Nigel Farage as British PM would put Irish unity ‘centre stage'

Mr Varadkar, who stood down as taoiseach in April last year, said it is possible Mr Farage will be prime minister in four years or nine years time.
He described British politics as 'very volatile'.
Reform made big gains in local elections in England and Wales in May.
Mr Varadkar told BBC Northern Ireland's The View programme, which will be aired on Thursday night, that he hoped Mr Farage is not the next British prime minister.
The former Fine Gael leader said if the Reform leader became prime minister, it would 'change the pictures in terms of attitudes towards independence in Scotland'.
'I think it would change the views of some people in the middle ground in Northern Ireland (towards Irish unity),' he said.
'It isn't just because a right-wing nationalist government in London would want to bring the UK and Northern Ireland away from Europe. It is other things as well.'
He also claimed that councils run by Reform in England were preventing people from flying Pride or progress flags.
Mr Varadkar added: 'I don't think most people in Northern Ireland would like that.
'If that's the kind of government they had in London versus a government in Dublin that was very different, it might make them more likely to vote yes to unification,' he added.
'I do want to be very clear about this, it's not something I hope happens.
'I hope it doesn't happen.'
Mr Varadkar said he believes planning for a united Ireland should be happening, but that a date should not be fixed as the numbers to win are not in place.
He added: 'I don't think a united Ireland is inevitable, I think it's something that we have to work towards.
'But I think there are a lot of factors that would suggest that we're on that trajectory.
'Demographic factors, polling, even the most recent numbers showing that a very clear majority of younger people in Northern Ireland want there to be a new united Ireland.'
'I think that will carry true, and that's why I think it's something that we should plan for.'
He said Irish unity will not happen 'by osmosis or by accident'.
'I think (it) has to be worked towards. I think those of us who believe in it have a duty to make the case for it,' he added.
'Look at the trajectory, and that is clear. We see it in elections. We see it in opinion polls. We see it in demographics.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Record

41 minutes ago

• Daily Record

Pro-Palestine activists break into RAF base and damage military aircraft

Palestine Action activists broke into the RAF Brize Norton base and damaged two military aircrafts, according to the group. Pro-Palestine activists infiltrated an RAF air base and inflicted damage on two military aircraft, according to reports from the group. The activists allege planes depart daily from Brize Norton to Cyprus, which is "used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East". ‌ The campaigners, utilising electric scooters, approached the aircraft and with "repurposed fire extinguishers sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyagers". ‌ They also claim to have used crowbars to cause further damage, reports the Mirror. The selection of red paint was intentional to represent "Palestinian bloodshed", which they not only sprayed on the aircraft but also across the runway. Palestine Action, a collective condemning the UK's involvement in what it views as Israel's targeting of Gaza civilians, argues their daring protest "interrupted Britain's direct participation in the commission of genocide and war crimes across the Middle East". The RAF operates flights from the Oxfordshire facility to Akotiri in Cyprus, where UK troops are stationed. A Palestine Action spokesperson condemned British actions saying: "Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US/Israeli fighter jets. Britain isn't just complicit, it's an active participant in the Gaza genocide and war crimes across the Middle East. "By decommissioning two military planes, Palestine Action have directly intervened in the genocide and prevented crimes against the Palestinian people." Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!

ITV News

an hour ago

• ITV News

UK and EU to hold talks with Iran in efforts to de-escalate conflict

The Foreign Secretary David Lammy will travel to Geneva on Friday to meet with the Iranian foreign minister and his counterparts from France, Germany and the EU, in an effort to reach a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict. The meeting with Abbas Araghchi comes after US Donald Trump said he would make a decision on US military action in Tehran"within the next two weeks". It also follows Lammy's visit to Washington, where he met US secretary of state Marco Rubio in the White House on Thursday evening to discuss 'how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict'. Lammy is expected to reiterate the UK's concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, and to press for a diplomatic solution to resolve the issue long term. In a statement ahead of the meeting, he said: "The situation in the Middle East remains perilous. We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.' Adding that a 'window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution', Lammy said: 'Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one.' Israeli airstrikes reached into the city of Rasht on the Caspian Sea early on Friday, Iranian media reported. Since the conflict erupted last week, at least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Meanwhile, at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Earlier on Thursday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had urged the US to step back from military action, saying there was a 'real risk of escalation'. It is unclear whether the UK would join any military action, although there has been speculation that US involvement could require using the British-controlled base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo. Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Trump decides to act militarily.

The Herald Scotland

2 hours ago

• The Herald Scotland

No wonder Iran doesn't trust the US. Neither should we

America restored the tyrannical Shah to power. He lived in opulence and lavished enormous sums on vanity projects while his people struggled to afford the basics of life. Eventually, disparate Iranian groups from all across the political spectrum came together and drove the Shah out in 1979. Tragically, the ensuing power vacuum was filled by the clerics: Ayatollah Khameini is in power in Iran today because of what the US did over 70 years ago. Don't forget, either, isolated acts of brutality inflicted by America's powerful military. On 3 July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when its captain, William Rogers, ordered his crew to shoot down an Iranian airliner that was en route to Dubai; there were 290 fatalities, 20 more than caused by the bombing of Pan Am 103 a few months later. Subsequently, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer… from April 1987 to May 1989". You can see why that might stick in the craw of those affected and why Iran distrusts America, as should we all while President Trump remains in office. Doug Maughan, Dunblane. Read more letters • Once again the Middle East has rapidly descended into the maelstrom of conflict. Britain must at this time studiously avoid supporting any of the protagonists. The times that we have previously intervened in Iran, the outcomes were not good. Back in 1953 both America and Britain decided to engineer the removal of the democratically elected President of Iran, Mosadeggh. He had courageously proposed that Iran's oil belonged to Iran and that Iran should control the marketing of it. However, the British and American oil companies did not see this as desirable. So they supported the imposition of the Shah on the Iranian people who was eventually overthrown. Apart from the Iranian intervention should Britain be supporting Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems to have no respect for the tenets of international law in regard to the conflict with the Palestinians? Sir Keir Starmer needs to show the world that Britain is prepared to take a moral stand in the Middle East. The first action must be to forbid the sale of weapons to any of the protagonists. This takes courage but he needs to show leadership on this matter. Ed Archer, Lanark. • When asked whether he had decided whether the US would be invading Iran, President Trump replied that he had not yet decided, adding: "Nobody knows what I'm gonna do". And we should be worried about an Iranian finger on the nuclear button? Tina Oakes, Stonehaven. A deliberate distraction Benjamin Netanyahu's war with Iran is a deliberate distraction from his Gaza war of mass murder, deliberate starvation and ethnic cleansing of civilians and children. The moment Iran retaliated against Israeli attacks, every western government which had begun voicing token criticisms and issuing token sanctions on Israel switched to saying they would help defend Israel if Iran attacked it. Keir Starmer has moved US military assets to the Middle East and refused to rule out 'defending Israel'. Why should we help a government that is committing crimes against humanity in Gaza feel immune to the results of its own actions, ensuring it will continue both wars, when neither Hamas nor Iran could ever pose a credible military threat to Israel? The Ayatollahs are certainly a dictatorship, and hostile to Israel. But Israel and the US are massively militarily stronger than Iran. And the story that if the Ayatollahs get a nuclear weapon they'll immediately fire it at Israel, ensuring that all of them and their entire country will be wiped out in either the Israeli or US nuclear or conventional counter-strikes, is ludicrous. Certainly they praise 'martyrs' including suicide bombers. They're not so keen on personal or national suicide . Duncan McFarlane, Carluke. Our reputation is at stake Countries, like people, are often judged by the friends they keep. How then has the UK ended up being counted as an ally by the mad dogs of the Middle East, Israel, and insisting on our knees that we have a Special Relationship with the mad dog of the West, the USA under Donald Trump? These relationships are taken to extremes, with a willingness to pitch in with America's follies like the second Iraq war and unwillingness to call out unequivocally Israel's slaughter of Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, and to go along with the destruction by Mr Trump in his first term of the workable compromise with Iran on nuclear issues engineered by Barack Obama and supported by us. This cannot stand well with our international reputation, for the blood of other peoples does not seem to matter much to us. We should be grateful for an earlier Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who despite pressures from America, had the guts to keep us out of the disaster of America's Vietnam war. James Scott, Edinburgh. Donald Trump (Image: Getty) Labour's hypocrisy In January, when the Tories put forward proposals for a national inquiry to be held into the grooming gangs scandal, Sir Keir Starmer voiced his disapproval and accused those calling for one of jumping on a "far-right" bandwagon. When the submission went before the House of Commons, Joani Reid voted against. Just over a month ago, based on the review carried out by Baroness Casey, Sir Keir changed his mind and ordered that an inquiry be held. Lo and behold, the MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven changed hers as well and suddenly became an enthusiastic advocate for an inquiry. So much so that she made the following press statement: "If the Scottish Government does not intend to hold its own dedicated inquiry, we need some clear reasons why, not the vague responses we've had so far." This may sound like double standards to you and me but after all the broken promises to deliver change we should be used to rank hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party by now. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. A dubious guarantee I note your coverage of the concept of a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) as a way of achieving the laudable aim of abolishing poverty. Gaby McKay explains the idea and gives some idea of the costs involved, Russell Gunson follows, enthusiastically promoting this benefit ("Call to move toward minimum income guarantee 'urgently'" and "There should be an income level below which nobody is allowed to fall", The Herald, June 18). However, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Firstly, although the word "poverty" is bandied around, what actually constitutes poverty? Mr Gunson defines it as living in a household where income is less than 60% of the UK average. To take an extreme example, if the average UK income was £100,000 per year, then as long as this 60% criterion applied, the poor would always be with us. Secondly, how would it be paid – what mechanisms would have to be set up to ensure its equitable and economical distribution? Thirdly, how would the MIG relate to other sources of income, such as other benefits, paid employment, pensions, dividends and interest? Would it be taxable, or set against these funds? In fact, could it be regarded as the Personal Allowance? I can see Rachel Reeves rubbing her hands with glee if she can start taxing people once their income passes £11,500, rather than the current £12,570. Fourthly, in their desire to talk up the positive aspects of MIG, I wonder if your writers have considered the possibility that the achievement of a modestly comfortable standard of living might, in some cases, reduce the incentives to seek paid employment? Finally, the cynic in me wonders how long it will be before the cry "it's not enough!" goes up, particularly when other figures regarding subsistence have been bandied around, such as the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which advises a minimum standard of retirement living requires an income of £13,400 (£15,800 for London dwellers) per year Christopher W Ide, Waterfoot.