MP suggests Republic of Ireland should take ‘rightful' place in Commonwealth
The Republic of Ireland should take 'our deep neighbourly relations to the next level' and rejoin the Commonwealth, a Conservative MP has suggested.
Andrew Rosindell said Ireland 'would do well to emulate countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand' and take its 'rightful' place in the Commonwealth.
The MP for Romford also called for a bank holiday to mark St Patrick's Day and the resurrection of the Order of St Patrick.
Speaking during a St Patrick's Day and Northern Irish affairs debate, Mr Rosindell said: 'The Republic of Ireland, I believe are our friends but we can be much closer, fully realising that we are one family that share a unique group of islands in all spheres of national operation.
'Indeed, Ireland could do much more work themselves, alongside her British brother and her loyal northern neighbour, in recognising that shared heritage and advancing shared values and goals on the global stage.
'Ireland would do well to emulate countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I believe that one day, perhaps soon, the people of the Republic of Ireland might choose to take their rightful place in the family of the Commonwealth of nations.
'Taking our deep neighbourly relations to the next level to the benefit of both partners, and I believe having a bounteous benefit to global politics.'
Mr Rosindell argued that St Patrick's Day, in addition to St David's Day, St Andrew's Day and St George's Day, should all be bank holidays across the UK.
He told MPs: 'I would strongly submit that St Patrick's Day should be a national bank holiday, alongside all the other feast days of our Kingdom's patron saints.'
He added: 'Not only would this be firmly in line with the position of Anglicanism, as the unchallenged state religion, but would reinforce the importance of all four corners of our nation.
'So too would the resurrection of the Order of St Patrick, which has shamefully been allowed to fall into abeyance for many decades, but I believe remains a sovereign order of the United Kingdom, and I hope the minister will take that back as a consideration for something to be restored.'
Mr Rosindell continued: 'Today, I believe we must focus more on bringing the four home nations of… Great Britain and Northern Ireland together, and reversing the constitutional backsliding that I believe has occurred with the British internal markets.'
Speaking from the Conservative frontbench, Jerome Mayhew, whose late father Patrick was Northern Ireland secretary under John Major, said the restoration of the Order of St Patrick would be 'a very sensible thing to do'.
In the Commons, Northern Ireland minister Fleur Anderson said: 'The Order of St Patrick, I will take away that mention as well.'
Responding to a written question from Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) on Wednesday, Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said: 'The most illustrious Order of Saint Patrick is in the personal gift of the sovereign.
'The UK Government is not considering the restoration of the Order of St Patrick.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
12 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
The Herald Scotland
15 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
The BBC is helping Reform - and has become a danger to democracy
You might not know it - as the national broadcaster, the source of most information for most of Britain has singularly failed to report it - but the BBC has drawn up plans to win over Reform voters. It's strange how the BBC, a channel of staggering narcissism which never misses a chance to talk about itself, isn't saying much about the leaking of minutes from a meeting of its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. Read more The story was broken by the Byline Times, one of Britain's 'new media' outlets that's increasingly proving to be an excellent source of investigative journalism. BBC Director-General Tim Davie and other senior figures like 'News CEO' Deborah Turness want to reshape the broadcaster to appeal to Reform voters. They believe BBC news and drama is causing 'low trust issues' among the radical right. Turness discussed altering 'story selection' and 'other types of output, such as drama' to win Reform hearts and minds The committee includes former GB News executive Robbie Gibb, appointed to the BBC board by Boris Johnson. Emily Maitlis once called him an 'active agent of the Conservative Party'. Minutes stated that bosses 'recognised the importance of local BBC teams in the plan, given their closeness to audiences'. So keep an eye on how BBC Scotland behaves from now on. Here's the bottom line: the BBC should not seek to appeal to anyone. It should report the news with complete objectivity, impartiality, and political neutrality. The words 'without fear or favour' should be tattooed on the heart of every BBC employee, especially the cosseted, overpaid establishment mandarins who run the organisation. We pay their wages. The BBC should represent Britain in its entirety, not favoured special interest groups. However, this courting of Reform proves impartiality to be a lie. It doesn't matter if Marxists or Nazis like a particular story. It's irrelevant whether coverage makes liberals happy or conservatives sad, or vice versa. No consideration should ever be paid to whether drama is perceived as progressive or reactionary. What matters is that news is reported accurately and fairly, analysis is balanced, and drama has cultural merit and entertains. By attempting to woo Reform, the BBC alienates everyone else. Worse, the BBC reinforces the grievances levelled against it. Scotland's Yes movement has accused the BBC of bias for years. Now independence supporters can continue to do so but with ammunition to back up their allegations. How can the BBC pretend to report news honestly, or reflect British politics and culture fairly, when it has been caught out cosying up to Nigel Farage? BBC Director-General Tim Davie with former Conservative PM David Cameron (Image: free) The BBC slits its own throat. And many of its enemies will gleefully watch the blood spill. Specifically, Farage. He has consistently attacked the BBC. Indeed, he uses his own platform - the disgracefully biased GB News - to do so. With delicious irony, Farage previously accused the BBC of being a 'political actor'. Well, now the broadcaster appears to be acting politically for its nemesis. Farage threatened to boycott the BBC, and claimed editors used 'story selection' to bash Reform. If Farage ever takes power he'll gut the BBC in an afternoon. In truth, the BBC deserves all it gets. It made Farage's career, endlessly platforming him, giving him far higher exposure than other comparative politicians. If you think there's any fairness to BBC coverage ask yourself how much you see the LibDems on air compared to Reform. Then look at the two parties and their parliamentary representation. Reform has five MPs, the LibDems 72. Indeed, the Greens have four. Do the Greens get four-fifths of the time devoted to Reform? Do they hell. Only last month, Davie, the director-general, was sounding off about the 'crisis of trust' in Britain. He grandly claimed the BBC would play a leading role in reversing the decline and help combat division. The BBC would create a future where 'trusted information strengthens democracy'. Davie, though, is doing everything he can to deepen division, damage democracy and foment distrust in journalism at a time when society needs good, honest reporting more than ever. When he said 'reform' was needed, it now appears Davie meant with a capital R. Currently, Reform is causing chaos in councils the party won at the English local elections. Will that be reported under the new pro-Reform BBC guidelines? I'm afraid we now need to ask ourselves whether the BBC will tip the next election for Reform. Davie should go, along with the entire BBC board. They disgrace journalism, and are not impartial or balanced. Read more The notion of politicising drama is disgusting. Artists exist to create and enrich our lives, not do the bidding of tawdry media executives in hock to the hard-right. In Britain, trust is at rock bottom. New findings released yesterday from the National Centre for Social Research found that just 19% of us believe the current system of governing Britain works. Only 12% trust governments to put country before party. As long as I've been alive, the BBC was billed as the last redoubt for fairness and balance. Over the last decade, that claim has well and truly undergone an acid bath. Now, the mask is off. The BBC has shown us what it really is, and we need to take notice. Globally, the rise of the hard-right has caused many to lose their minds - from commentators and business leaders, to political parties and academics. In Britain, the BBC hasn't just suffered a nervous breakdown, it has completely surrendered its principles of fairness. It's now more a danger to our democracy than a line of defence. Neil Mackay is the Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Acorn project funding uncertainty as 'final decision' still to be made by Chancellor Rachel Reeves
Concerns have emerged over how much funding the Chancellor will hand over for the Acorn project. Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... North Sea bosses have welcomed the UK government finally pledging to back Scotland's carbon capture project after years of delay - but concerns have been raised after it emerged a final investment decision is still to be made. Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed in her spending review that the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, based at St Fergus near Peterhead, will receive funding from the Treasury. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Keir Starmer's government has finally pledged funding for the Acorn project at the St Fergus gas terminal hear Peterhead (Photo by Jeff) | Getty Images But buried in the detail, the Treasury has confirmed that 'a final investment decision will be taken later this parliament, subject to project readiness and affordability'. This has led to a warning over 'investor uncertainty' if a final decision for the Acorn project is not taken 'urgently'. The Acorn project, made up of several firms including Shell, Harbour Energy and Storegga, will, in theory, take harmful carbon emissions and prevent them from being released into the atmosphere and instead buried under the seabed off the Aberdeenshire coast. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There are also plans to repurpose an existing oil and gas pipeline to potential transport carbon from Grangemouth to the offshore storage sites. The Scottish Government has commissioned a report into whether this is possible, but has not yet published that work. The previous Conservative UK government had only granted the Acorn project 'reserved' status and favoured projects south of the Border for full early funding. But the Chancellor told the House of Commons she was announcing 'support for the Acorn project', adding that it will 'support Scotland's transition from oil and gas to low-carbon technology". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Pressed over how much investment will be allocated by the UK government, Ms Reeves simply said that 'we are putting money into Acorn'. As well as indicating support for the Acorn project, the Chancellor also pledged to back the Viking project south of the Border. David Whitehouse, Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) CEO, said: 'The support for the next phase of carbon storage projects in Scotland and Humberside is welcome, and an important step towards final investment decisions later in this parliament. OEUK's chief executive, David Whitehouse | OEUK 'Together Viking and Acorn have the potential to unlock over £25 billion of investment by 2035, creating over 30,000 jobs at peak construction.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He added: 'These projects will provide the pathway to support the decarbonisation of UK industries and are critical to the government's clean power objectives. We will continue to work with government to detail the long-term support required to deliver these projects and unlock the UK's wider CCS ambitions.' Trade unions have also welcomed the vow to back the Acorn project. STUC general secretary, Roz Foyer, said: 'Following years of Tory failure to invest in carbon capture and storage, this funding is welcome. STUC general secretary Roz Foyer | Andrew Milligan/PA Wire 'The UK and Scottish governments must now work with the relevant unions to ensure that the project maximises the opportunity to create and retain high quality, unionised jobs.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sara Thiam, chief executive of development body, Prosper, said that 'advancing development' in the Acorn project was 'a welcome step', but she warned that 'final confirmation for the project is urgently required to reduce investor uncertainty'. Environmental campaigners have repeatedly raised concerns about the reliance on carbon capture to meet emissions goals, despite independent watchdogs, the Climate Change Committee, suggesting net zero targets cannot be hit without the technology. There are concerns about the reliability of carbon capture technology which is yet to be proven at commercial scale. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Friends of the Earth Scotland's climate campaigner, Alex Lee, branded the project 'a fossil fuel polluters pipe dream' that 'will never live up to the hype'. They added: 'Carbon capture has received billions in funding around the world and it has never worked properly.
