Irish unity vote only route for Northern Ireland to rejoin EU – O'Toole

Mr O'Toole was speaking ahead of an opposition motion in the Stormont Assembly, nine years on from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
The SDLP MLA will say there has been a 'structural shift' in British politics with the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform UK party.
He will also tell Stormont any prospect of the UK rejoining the EU is 'miniscule', and a referendum under the terms set out in the Good Friday Agreement is the 'only route back to EU membership' for Northern Ireland.
Speaking ahead of the debate, Mr O'Toole said: 'The SDLP welcomes the improved co-operation between the UK and the EU following the recent summit in London, along with progress in a number of areas that begin to ease some post-Brexit frictions.
'We always knew Brexit would be disastrous for the whole UK economy, for Northern Ireland and relationships across these islands. Sadly, so it has proven.
'Northern Ireland was dragged out of Europe against its will, and our politics has suffered the consequences.'
He said British politics was continuing an 'irresistible drift towards 'Faragism'.'
Mr O'Toole added: 'We have virtually no power to stop that happening.
'But we do have a viable pathway to a different future – a European future – and that is through a new Ireland.
'It is time all parties who claim to be pro-European and reject the 'Faragification' of UK politics to acknowledge our only route back into Europe is via an inclusive, hopeful new Ireland.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

North Wales Live

40 minutes ago

• North Wales Live

The £50m Brexit Border Post on Anglesey that could end up being a massive white elephant

A facility built to deal with extra red tape caused by Brexit could end up being redundant before it even opens. Leaving the EU in 2020 added bureaucracy on the border between the UK and the European Union. This included sanitary and phytosanitary checks on fresh produce from the EU. The last UK Government delayed implementing the checks over concerns that it would lead to price rises for businesses and consumers. But they did not scrap the checks and work continued on developing the border facilities to carry out the work. In North Wales, the UK Government allocated £47.8m to build the border control post at Holyhead. This would be operated by Welsh Government, as they are responsible for biosecurity, food safety and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls in Wales. Kier Group were handed a £41m build contract last summer and work got underway on the development at Parc Cybi, just outside Holyhead. Work is due to be completed by the autumn. But the site could now turn into an expensive white elephant before it even becomes operational. In May, the UK and EU reached a new SPS agreement as part of efforts to reset their post-Brexit relationship. This agreement aims to reduce trade barriers for food, plants, and animal products by streamlining processes and reducing checks, making trade between the UK and EU cheaper and easier. It should be good news for businesses and shoppers and Holyhead port overall. But it could mean the new facility will not be required as most of the planned checks will not be required. The Welsh Government said: 'We are considering the implications of a potential SPS agreement with the EU on the future implementation of the Border Target Operating Model in Wales. The Deputy First Minister will make a statement to the Senedd in the coming weeks." Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth, MS for Ynys Mon, said 'The chaotic situation regarding the need – or not – for border control posts is symptomatic of the chaos and costs surrounding Brexit as a whole. "Large sums of public money have been spent, Anglesey Council has faced significant pressures, and we even lost the very important truck stop that went to make way for post-Brexit border infrastructure.

Reuters

an hour ago

• Reuters

Equity investors seeking clarity should be careful what they wish for

LONDON, June 23 (Reuters) - Financial markets famously hate uncertainty, but getting answers to many of the open questions currently hanging over markets may end up offering investors little comfort. Several recent global developments, including President Donald Trump's April 2 tariff announcement and subsequent 90-day pause as well as the breakout of the Israel-Iran war, have sparked some of the highest levels of uncertainty in decades. If recent U.S. stock market performance is anything to go by, investors seem convinced that everything will work out just fine. Investors will likely get more clarity on several of these issues in the coming weeks, but they may find that this optimism is unwarranted. On July 9, the 90-day pause on Trump's Liberation Day 'reciprocal tariffs' will end, and unless the delay is extended or multiple trade deals are struck, U.S. import tariffs will essentially double from the 10% level today. So far, only the UK has managed to agree on a trade deal, and, even here, there is little clarity about the future of tariffs on UK steel exports. Negotiations with the European Union and Japan have stalled, and the EU has prepared a range of potential retaliatory measures. At the same time, the U.S. Commerce Department is preparing to present its findings on investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, copper, aircraft, jet engines and a host of other goods, opens new tab. It is widely expected that once these findings are presented, the U.S. government will act quickly to impose additional tariffs or import restrictions. Meanwhile, the Senate is expected to vote on the Trump administration's budget bill in July. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated, opens new tab that in its current form, this bill will add $3.3 trillion in extra debt over the coming decade. Investor confidence in the dollar and the safety of U.S. Treasuries has been shaken recently, partly due to the country's deteriorating fiscal outlook, so this deficit-expanding budget will only add fuel to the fire. And now, the war between Israel and Iran has been thrown into the mix, with the U.S. attacking Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday. Oil prices have increased by roughly 10% since the war broke out, though the price as of June 20 was still in line with the 2024 average. After the U.S. attacks, we could see Iranian retaliation against oil fields in the Middle East or the all-important Strait of Hormuz, which could drive oil prices much higher. With all these moving parts, it is easy to lose sight of what matters right now and what doesn't. While many actions, such as the extension of the 2017 tax cuts in the budget bill, will take years to unfold, the rise in tariff levels could have an immediate impact. The tariffs currently in place (e.g., base tariffs and tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos) could add 0.9 percentage points to U.S. inflation over the next 12 months, as importers are forced to pass tariff costs on to consumers. If there are no additional trade deals struck and tariffs revert to the higher levels announced on Liberation Day, another 0.7 percentage points could be added. And that doesn't even include potential tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other goods. The inflation impact from the budget bill will likely be much smaller at roughly 0.1 percentage points over the next 12 months, and an oil price spike to $80 per barrel is apt to have roughly the same impact. Only if oil prices spike to about $100 and remain in that region for the next six months would we have to be seriously worried about an inflation shock from the war in the Middle East. Of course, if all these developments, including a 20% oil price spike, come to pass, U.S. inflation could rise from current levels by up to two percentage points in the next twelve months, dwarfing the likely impact on the UK and euro zone. Despite these concerning figures, U.S. equity investors seem nonplussed. U.S. stock markets, perhaps banking on another TACO moment, have rallied 15% above the level justified by macroeconomic fundamentals, based on my estimates. Over the last 10 years, a deviation of this size was followed by an average decline of 7% in the S&P 500 in the subsequent three months. The gap between performance and fundamentals is smaller in the euro zone and UK, suggesting any mean reversion would be less extreme there. Now, it's possible that everything – from the trade war to the real war – will end well. And stock markets have an uncanny ability to ignore adversity for a long time. However, if much of this uncertainty is resolved negatively, resulting in either higher U.S. inflation or lower growth, U.S. equities' surprising resilience is likely to be challenged. (The views expressed here are those of Joachim Klement, an investment strategist at Panmure Liberum, the UK's largest independent investment bank). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab, opens new tab and X., opens new tab ​

Scotsman

an hour ago

• Scotsman

Only Trump supporters are surprised by the President's bombing decision

POOL/AFP via Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Over the weekend, President Trump's bombing of Iran's three nuclear sites has split his Make America Great Again supporter base. His normally outspoken and brazen acolytes have been learning to mid-air somersault as they seek to rationalise and excuse the President's decision. These commentators, after all, are the ones who have bleated an America First policy of non-interventionism. The bombing goes against everything the MAGA movement stands for. They say domestic policy, protectionist trade, and American nationalism are utterly incompatible with global interventionism and that spinning the Middle East roulette wheel and claiming you can foresee the outcome is utter madness. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But why are they surprised? The MAGA movement aspires to a status of selective global engagement. For most of the 19th century, Britain was diplomatically isolated, having what Lord Palmerston called "no eternal allies" to whom she owed favours. The obverse of this, of course, was that no other country owed favours to her. Trump's hostility to NATO lends credence to this ambition, but his unwavering allegiance to Israel continues to tie America's fate to the Middle East. His decision to strike Iran on the back of Israel's attack on June 13 can hardly come as a shock when the President has continued America's tradition of long-standing military and economic support for the country. American foreign policy has always been split: on the one hand, some believe the country should be an inspiring "Shining City on a Hill" example to others. Conversely, others are convinced that only intervention and a total military and economic global hegemony will liberate the world from despotism and fanaticism and shape it in America's image. The two dominant ideologies in the United States about foreign policy are interventionism, which encourages military and political intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, and isolationism, which discourages this. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is an old controversy dating back to the Founding Fathers, who struggled to reconcile the opportunities of continental security with the realities of a British, Spanish, and French imperial world. No president has ever managed to reconcile their ambition with what our own former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, called "Events, dear boy, events." In the American tradition, there has never been a clear demarcation between Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, on whether the US should embrace a global role. "America First," after all, was first deployed by Woodrow Wilson, who was reluctant for the country to enter World War 1 (it, of course, subsequently did in 1917). Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson's Republican bitter rival and predecessor, believed the country should "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy was to negotiate peacefully and maintain a strong military presence to back up one's words. In the 19th century, the United States transitioned from an isolationist, post-colonial regional power to a trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific power. Debates about restraint and international engagement are still the same as they were at the turn of the last two centuries and just as self-deludingly hypocritical. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad President James Monroe declared the eponymous Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It stated that further European colonisation or intervention in the Americas would be viewed as hostile toward the United States. Monroe nevertheless expanded trade and pacified relations with Great Britain while growing the United States at the expense of the Spanish Empire, including obtaining Florida with the Adams–Onís Treaty in 1819. Likewise, Dollar diplomacy, notably during the presidency of William Howard Taft, sought to minimise the use or threat of military force by using the United States' economic power to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia. With no loss of irony, Taft was a proponent of American imperialism in the early 20th century, and like his presidential descendant, he considered North American economic integration with Canada inevitable. More often than not, internationalism is forced upon leaders. America passed successive Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to keep the country out of the Second World War. By the time of the Pearl Harbour attacks on December 8, 1941, America had been involved in a Destroyers-for-bases deal in 1940, and this was followed by the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which allowed the U.S. to sell, lend or give war materials to nations Roosevelt wanted to support: Britain, France, and China. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 likewise promised unabated assistance to anti-communist allies. Security does not begin or stop, as Trump tends to forget, at a literal border. No one presumably ever wants war, but it is a house of cards to build a cult of personality, as Trump has done, around the notion that he is not an international adventurer, a NeoCon imperialist, or an American Caesar. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Iranian regime is one of the most awful the world has seen. Since the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, they have tortured and tormented their people more than any foreign power. The regime's clear ambitions have consistently drawn strong opposition from Western countries and neighbouring states in the Middle East. The Trump presidency cannot pretend this reality does not exist, and Israel certainly cannot. "Trust in Trump" is now an exercise in faith. The problem, as Trump supporters will soon discover, is that the central tenets of MAGA are contradictory and more at home in a pre-WW2 world where the world was less interconnected. Complexity begets complexity, and only the stupid believe that war is an Occam's razor. You can do nothing, you cannot do everything. This is the irony of superpowers. America has been, and very likely will always be, caught in a game of setting an example to the world and being the world's policeman. It is a question for history as to whether this example is a good one or not. To defend its interests, the US has engaged in extrajudicial, covert, and military engagements in the name of everything from security to humanitarianism.