without charge in relation to the offense on which he was arrested. At a later
date, the State prosecuted Sweeney under s 9 of the 1998 Act.
Sweeney challenged the constitutionality of s 9 of the 1998 Act. The High Court
(here) granted him a declaration that it was unconstitutional, on the grounds stated
above. The State lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal and also sought leave of
the Supreme Court for a leapfrog appeal.
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7CCA175C9B4F6858802581E10065CF0F

THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACTS, 1939 - 1998 The right to silence and
the Offences against the State Acts 185 Section 2 of the 1972 hederman report
Act 186 Sections 2 and 5 of the 1998 Act 187 Recent case-law 189 Averill v. United
Kingdom 197 Supreme Court decisions in National Irish Banks and Finnerty 200
The European Court of Human Rightsand the Quinn and Heaney cases 201 Conclusions 204
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/hederman%20report.pdf/Files/hederman%20repor
t.pdf

offences against the state (amendment) act, 1998 AN ACT TO AMEND AND
EXTEND THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACTS, 1939 TO 1985, AND
CERTAIN OTHER ENACTMENTS RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW AND TO
PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/39/enacted/en/pdf

Offence of withholding
information ruled as
unconstitutional
Man challenged in the High Court an accusation that he
withheld information on killing
Thu, Nov 23, 2017,
Mary Carolan

Michael Sweeney was charged in 2011 with withholding information which

might have lead to arrest or prosecution of another person. Photograph:
Collins
A man charged with withholding information possibly
leading to arrest or prosecution of another person in
connection with a man’s killing in Sligo has won his High
Court challenge to the constitutionality of the law under
which he is charged.
Michael Sweeney, Bog Road, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, was a
suspect in the Garda investigation into the killing of 23-
year-old Tom Ward in August 2007, was never charged
with that offence but was charged in 2011 with
withholding information which might have lead to arrest
or prosecution of another person in relation to it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/offence-of-
withholding-information-ruled-as-unconstitutional-1.3302662?mode=sample&auth-
failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-
law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Foffence-of-withholding-information-ruled-as-
unconstitutional-1.3302662

General Scheme of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2012,
Section 12 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is hereby
repealed.

Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 – No. 39 of ... Act to amend and
extend the Offences against the State Acts, 1939 to 1985, and certain other
enactments relating to criminal law and to provide for related matters

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/1998/39/eng/enacted/a3998.pdf

General Scheme of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2012,
Section 12 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is hereby
repealed.

Supreme Court
The State argued that the case raised questions of general public importance,
specifically:

1. The High Court judgment has resulted in an important provision for tackling
serious crime being declared unconstitutional and hence unavailable to the State’s
investigatory and prosecutorial authorities.
2. It is important both for the individual and State authorities that the question of the
potential future use of such a provision be settled in early course.
3. The case involves consideration of the interplay of the right to silence, privilege
against self-incrimination and fair trial rights, in the context of the State’s duty to
protect it’s people, combat crime and subversive activity and to legislate for these
aims.

Granting leave, the Court stated:

3 In the circumstances, the Court considers that this is an appropriate case to appeal
to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.4°. There is no factual
controversy in the case. The case was a matter of legal argument alone. It appears
unlikely that the issues in the case would be significantly reduced or clarified by
requiring a full hearing in the Court of Appeal. The decision of the High Court
involving as it did the invalidation of a piece of legislation, means that while an
appeal is extant, uncertainty will exist in relation to the legislation itself, and
moreover the implications of the decision for other offences. It is desirable therefore
that there should be a final resolution of the issue.

https://scoirl.wordpress.com

Seanad Speech: Offences
Against the State
(Amendment) Act 1998
Seanad Éireann
Thursday, 11 June 2015

“That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences
against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for
the period beginning on the 30th June 2015 and ending on the 29th June 2016.”
Speech by the Minister for Justice & Equality, Ms Frances Fitzgerald T.D.
The House will be aware that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was
enacted in the wake of the murder of 29 people by the Real IRA in Omagh on the 15th of
August that year. It was a necessary response to that atrocity and the loss of 29 innocent
lives.
That bombing and those murders represented a direct attack also on the fragile peace
process and indeed on this State. It demanded a resolute response from the State and a
clear statement that the morally bankrupt culture of death adopted by these murderers
would not prevail over the will of the majority in this island who wished to live in peace.
There was a clear necessity to provide strong legislative powers to ensure that the
Gardaí and the Courts were in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those
opponents of peace. In that regard, the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act
1998 provided that response.
It is right at the outset that I pay tribute to the excellent work of An Garda Siochana and
the Police Service of Northern Ireland in countering the threat from the paramilitary
organisations. Their ongoing seamless cooperation has foiled many attacks and saved
the lives of innocent people.
The Act contains a series of amendments to the Offences against the State Acts 1939 to
1985 to make them more responsive to the threat from certain groups. Principally, these
amendments concern:
§ changes in the rules of evidence for certain offences under the Acts, including the
drawing of inferences in certain circumstances,
§ the creation of new offences, such as directing an unlawful organisation, possession of
certain articles and collecting information, and
§ extending the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the 1939 Act
to 72 hours.
Section 18 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999,
provides that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at
specified intervals if they are to remain in force. By virtue of resolutions passed by both
Houses of the Oireachtas in June 2014, these sections were continued in force for a
period of 12 months.
Renewal of the Provisions
Prior to moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires that I lay before the Oireachtas a
report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The present report covers the period
from 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2015. The report was laid before the House on the 10th
June 2015. It also includes, following a commitment given previously, a table showing the
figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. This table is helpful in
showing the importance of the Act in equipping the Gardaí to detect and prevent terrorist
actions.
It is the fervent wish of the Government and, no doubt, this House, that the time will come
when these provisions will no longer be required. But as Minister for Justice and Equality,
I must take into account the reality of the situation.
In that regard the Garda assessment, shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland
(PSNI), in relation to the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is regarded as
severe. We all know that those groups vehemently opposed to peace seek to attack the
institutions of Northern Ireland and destabilise the peace process. They will never
succeed.
While the direct threat level in this jurisdiction may be different, it is imperative that our
laws and our police are properly equipped to deal with the threat, whether in this
jurisdiction or Northern Ireland; and let no one be under any illusion that these groups do
not represent a threat to this State as well as to Northern Ireland. It is a clearly
established fact that these groups operate hand in hand with organised criminals and in
their behaviour are indistinguishable from such elements. Any ideology, if indeed it was
ever possessed by them, has long ago been eroded by a culture of extortion
kidnappings, beatings, and drug dealing.
The Gardaí must have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet this threat. The
powers available under the 1998 Act are considered paramount in maintaining effective
preventative action against the terrorist groups. Consequently there is a clear need for
the continuance of these provisions.
North/South cooperation in the area of security is vital and I can give the House the
assurance that it has never been better. As was the case with my predecessors I
maintain close contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers
and with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford. In addition, the Garda
Commissioner maintains close and frequent contact with her counterpart in the PSNI and
this relationship is mirrored by contacts between the two forces at every level.
While countering the threat posed by terrorist groups is very important, it is necessary not
to lose sight of the threat from international terrorism. The 1998 Act grew out of our own
domestic troubles. However, its provisions form an essential element of the State’s
response to the threat of terrorism from any source. As seen with events in Paris and
Belgium and the continuing conflict in Syria, we cannot ignore the growth in recent years
of the international terrorist threat. In co-operation with our EU partners, we must
continue to counteract any threat from such sources. The 1998 Act forms part of the
response to that threat also, as does the recently commenced Criminal Justice (Terrorist
Offences) Act 2015 which came into force on the 8th June.
It is the firm view of the Garda Síochána that the Act continues to be a most important
tool in its ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Garda authorities have stated
that the provisions of the Act are used regularly, which is evident from the Report which I
have laid before the House. It is essential, I believe, that the Act’s provisions should
continue in force to support the ongoing investigation and disruption of terrorist activity.
Operation of the provisions of 1998 Act
I would like to turn to the provisions of the 1998 Act which are the subject of the
resolution. As I mentioned, on the 10th June, I laid before the Houses a Report on the
operation of the relevant sections between 1 June 2014 and 31 May this year. The
Report demonstrates the value of the relevant sections to the Gardaí and the necessity
for their continued availability in tackling the terrorist threat.
Looking at the sections themselves, Section 2 allows a court, in proceedings for
membership of an unlawful organisation, to draw appropriate inferences where an
accused person fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to questions.
However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on the basis of such an
inference. There must be some other evidence which points towards a person’s guilt. The
section was used on 42 occasions in the period covered by the report.
Section 3 requires an accused, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful
organisation, to give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his
behalf. This section was not used in the period in question.
Section 4 provides that evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation can be
inferred from certain conduct, including matters such as ‘movements, actions, activities,
or associations on the part of the accused’. This section was used once in the period
covered by the report.
Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of
which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act
1939. This section was used once in the period covered by the report.
Section 7 makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a
reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the
commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. It was
used on 21 occasions.
Section 8 makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to
be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences.
This Section was not used in the reporting period in question.
Section 9 makes it an offence to withhold certain information which might be of material
assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the
apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for such an offence. It was used on
10 occasions.
Section 10 extends the maximum period of detention permitted under Section 30 of the
Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express
authorisation of a judge of the District Court following an application by a Garda of at
least Superintendent rank. Furthermore, the person being detained is entitled to be
present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his
behalf. An extension was applied for in 20 cases and granted in 19.
Section 11 allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a
person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under Section 30 of
the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must
not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised where the judge is satisfied on
information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána that further information
has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person’s suspected
participation in the offence. It was used on 18 occasions.
Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the
making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority
or reasonable excuse. It was not used in the period covered by the report.
Section 14 is, in effect, a procedural section which makes the offences created under
sections 6 to 9 and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of
the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences may be
arrested under Section 30 of the 1939 Act. It was used on 9 occasions during the period
under Report.
Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the
forfeiture of property. Where a person is convicted of offences relating to the possession
of firearms or explosives, and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994
Act the court is required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that
there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The section was not
used in the reporting period in question.
As the Report indicates a number of sections, namely Section 3 (Notification of
witnesses) Section 8 (unlawful collection of information) Section 12, (training persons in
the making or use of firearms) and Section 17 (forfeiture of property) were not utilised
during the reporting period in question. It should however not be inferred from this lack of
use that these provisions are in some way redundant or unnecessary as the usage of the
different Sections can vary from year to year.
The existence of the provisions means that members of terrorist groups are aware that
the State remains resolute in its determination to use every lawful means to defeat them.
I might point out, incidentally, that far from being redundant, Section 12 has in effect been
strengthened by a provision in
the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2015 which creates the three
new offences of Public Provocation to commit a Terrorist Offence, Recruitment for
Terrorism and Training for Terrorism. These offences carry sentences of up to 10 years
imprisonment on conviction on indictment.
Conclusion
As I have already stated, terrorist groups remain a threat to the peaceful lives of people
on this island. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process
and are determined to undermine it. The State must retain, in its laws, the capacity to
defeat them.
On the basis of the information set out in the Report and on the advice of the Garda
authorities I consider that the House should approve the continued operation of the
relevant provisions of the 1998 Act to remain in operation for a further 12 months
commencing on the 30th June 2015.
I commend the motion to the House.
https://agsi.ie/articles/seanad-speech-offences-against-the-state-amendment-
act-1998/

Culture of impunity in Garda

deeply embedded
August 14, 2019

Concerns expressed about oversight of the Garda in two recent opinion
pieces in The Irish Times are fully justified and merit consideration not
only by the Department of Justice and Equality but also by the
Government.
In her article (July 25th) Josephine Feehily, chairwoman of the Policing Authority,
questioned how the new Policing and Community Safety Oversight Commission
(PCSOC), as recommended by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland
(CFPI), would work in practice.
In a subsequent piece (August 2nd), Conor Brady, former member of the Garda
Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC), elaborated on the problems with PCSOC
and also aired his own long-held misgivings about the Garda continuing to discharge the
dual role of civic policing and national intelligence and security. Referring to these CFPI
recommendations, he feared “much of the progress towards independent oversight of
policing that has been achieved in recent years may be reversed”.
The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform set out the official definition of
accountability in the public service in 2014: “The original and long-standing core meaning
of accountability and its conventional meaning in Ireland (and other Westminster-type
parliamentary democracies) is the formal obligation to submit to a mechanism designed
to achieve external scrutiny in explaining and justifying past conduct or actions with the
possibility of consequences arising.”
There is a third element to the Garda governance architecture recommended by the
majority of CFPI members but disputed Dr Vicky Conway of DCU and myself, as
members of the commission, in a minority opinion carried in its final report. Having
stripped the Policing Authority, an external body, of its powers to hold the Garda to
account, the CFPI majority recommended the addition of an “internal” board, modelled on
boards of State bodies, for example like Fáilte Éireann or Bus Éireann, which would in
turn report to the Department of Justice and Equality.
The fundamental problem has always been
stubborn Garda refusal to ‘submit to . . .
external scrutiny’
Justification for diluting external, independent accountability was twofold. Firstly: “The
blame culture that has infected relationships between them [ie the oversight bodies and
the Garda] should be swept away.” When challenged last November by members of the
Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality to defend this derogatory characterisation
of the work of the Garda Inspectorate, GSOC and the Policing Authority, the defence
offered by the chairwoman of the CFPI, Seattle police chief Kathleen O’Toole, was: “The
oversight bodies were frustrated, the police were frustrated . . . there was an atmosphere
of finger-pointing at the time.”
The oversight bodies were indeed frustrated. Judge Mary Ellen Ring, chairwoman of
GSOC was driven to threatening to sue the Garda for endless delays in surrendering
documents. The Garda simply ignored hundreds of recommendations contained in 11
inspectorate reports. The Policing Authority met with blank refusal to comply with
legitimate demands, for example to produce a breakdown of the number of false
breathalyser tests by Garda district.
The fundamental problem has always been stubborn Garda refusal to “submit to . . .
external scrutiny” and, crucially, “with the possibility of consequences arising”. For
decades, as the Toland review of the Department of Justice found, it failed to exercise
the powers it had in its armoury to hold the Garda to account.
In Brady’s estimation, the truth is: “Government, the bureaucracy and the Garda
themselves have no enthusiasm for oversight that is vigorous or adequately resourced.”
So, the challenge is not to stop “finger-pointing”, but to exorcise a deeply embedded
culture of impunity in our national police force. Regrettably, the governance
arrangements proposed by the CFPI, which would mean the Garda reporting into a
closed system, comprised of an internal board and the Department of Justice, represent
a backward step.
The second justification for an internal board was: “Typical police officers rising through
the ranks to leadership positions do not arrive at the top fully equipped to manage large
organisations employing thousands of people.” This may be true, but it would merely
reflect poor systems of continuous professional development and is no basis for the
design of permanent governance structures.

https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-
communications/press-releases/2019/august/media-factsheet-220819.pdf

Expertise
A valid point made was that police organisations would benefit from access to high-level
expertise in human resources, finance and other specialisms more commonly found in
the business community. In the Seattle police department (SPD), often cited as an
example of how such expertise can be accessed, such specialists are integral members
of the senior executive team, equal in rank with senior police colleagues, and not
members of an internal board to whom the SPD is accountable. There is an office of
police accountability “to safeguard the culture of accountability within the SPD” and,
crucially, the office is “physically and operationally outside the SPD but has immediate
and complete access to all SPD-controlled data and evidence”. Contrast this with the
freezing out of our oversight bodies.
I wrote to the Taoiseach last January on behalf of Dr Conway and myself, documenting
our concerns. I received a reply from Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan
saying the Government had accepted the CFPI majority recommendations.
Such is the gravity of the issues at stake, however, hopefully the Oireachtas committee
and Opposition parties will work to modify this position before enabling legislation is
passed and the die is cast, that is until the next spate of policing scandals prompts yet
another sequence of tribunals and another commission on the future of policing in
Ireland.

https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-
releases/2019/august/garda-op-model-august-2019.pdf

Ireland_2012 citizen of Ireland. 2°. The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship
shall be determined in accordance with law. • Requirements for naturalization

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2012.pdf

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Submission to the Committee to Review the Offences Against the State
Acts and Other Matters Amnesty International welcomes the initiation by the Irish Government of the
Review of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/148000/eur290011999en.pdf

Eddie Molloy is a management consultant and was member of Commission on the Future
of Policing in Ireland

https://agsi.ie/articles/culture-of-
impunity-in-garda-deeply-embedded/
DPP v Doyle: Supreme Court’s
Information Note
The Supreme Court issued the following Information Note to accompany the Court’s
five written judgments, which are available on the Courts Services website.
18th January 2017
The Supreme Court
DPP v. Barry Doyle
Information Note
1. Barry Doyle, the accused/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, was granted
leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the 8th June,
2015: [2015] IESCDET 45. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the
prosecutor/respondent, is referred to as “the DPP”.

2. The issues upon which leave to appeal was granted were:

(i) Whether or not the appellant was, in the circumstances of this case, entitled to
consult with a solicitor, and have a solicitor present, prior to and during the 15th
interview with the Garda Síochána, during which admissions were alleged to have
been made. This raises the question of whether the right to have a solicitor present
during questioning is a matter of right of the detained person, or a matter of
concession by the Garda Síochána.

This will be referred to as “the presence of a solicitor” issue.

(ii) Whether the appellant, in all the circumstances, including that he was convicted
in the Central Criminal Court on the 15th February, 2012, and the decision of the
Supreme Court in DPP v. Damache was delivered on the 23rd February, 2012, can
rely on that decision on his appeal.
This will be referred to as “the Damache” issue.
(iii) Whether the matters set out in the appellant’s application under the heading
“Relevant facts considered not to be in dispute”, or any of them, constituted threats
or inducements made to the appellant and calculated to extract a confession from
him. This is a matter not decided by the Court of trial or the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, if they do constitute such threats or inducements, whether their effect had
“dissipated” or “worn off” by the time of the admissions relied upon by the State, as
held by the trial judge; and whether or not there was any evidence on which it could
have been determined that the effect of the said threats or inducements (if any) had
“dissipated” or “worn off” by the time of the alleged admissions.

This will be referred to as “the threats and inducement” issues.

3. On the first issue, as to whether the appellant was entitled to have a solicitor
present during the 15th Interview, 6 members of the Court would dismiss the appeal,
although on different bases; a majority of the Court (Denham C.J., O’Donnell J.,
Laffoy J. and Charleton J.) hold that the constitutional right is to have access to legal
advice, and that it was not required that the appellant, in the circumstances of the
case, have a solicitor present during the 15th Interview.

4. MacMenamin J. concurring, holds in principle that the Constitution requires in

future that a lawyer be present for the interrogation. But, applying DPP v J.C. [2015]
IESC 31, he holds that the admissions would not be excluded. He does not consider
that the right asserted is recognised in ECHR jurisprudence.
5. O’Malley J. reserved her position as to the existence of a constitutional right, on
the basis that it does not properly arise as an issue on the facts of this case.

6. McKechnie J. dissenting, both as to reasons and result, holds that the presence of a
lawyer is required under the Constitution and would allow this ground of appeal.
However, in light of his conclusion on the third issue, he did not find it necessary to
determine the consequences of a breach of such a right in this case.

7. On the second issue, the Damache issue, the Court held that the appellant, in all
the circumstances, could not rely on the decision in DPP v Damache [2012] 2 I.R.
266, on his appeal.
8. On the third issue, the issue of threats or inducements, the majority of the Court
dismiss this ground of appeal.

9. McKechnie J., dissenting, holds that each of the three limbs of the test in People
(DPP) v. McCann [1998] 4 I.R. 397 has been satisfied and, accordingly, that the
admissions made result from an inducement. As a result, the admissions so made
were inadmissible and on such basis he would order a retrial.
10. For the reasons given, the Court dismisses the appeal.

https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/dpp-v-doyle-supreme-courts-
information-note/

O’Sullivan v Sea Fisheries Protection

Authority: Minister’s administrative
scheme breached fair procedure
Here, O’Sullivan v Sea Fisheries Protection Authority & Anor (Minister for
Agriculture Food and the Marine), the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s
decision in this case in part and upheld it in part.
The Court found that Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 severely straitjackets
Member States’ policy decisions on applying points for breaches of fishing rules; it
only leaves open the choice of mechanism for applying points to fishing licences.
Therefore, the Minister had not acted beyond his powers in creating a stand-alone
administrative system for the application of points under the European Union
(Common Policy) (Points System) Regulations 2014.

The Court, however, upheld the High Court decision that the administrative regime
introduced under the 2014 Regulations breached the standard of fair procedure
required by the Constitution, and the Regulations were therefore invalid.

Background
O’Sullivan owns a fishing vessel, The Tea Rose. In April 2015, Sea Fisheries
Protection Officers boarded the vessel as it returned to harbour. After inspection and
weighing of the fish on board, a garda cautioned the Master of the vessel and brought
him before Bantry District Court to be charged for under-recording his catch contrary
to the Sea Fisheries Regulations 2011. The following day, O’Sullivan requested that
the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority suspend the application of points to the
vessel’s licence under the 2014 Regulations pending the outcome of the criminal
proceedings. The Agency informed the O’Sullivan that it had no discretion to defer
the assignment of points to a fishing licence once it is notified of a serious
infringement.

2014 Regulations
Under the 2014 Regulations, the Officer in charge of an inspection of a vessel issues a
report of any infringements to the Master of the vessel. The Officer submits a report
to the Authority on any infringements by a licence holder. The Authority appoints a
panel to determine the seriousness of any infringements. Where the panel finds that
there has been a serious infringement, it determines how many points to assign to the
licence and notifies the Master (or licence holder) with information on the right to
appeal that decision in writing within 21 days. An appeals officer (Ministerial
appointment) may allow an appeal where it is proven on the balance of probability
that an infringement did not occur. A licence holder may appeal to the High Court on
a point of law. The High Court’s decision is final and conclusive. There is no provision
to defer the appointment of points pending a High Court decision.

High Court
The High Court granted O’Sullivan an injunction preventing the Authority from
applying points to his fishing licence, prior to a full hearing of his challenge to the
2014 Regulations. O’Sullivan argued that the 2014 Regulations breach a number of
Articles of the Constitution: Art 15.2.1, which vests sole power to make laws in the
Oireachtas; Art 34.4, which does not permit a minister to restrict the right of appeal
from a decision of the High Court; and O’Sullivan argued that the 2014 Regulations
went beyond the limited functions of a judicial nature which Art 37.1 permits an
administrative body to perform.

O’Conor Tony J held that the 2014 Regulations were ultra vires s 3 of the European
Communities Act 1972 and were, as a consequence, invalid having regard to the
provisions of Art 15.2.1 of the Constitution.

The State sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court granted
leave to appeal on three issues (subject to refinement during case management):

(i) That the trial judge was incorrect to conclude that the Regulations contained
measures which were not necessitated by Ireland’s membership of the European
Union by virtue of those measures going beyond the principles and policies
contained within relevant EU law;

(ii) That, consequently, the determination of the trial judge that the Regulations
were ultra vires s.3 of the European Communities Act and thus invalid having
regard to Art. 15 of the Constitution was incorrect; and

(iii) That the trial judge failed to have adequate regard to the requirement that it
must be assumed that all procedures mandated by the Regulations will be operated
fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court
O’Donnell J wrote the judgment for a unanimous five judge panel.

On review of Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009, O’Donnell J found that it operated

as a “regulatory straitjacket” on Member States, setting down uniform rules on the
method of enforcement. Among other things, the Council Regulation set out the
categories of transgressions attracting points; the number of points for each category
of transgression; and the number of points which lead to the suspension of a licence
[41].

Drawing a comparison between the facts of this case and Maher v Minister for
Agriculture, O’Donnell J held that the matters dealt with in the 2014 Regulations
were “incidental, supplemental and consequential” to the provisions of the Council
Regulation, and the 2014 Regulations did not contravene Article 15.2.1 [43].
But on an overall assessment of the fairness of the procedures introduced—the
requirement that the licence holder initiate proceedings and carry the burden of
proof, the serious consequences for a licence holder of losing a licence, and the
limitation on the right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law—O’Donnell J
held that the High Court decision that the 2014 Regulations are invalid must be
upheld on the narrow grounds of breaching fair procedure [44-52].
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/osullivan-v-sea-fisheries-
protection-authority-ministers-administrative-scheme-breached-fair-
procedure/

Collins v Minister for Finance: €31

billion promissory note was a
permissible constitutional response to
an exceptional situation
In this judgment (here), the Supreme Court dismissed Joan Collins TD’s appeal of the
Divisional High Court’s rejection of her claim that s 6 of the Credit Institutions
(Financial Support) Act 2008 (here) is unconstitutional in permitting the Minister
for Finance to provide unlimited financial support to credit institutions. The Court
stated:
This case illustrates clearly therefore that choices now made have consequences both
for the present and the future. Decisions made or approved by the current Oireachtas
can significantly constrain the freedom of action of future Oireachtas, just as
decisions made in the past may continue to constrain the present. This Court has no
function, however, in considering the wisdom of decisions taken by the other
branches of government, only the limited capacity to review that judicial review
constitutes. It is this Court’s function to ensure that the constitutional organ which
has responsibility to make such decisions, whether they be wise or foolish, trivial or
far reaching, is allowed to do so within the limits imposed by the Constitution. The
momentous nature of the decisions which have been made in relation to the crisis
which the Irish economy experienced in recent years, including those made in this
case, highlights the importance of each organ of government respecting the field of
operation of the other branches, and performing its own functions conscientiously
and carefully.

Background
In 2011, under s 6 of the 2008 Act, the Minister for Finance issued promissory notes
to the value of €31 billion to two financial institutions, the Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation (IBRC) and the Educational Building Society (EBS). That imposed a
repayment liability of €3 billion per year from the State’s budgetary expenditure.
Joan Collins TD took judicial review proceedings in the High Court seeking a
declaration that the Minister’s decision was beyond his power and that s 6 of the
2008 Act was an unconstitutional delegation of the Óireachtas’s power to approve
expenditure to the Minister. Collins argued that the issue of the promissory notes
should have been subject to a Dáil vote. The Divisional High Court rejected that
claim. Collins appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution
Article 11:

All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall, subject to such exception
as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes
and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed
by law.

Article 17:

1 1° As soon as possible after the presentation to Dáil Éireann under Article 28 of this
Constitution of the Estimates of receipts and the Estimates of expenditure of the
State for any financial year, Dáil Éireann shall consider such Estimates.

1 2° Save in so far as may be provided by specific enactment in each case, the

legislation required to give effect to the Financial Resolutions of each year shall be
enacted within that year.

2 Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for
the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the
appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the
Government signed by the Taoiseach.

Article 28:

4.4° The Government shall prepare Estimates of the Receipts and Estimates of the
Expenditure of the State for each financial year, and shall present them to Dáil
Éireann for consideration.

Supreme Court
This case was heard by a seven judge panel. However, due to the death of Justice
Adrian Hardiman earlier this year, the judgment was deliver by a unanimous six
judge panel who each contributed to the single judgment. The Court agreed with the
High Court’s assessment that the issues should be examined with a similar approach
as the courts have taken when dealing with the impermissible delegation of the
legislative function. But the Court made the distinction that the Constitution
expressly provides that the sole and exclusive power to make law is vested in the
Óireachtas. No similar statement is made in respect of financial matters [66].

The Court’s summary of the Constitution’s delegation of power in financial matters is

set out in paragraph 62:

It might be said that the Constitution provides something of a double lock on

expenditure. The Dáil is not permitted to require expenditure by vote or resolution,
and the Oireachtas is not permitted to enact a law providing for public expenditure
except on the formal recommendation of the Government and signed by the
Taoiseach (Article 17.2). Likewise, the Government is not entitled to expend monies
which are not authorised “by law”, both as to purpose and manner of expenditure
(Article 11). That in turn requires that there be a lawful measure passed by the
Oireachtas or a vote by the Dáil authorising the expenditure concerned. Neither the
Government, nor the Dáil, nor the Oireachtas can, therefore, validly authorise the
expenditure of public monies without the approval of the other branch. It is
important to recognise that this is the Irish constitutional model. Statements of
general principle as to what might be considered desirable as a model for governing
public expenditure may be of interest, but must yield to an analysis of what the
Constitution itself says about the manner in which Irish public expenditure can be
permitted.

On analysis of the facts surrounding the issue of the promissory notes, the Court
found that the technical requirements of the 2008 Act were met. What was at issue is
whether the powers that the 2008 Act delegated to the Minister are consistent with
the Constitution [63]. The Court found that the 2008 Act provided sufficient
limitations on the Minister’s power to grant financial assistance to be constitutionally
valid:

76 The opinion formed by the Minister after consultation with the Governor and the
Regulatory Authority, and necessarily endorsed by the Oireachtas, is threefold, and
requires three related opinions in ascending order of seriousness: first, that there is a
serious threat to the stability of credit institutions in the State generally, or that there
would be such a threat if the functions under the Act were not performed; second,
that the performance of those statutory functions is necessary for maintaining the
stability of the financial system in the State; and third, that the performance of those
functions is necessary to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of the State.
Significantly, under s. 2(2) it is envisaged that the Minister may continue to consult
with Governor and Regulatory Authority in the continuing performance of the
functions under this Act.

On the issue that the 2008 Act did not limit the financial assistance that the Minister
could provide, the Court stated the Constitution does not “expressly or by implication
require such a limit”[82]. That the potential exposure was enormous does not render
the Act unconstitutional. And the situation surrounding the issue of the promissory
notes was itself exceptional [83]. Although the Act is exceptional “it was a permissible
constitutional response to an exceptional situation. It cannot therefore be considered
to be a template for broader Ministerial power on other occasions” [84]. And the
Court found the argument that the lack of a financial limit in the Act impermissible
under the Constitution unpersuasive: s 54 of the Finance Act 1970 imposes no limit
on the amount of national debt that State can accrue, “even though such borrowings
may burden present and future generations, and constrain present and future
decisions in relation to the economy” [85].

For those reasons, the Court dismissed Collins’ appeal.

https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/collins-v-minister-for-finance-e31-
billion-promissory-note-was-a-permissible-constitutional-response-to-an-
exceptional-situation/

New Judgm ent: Sweetman

v Shell, Court dismisses
appeal re Corrib gas
terminal planning
permission as moot

Dismissing this appeal (here) in an action under s 160 of the

Planning and Development Act 2000,
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef300
4a27de/44b5298ed56bf47680257f50005b86fc?OpenDocument

Dunne J stated that “notwithstanding the fact that a pre-

commencement condition requiring agreement between the
developer and the planning authority on a particular issue has
not been concluded but where there is subsequent agreement, a
court will not generally grant relief pursuant to s 160 of the Act”.
In October 2004, An Bord Pleanala granted Shell planning
permission for the construction of a gas terminal in County
Mayo, subject to, among other things, Shell providing Mayo
County Council with security for the reinstatement of the land to
its original condition after activity has ceased at the plant
(Condition 37). In March 2005, Sweetman issued High Court
proceedings under s 160 of the Planning and Development Act
2000 seeking a range of inhibiting and mandatory injunctions
and orders permitting him to inspect the sites.
By the time the case came to hearing, in March 2006, the issues
had been narrowed to two, one of which was Shell’s compliance
with Condition 37. Sweetman argued that the arrangement that
Shell was proposing and that the Council were agreeable to was
not in compliance with Condition 37, and he was seeking an
injunction prohibiting further work on the site until there was
full compliance.
Dismissing Sweetman’s proceedings, Smyth J held that there
was substantial compliance and only formalities remained to be
fulfilled. Sweetman appealed that decision to the Supreme
Court.
Supreme Court
In a notice of appeal dated April 2006, Sweetman sought a
declaration that Condition 37 was not complied with and an
order restraining work until there was full compliance. However
he did not actively pursue the appeal, which lay dormant until
2014 when it appeared on the uncertified list on the Chief
Justice’s direction. The parties corresponded by letter, and
Shell’s solicitors provided details of its compliance with
Condition 37 and sought withdrawal of the appeal. Sweetman
did not withdraw the appeal. Although, as the terminal
construction had been completed in the intervening years, and
has since commenced production, Sweetman was not seeking an
order that the terminal be shut down, he was seeking a
determination that Condition 37 had not been complied with–
but that Shell be given an opportunity to comply.
Dunne J noted that although Sweetman did not withdraw his
appeal, he effectively had to be forced to proceed with it through
its inclusion in the uncertified list. And given the nature of the
remedies he was originally seeking–injunctive relief–he was
facing a difficult struggle to begin with. But given his failure to
proceed promptly, each delay decreased his likelihood of
succeeding, as the courts’ power under s 160 of the 2000 Act is
discretionary. In this case that discretion would have had to have
regard to the other parties that would be affected, that Shell had
invested significantly on the legitimate understanding that it was
in compliance with planning law, and to those in employment,
either during construction or processing. Dunne J stated that it
is unacceptable to conduct litigation of this nature in the manner
that this case was conducted.
In conclusion she reviewed the changed circumstances since the
notice of appeal in 2006: Shell had completed the terminal and
commenced production; Sweetman was not seeking the shut
down of the plant; the Council had agreed to Shell’s security,
and, as it was not party to the proceedings, Sweetman could not
challenge that decision. Given those circumstances, Dunne J
determined that there was no live dispute between the parties
and dismissed the appeal as moot.
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/new-judgment-sweetman-v-shell-
court-dismisses-appeal-re-corrib-gas-terminal-planning-permission-as-moot/
In this determination, Seniors Money Mortgages (Ire) Limited v Gately and
McGovern, the Supreme Court granted McGovern leave to appeal the Court of
Appeal’s decision not to grant her an extension of time to appeal. The Court of Appeal
held that McGovern did not meet the three part test set down in Eire Continental.
McGovern says it should have exercised its discretion, as the case involved an
infringement of her constitutional rights.

Seniors Money Mortgages Ireland Limited v Gately and McGovern Judgments &
Determinations Courts Service of Ireland
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac46ef3
71c91480258345003b233a/$FILE/102-18%20Respondents%20Notice.pdf

Background
Noelle McGovern granted Senior Money a deed of mortgage over home in County
Leitrim in 2007. Noelle McGovern died in 2009. Her daughter, Jacqueline McGovern
(notice party and appellant), now resides in the property. Gately (defendant) is the
administrator to the estate.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac46ef3
71c91480258345003b233a?OpenDocument

Senior Money issued High Court proceedings against Gately for possession of the
property under s 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964. Gately had legal
representation. The High Court added Jacqueline McGovern as notice party. She
represented herself in court. The information before the court was that the property
was a registered property. The High Court granted the order for possession in
January, 2017.
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac46ef3
71c91480258345003b233a/$FILE/102-18%20AFL.pdf

Court of Appeal exercise its discretion

to allow an appeal, out of time, in cases
concerning constitutional rights?
Ex tempore Judgment of Court of Appeal
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac4
6ef371c91480258345003b233a/$FILE/Ex%20tempore%20Judgment%20of%2
0Court%20of%20Appeal.pdf

In April 2018, McGovern, through her solicitors, issued a notice of motion in the
Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal the High Court decision. Her
grounds of appeal is that the property is unregistered therefore the High Court order
was made without jurisdiction. Refusing that application (here), the Court of Appeal
applied the three part test from Eire Continental Trading Company Limited v
Clonmel Foods Limited[1955] 1 IR 170. It held that that McGovern had established an
arguable ground of appeal but did not meet the other two parts of the test: she had
not formed a bone fide intention to appeal within the permitted time, nor did she
establish a mistake that would justify the delay.
McGovern applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Granting leave the Court
stated:

the Court considers that the decision of the Court of Appeal does raise a matter of
general public importance namely the question as to what matters the Court of
Appeal should take into account in exercising its discretion whether or not to extend
time to issue a notice of appeal in circumstances where, having regard to the
questions identified by Eire Continental, an applicant establishes that she has an
arguable ground or grounds of appeal but does not satisfy the Court that she formed
a bonafide intention to appeal within the time and there is nothing in the nature of a
mistake which would justify delay.
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/new-appeal-how-should-the-court-
of-appeal-exercise-its-discretion-to-allow-an-appeal-out-of-time-in-cases-
concerning-constitutional-rights/

Leaked British documents spell out no deal risks
The British government believes a hard border on the island of Ireland is "inevitable" in
the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to documents leaked to the Sunday Times
newspaper.

https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/423025845015712/