Boris Johnson’s inept handling of the negotiations paves the way for the creation of the:

“Republic of Ireland, Ulster and Scotland”

Is there light at the end of the tunnel? The British government’s statement that it is deliberately preparing to violate international law “in a precise and limited manner” is signaling “open bar” for all the conflicting nationalistic claims that are tearing apart the fabric of the United Kingdom.

The bullying tactics of the PM have galvanized the resolve of separatists, overriding serious drawbacks on the economic front that would result from the breakup on the Union. Independence would – because of its shared border and currency – leave Scotland even more dependent on England than the UK is on the EU, regardless of the outcome of the currently seriously compromised negotiations. But the failure to reach a mutually advantageous free trade agreement also jeopardizes the fundamental interests of the Republic of Ireland’s trade relations with the UK as well as – more importantly – threatening peace, should the unilateral breach of the Withdrawal Agreement by the British government lead to a “no deal” and the reestablishment of a hard border on the island.

A credible solution to this situation would be the formation of a “Gaelic State” between the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If approved by a majority of their respective populations, this would immediately confer EU membership on Scotland and Ulster (both voted to remain in the EU) in the same way as Eastern Germany became a member after German reunification. Similarly, a conversion rate between £ and the € – close to the existing market rate – would be negotiated, for the redenomination of contracts and deposits in force on the conversion date, cash continuing to be exchanged throughout at the free floating exchange rate to avoid speculation.

A preliminary determination would have to be made as to whether a Federal or Confederal template would be adopted:

The “federal” model would call forsetting up a “federal government” and “institutions” in which the population of the three entities would be represented as a whole. These entities would be the repository of the new State’s sovereignty (a top down model). In addition, an “Irish State” government should be created to receive those powers devolved to the “federated” entities. It would be important not to repeat the current British structure where the House of Commons exercises both Union-wide and English powers.

The “confederal” model would preserve the existing governance structures. An agreement between them would be negotiated to share specific powers through new “common”institutions, in particular to cover all matters (as well as sovereignty) touching upon relations between the “confederated entities” and between the Confederation and the outside world, including the representation of the new State in EU and Eurozone institutions (a bottom up model).

The confederal model is more apt to preserve “national” characteristics of each entity, be they religious, linguistic, folkloric, etc. The federal model, on the other hand, is easier to understand by third parties insofar as it reduces the proliferation of procedures and simplifies relationships.

Conclusion:

The jingoistic gesticulations of Boris Johnson may have finally opened the way for a satisfactory outcome in the turmoil created by Brexit and allow a solution in conformity with the wishes of the popular majorities expressed in the Referendum by each of the UK’s entities.

England would recover its full sovereignty and be free to embark on its dream of Global Britain. I can only wish her success and happy landings!