Top Tweets for #IrishUnification

President Trump’s intervention seeking the break-up of the UK is extraordinary on so many levels. It is only because the UK had not been broken up, as the President now suggests it should be, that 300,000 US troops, six US Airforce bases and the largest US naval base in Europe could be based on part of the island of Ireland during the Second World War. Dublin would not allow US troops to enter what was then the Free State. Moreover, a US military presence in Northern Ireland continued during the Cold War through their Naval Communication Station Londonderry (NAVCOMMSTA Londonderry). And today, while the UK spends 2.5% of GDP on defence, the Republic spends an absurd 0.20% to 0.22% per annum and has to rely on the UK for its defence. Breaking-up the UK in ‘Cold War 2’ would be completely contrary to US interests. What is really going on? When he came to office President Trump was the most pro UK President that we have had in a long time. That makes sense because rather than tracing his British ancestry back to the seventeenth century, his mother only left the UK for America in May 1930, within the lifetime of 95 to 100,000 UK citizens alive today. However, he became completely exasperated with Keir Starmer on multiple fronts, including his attempts to give the Chagos Islands, the site of a US military base, to Mauritius. While he openly disagreed with Starmer he hung on and clearly hoped for a change in Andy Burnham. It is clear, however, that there has been no change with Burnham, including over Chagos, and Trump has now decided to change tack. In the last few weeks we have seen a sea change in his approach with his own comments about the Falklands, criticism of the King and now calling for the break-up of the UK. What is he doing? If we view the President’s actions from the perspective of: i) international relations and the fact that the USA is not the UK and ii) Trump’s uniquely transactional approach, none of this is hugely surprising. In transactional terms if a country acts in a way that Trump deems consistent with US national interests, he will ensure that US influence is deployed for the purpose of encouraging them to stay this course, giving them no grounds for changing approach. However, if a country acts in a way that Trump deems contrary to US interests then he will deploy US influence to make life uncomfortable for that country in its relationship with the US, on one level, to see if this discomfort can get them to change approach and on another, if they won’t, simply to punish them for acting contrary to US interests. This is to a considerable extent (the mid-terms are certainly also a factor in this latest intervention) the realpolitik of international relations, exaggerated by Trump’s uniquely transactional style. And, of course if ROI gives Trump what he wants now rather than the UK, then he will want to align with them even more closely. In this context, as we call out the absurdities of yesterday's expression of IR game play and electioneering, it is also worth asking a question. Are the current policies of the UK Government that Trump deems not to be in the US National Interest actually in the UK national interest, or are they policies pursued out of regard for a globalism that has lost sight of essential UK national interests???