Demystifying the Iron Lady and Her Legacy

Margaret Thatcher remains one of the most influential figures in modern international politics; a hardline conservative, a groundbreaking woman, and an inspiration to the many world leaders who have followed in her footsteps. What factors led to her enduring impact? Historically, opportunities for women in political leadership have been limited due to the domination of male gender bias in society. For the majority of human history, women have been denied the keys to power; even in the most democratic societies – from the birthplace of democracy, Athens, to our shining city on a hill, America – women were, as a matter of course, forced to the sidelines of political affairs. Though most women in the 21st century, in democratic countries, now have the right to vote, entrenched biases against women have only recently started to crumble. Perspectives on Thatcher’s rule have fluctuated over the decades, with some seeing Thatcher as a reactionary, others as a status-quo politician, and for some still as a pre-Reagan Reaganite. But for a woman to attain a position of such high relative importance in global affairs signifies something special. How did she manage to overcome negative biases against women in a time when those biases reigned supreme? How have female leaders since Thatcher adopted her strategies? 

In the second half of the 20th century, female leaders were few and far between, and it was still a rather foreign concept for a woman to be the head of a world power. Margaret Thatcher recognized this bias and adjusted her persona accordingly. She knew that the simple fact of her gender could close political doors before she could so much as try to knock. This meant that appearing friendly might as well have been the lowest of her priorities. Her fight to implement  “Britain First” policies eventually led to her infamous designation as the "Iron Lady.” (It is worthwhile to note that this nickname was originally intended as a derogatory slur by the Soviet press.) By the end of her tenure, Thatcher was often thought of as being tougher than most men.    

Over 30 years since Thatcher’s time in office, how much has the stigma around being a female Head of State changed? In the present day, there are, of course, more female leaders than when Thatcher was serving as prime minister; as of September 2022, there are 28 female Heads of State. Has Thatcher’s legacy shaped how women in power act today? Do women in leadership positions feel the same need to correct for their femininity today? 

      In the summer of 1979, Margaret Thatcher was appointed Britain's first female prime minister by the Conservative Party. Growing up through World War II and attending college as the Cold War began in earnest, Thatcher carried through her 11 years of leadership a deep-rooted opposition to communism and a desire to correct the policies she believed were crippling English society. 

Thatcher was a staunch capitalist who believed in the principles of classical liberalism, decrying the interventionist economic policies that she felt had led to Britain’s stagflation in the 70s. With rising inflation, constant energy shortages, frequent labor strikes, and expensive oil prices, this wasn’t hard to believe. Throughout her time in office, she worked to limit the power of trade unions and tighten what she saw as the state’s overly generous welfare programs. All of Thatcher’s actions in office were in furtherance of her goal of restoring England’s former economic status as a major player in Europe and internationally. By privatizing state-controlled and public goods industries, she also cut the amount of government subsidies to underperforming businesses, further increasing the country’s rising unemployment rate. These high unemployment rates significantly reduced the power of the trade unions and, some economists argue, successfully cut down on inflation. As her policies caused unemployment to skyrocket, Thatcher’s popularity declined equally precipitously. All the same, Thatcher is often cited as a pioneer for bringing Britain out of economic decline, and her legacy shaped policies of the Conservative and Labour parties for decades to come. Since Thatcher, there have been a small number of women in a position as powerful as hers, an even smaller number with the influence and political capital to shape their countries around their political ideologies. 

      Perhaps the closest analogue to Thatcher in recent years would be the first female chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, at least in terms of international stature. Merkel served as Germany’s head of government for over 16 years, from 2005 until 2021. Of course, the similarities between Thatcher and Merkel are apparent but rather limited. Similar to Thatcher, Merkel inherited a country during a time where the economy wasn’t as strong as it could have been. She was able to systematically balance the prioritization of safeguarding and promoting German economic interests with protecting her own popularity as a leader. This was always challenging for Thatcher, who was almost single-mindedly focused on economic protection. Merkel’s legacy shaped her as someone just as influential as Thatcher, but who is seen in a very different light. Merkel was given the endearing term “Mutti” (or “mother”) by the German people. In 2021, she was the leader who scored the highest approval rating of any world leader in a survey of six countries for her work in strengthening the German economy and the European Union (EU) as a whole. So how did she learn from Thatcher’s mistakes? By finding the delicate balance between seeking the public’s trust and fighting for her policy goals.

While Thatcher fought for a dramatic reduction in the English welfare state, Merkel’s tenure was characterized by support for expanded social programs. Merkel was widely considered to be a defender of liberal democracy, prioritizing national social welfare programs and helping to lead Europe’s response to faltering international economies. Merkel didn’t seek to command the center stage of EU politics, but her decisive actions had a tendency to put her there anyway. Merkel’s balanced decisiveness echoes Thatcher’s leadership style, but through a completely different tone. Merkel’s leadership personality was “understated but achieving,” vouching for herself as a servant to the German people. This was something Thatcher couldn’t relate to; during her career, she was famously quoted saying “society does not exist.” Considered an underdog by her own party, as the only woman, Protestant, or East German to become chancellor, Merkel was accustomed to fighting for the “little guy” in her pursuit of policies. She advocated for debt relief during the aftermath of the financial instability in the years following 2008 and loosened the country’s immigration laws when other European countries were turning refugees away. 

Her cool handling of a crisis became her trademark, as Merkel’s leadership spanned across multiple issues of foreign and domestic upheaval. Merkel, perhaps, learned from Thatcher’s legacy and understood that being a true “Iron Lady” didn’t mean she necessarily had to lead with abrasiveness and what was interpreted as a lack of compassion towards the people of her country to accomplish political goals. The takeaway from her legacy comes down to one characteristic: Merkel’s balance of her maternal nature coming into how she enacted policy and led the country. This was one of the biggest traits that Thatcher lacked, and it appears to have worked wonders for Merkel’s political legacy.     

Of course, it is important to note that Merkel was not without her own criticism. Merkel faced strong opposition for supporting continued robust trade with Russia following its occupation of Crimea – an economically-advantageous move –  rather than taking a more hardline position. Critics argue that this policy not only helped Russia protect its advantages over Europe, but also that Merkel’s lack of a reaction was taken as a sign that further incursion into Ukrainian territory would not be treated harshly by Germany.   

In 2017, Jacinda Ardern was elected as New Zealand’s third female prime minister by the Labour Party. She is also the country’s youngest prime minister in over one hundred years to hold office. The similarities between the leadership of Thatcher and Ardern are antitheses of each other. Ardern’s leadership can be understood in a few words: compassion, honesty, and strength through unity. Ardern’s charisma, her ability to come across as a person rather than a politician, sets her apart from Thatcher and most other political leaders. This core strength is something that helped Ardern gain favor with the people of New Zealand, winning election and a subsequent reelection by a landslide majority. Her policies focused around enacting government subsidies for impoverished citizens and families as well as climate change legislation. Unlike Thatcher, the world saw Ardern’s policies having dual priorities of both social and economic reform. Recently, Ardern spoke to the press, announcing her decision to resign from the role of Prime Minister, which she had held for five and a half years. When asked about how she wanted people to remember her legacy, she responded by saying, “As someone who always tried to be kind.” 

The last statement Ardern left the public with was one of honesty and grace: “I hope in return, I leave behind a belief that you can be kind but strong, empathetic but decisive, optimistic but focused, that you can be your own kind of leader.” Jacinda Ardern’s leadership style is trailblazing in the face of modern politics where the narrative has been centralized around maintaining power by any means necessary. This also means not appearing weak and therefore, incapable of leading. The power struggle of politics leaves little room for the appreciation of empathy and kindness. Ardern’s leadership approach is a sharp contrast to Thatcher’s as a result. 

Her tenure, too, was not without its own controversies. Ardern was praised for her swift and effective policies on controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in New Zealand; a major policy critique of Ardern’s administration, however, was its reported failure to fairly distribute vaccines among indigenous populations in the country. By the end of 2021, 49% of Māori were fully vaccinated compared with 72% of the entire eligible population. 

While Thatcher, Merkel, and Ardern are all widely considered to be successful politicians and changemakers, their legacies can teach new generations of female leaders and politicians that policy is important, but nothing is more vital than personality of a leader, because this is the backbone of their policy decisions. Since Thatcher, there have been leaders such as Merkel and Ardern who have shown that a politician doesn’t have to be a forceful, unrelenting, and manly person to be followed and respected; their empathetic effectiveness and popularity have convinced us that this should not be the grand narrative of politics. Thatcher might have assimilated into this role to become the “Iron Lady” because she felt the burden of her gender and needed a way to gain respect in a masculine world. The widespread popularity of Merkel and Ardern’s policies and personalities is something that world leaders, both men and women, would do well to remember when faced with difficult leadership decisions. Rising female leaders might find it helpful to consider that aggression is not the only way to demonstrate strength.

National Pride and a National Healthcare System: The Strikes Defining the UK’s Future

In December of 2022, months of separate public service worker protests spiraled into the largest national health service strikes ever witnessed in British history.. Now, more than three months on since their start, Britain’s National Health Service workers show no signs of stopping as the stakes have only strengthened. At the core of these strikes are key demands by employees that have been routinely denied by the British government. The workers are asking for pay raises due to historic levels of inflation and greater overall funding for the NHS. 

This marks the NHS’ largest strike, and yet the government is still refusing to meet union demands. The government is refusing to meet the pay raises of NHS workers because they claim to be unable to afford it and for fear of increased pay leading to higher prices, thus worsening inflation and raising interest rates and mortgage payments. 

The UK has undergone a ‘cost of living crisis’ since late 2021 which has led to an decrease in British disposable incomes thanks to inflation. Although the government has attempted to aid in this crisis through support packages, such as capping household energy prices, many NHS workers say that this is still not sufficient support. Over 120 NHS trusts are expected to strike, including nurses in cancer wards, A&E departments and intensive care units.

The strikers are adamant that the public understand their need to protest. David Hendy, a 34 year old nurse, revealed his thoughts on the issue: “This job is slowly killing nurses. The nursing workforce in the last 10 years has been through hell and back. We've got through COVID, I've got colleagues who died from COVID. I myself have had it three times…morale is rock bottom.” Hendy is not alone in his experience, after decades of poor pay and the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses are fed up. Despite being publicly supported for their heroism throughout the pandemic, many NHS workers feel unappreciated and ignored. Victoria Banerjee, a nurse for over two decades, stated that "The workload is phenomenal now and our patients are sicker than they’ve ever been.” 

Many nurses feel unable to keep up with the pressing demands placed upon them. There is a resource and staffing crisis within the NHS, magnified by over 25,000 nurses leaving the profession in the last year alone. The staff shortage means that many nurses are forced to double up on shifts and patients, performing unprecedented levels of care. Nurses have expressed their fear at endangering patients simply because they cannot adequately attend to each and every one. Pediatric nurse, Jessie Collins, revealed that “During one of my worst shifts I was the only nurse to 28 unwell children … it’s not safe and we cannot deliver the care that these children need at times.” Nurses on the picket lines have described their working conditions as dangerous and scary and their testaments reveal not just anger, but blatant fear for themselves and their patients. 

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson stated in an interview that “Ministers have had constructive talks with unions, including the RCN and Unison,” however these talks have not led to any sufficient action. The RCN (Royal College of Nursing) have rejected pay deals that do not properly address the impact of inflation. The core argument of the government is one of financial prudence. They refuse to increase salaries given the increase it will lead to in regards to the national budget and its potential to only worsen inflation. 

The National Health Service has played an influential role in the national fabric for decades, ever since its creation in 1948. It is regarded as a source of pride and unity for all citizens, which adds to the intensity of the recent strikes. 

History of the NHS

In 1948, following the devastation of World War II, a recently established Labour Party prime minister, Clement Attlee, set about establishing a radical new system for the British people. Atlee’s government implemented the economic reforms advocated by famed economist, John Keynes, that prioritized nationalizing industries, improving national infrastructure, and developing a welfare state designed to actively take care of three vulnerable groups in society: the young, the old, and the working class. Perhaps the most pivotal creation brought about by the new welfare state was the National Health Service, founded in 1948. 

The NHS did not provide new forms of medicine or care, but it radically transformed the average British individual’s relationship to healthcare. No longer did people pay for healthcare service on an individual basis, instead they paid collectively as taxpayers. The NHS redistributed and equalized the healthcare process, allowing everyone access to care for the first time in British history. British citizens no longer had to worry about affording care or going into debt due to high medical bills. Aneurin Bevan served as Minister of Health under Atlee’s government and was directly responsible for the creation of the NHS. The son of a coal miner, he spent his political career advocating for the working class. His foundational philosophy of the NHS can best be understood through his poignant statement that “Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”

The NHS continued to grow all throughout the latter of the 20th century despite major economic crises, such as the Winter of Discontent in 1978 and the rise of mass striking and inflation. Developments in healthy living and improved national knowledge surrounding daily health habits brought about lower mortality rates and changes in fatal diseases. The NHS sought to expand their care process and better understand how more external factors, such as diet, exercise, geography, and economic class were playing a role in the health of British citizens. Changes in daily habits and medical breakthroughs transformed people's understanding of the modern medicine and the NHS was capable of. 

The Politicization of Healthcare 

By the end of the 20th century, the NHS was widely beloved and respected for its life-changing impact on the British public; but it was also becoming an increasingly controversial institution in politics, with both Labour and Conservative using the NHS as a campaign and voting strategy. The demand of the NHS seemed endless and the services continued to grow in number, but this constant growth fueled by media and political attention only created a gap in which “what was possible and what was provided seemed to be widening.”

As the NHS continued to grow, so did the political debates surrounding it. Both Labour and Conservative argued over funding and regulation. In particular, many of the debates focused on the distribution of the financial burden to taxpayers and overall distribution of the national budget. Increases in immigration and national health crises became key factors in helping to politicize this institution. 

The British government has been defined by Conservative, Tory rule and a large variety of prime ministers for the past decade. As a result, the changes made to the NHS are rooted in Conservative policies. The recent downfall of the NHS is rooted in over a decade of underfunding from a Conservative government. 

A lack of staff and available resources destroyed the NHS. Waitlists for appointments are now a factor of daily life, forcing many citizens to wait months to receive basic care. This shortage has a death toll; in November of 2022, at least “1,488 patients are estimated to have died in Scotland as a result of waiting too long in emergency departments.” British citizens are dying in emergency rooms because nurses and doctors cannot tend to them with the urgency required but they are also slowly dying at home as they wait for an appointment. Delayed appointments are affecting overall well being according to a survey in which 25% of individuals said the wait for treatment has a “serious impact on their mental health” as over 7.2 million people are currently waiting for treatment. The inability of the NHS to properly support its citizens reveals a profound failure in matters of funding and organization. 

Identity Lost

Viewing the NHS strikes solely as a salary issue does not accurately portray the true issue at large. NHS employees are striking because the system is failing and the UK government is unwilling to help. The inability of the NHS to effectively provide for its patients reveals a far darker issue that goes beyond low salaries and inflation: The United Kingdom can no longer afford to take care of itself. 

The NHS is a tremendous source of pride for individuals all across the United Kingdom. In a recent study by Engage Britain, over 77% of British citizens polled stated that the NHS makes them feel proud to be British. However 20% of those surveyed also revealed that they had been forced to turn to private sector care due to limited appointments and resources. Private healthcare companies are growing rapidly as the “market for private health care in the United Kingdom has doubled since before the pandemic.” The growing influence of private healthcare across the UK demonstrates the dire nature of the situation. 

Perhaps that is why these strikes feel more intense than any other historically, and not just due to record turnout. The strikers are asking for more than a living wage; they are asking for a sense of dignity and pride that they can collectively unite behind, and above all they are asking for a sense of hope. The NHS strikes show a healthcare system that is clearly in shambles, but they also show a nation destroyed and without a unifying identity to rally behind. Even if the strikers and the government can come to an agreement based on each of their demands, it is unlikely that the true underlying issues of the strike will be solved anytime soon.

UN Vote Proves UK Acquisition of the Chagos Islands Was Illegal

For many Chagossians, the phrase “dying of a broken heart” is all too true. Known in Creole as “Sagren,” this feeling of profound sorrow still resonates among the Chagossian community more than 50 years after their eviction from Diego Garcia in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (UK). In an attempt to “cleanse” and “sanitize” the Chagos Archipelago, of which Diego Garcia is the largest island, the UK proceeded to separate the group of islands from the nearby British Colony of Mauritius to form the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965. Years later, Mauritius gained independence in 1968 while Britain maintained control over the Chagos Islands.

In the next decade after 1965, the British forcibly expelled thousands of members of the local Chagossian population to make way for the creation of a joint U.S.-UK military base known as Camp Justice. Relocated to the nearby islands of Mauritius and Seychelles, the Chagossians received little to no resettlement aid or compensation and instead were subjected to incredibly poor living conditions. Post-relocation, many Chagossians ended up settling in the UK where they were given British citizenship. To this day, the UK government still prevents the Chagossians from returning to Diego Garcia.

Importance of Diego Garcia

The eviction of the Chagossians from Diego Garcia was purely on behalf of furthering U.S. strategic foreign policy objectives. The island’s isolated location in the middle of the Indian Ocean--south of the tip of India and nearly equidistant from Australia, the Saudi peninsula, and the eastern coast of Africa--allows the U.S. to have a military presence in an otherwise untouched geographical area. The position of the island, which houses one of the largest American bases outside of the U.S., provides the U.S. with the opportunity to exert military force on neighboring countries or provide military support to nearby allies if the need arises. Diego Garcia also remains under British control, a close American ally. This strengthens the U.S.-UK relationship by further tying the two countries together over the shared interest of the continuous operation of the base.

Additionally, according to The National Interest, the U.S. relies on Camp Justice military for “long-range bomber operations, the replenishment of naval vessels, and the prepositioning of heavy equipment to expedite the rapid deployment of Army and Marine Corps brigades.” The facility has also played a key role over the years, serving as the primary base for air operations and bombing raids during the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.

External Factors

Chinese Influence

China’s presence in the Indian Ocean has increased since President Xi Jinping announced the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013. The BRI is a geopolitical strategy that funds a variety of infrastructure projects that help to economically connect China with over sixty countries in Eurasia and Africa. During a 2018 tour of Africa by President Jinping, Senegal, Rwanda, and South Africa signed onto the BRI. However, because Mauritius is an economically prosperous country with high foreign direct investment from the U.S. and a booming tourist industry, it agreed to sign on at a later date. The addition of these countries to the BRI highlights China’s growing influence on the continent, exposing Africans to Chinese culture and overall strengthening Afro-Sino relations. 

China’s military presence in the Indian Ocean is also increasing with the construction of Shandong, a modified version of China’s first flattop aircraft carrier Liaoning, further expanding China’s oceanic fleet. According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, “the primary purpose of this first domestic aircraft carrier [Liaoning] will be to serve a regional defense mission,” but “Beijing probably also will use the carrier to project power throughout the South China Sea and possibly into the Indian Ocean.” China’s economic and military expansion into the Indian Ocean, catalyzed by the BRI, threatens U.S. hegemony in the region. This is a cause for concern for many U.S. defense scholars and adds fuel to the argument that the U.S. must maintain their naval presence on Diego Garcia in order to counter growing Chinese influence in the region.

Brexit Impact

In a landmark speech prior to the December 2019 general UK election, UK Labour Party leader  Jeremy Corbyn pledged to “right one of the wrongs of history” and renounce British sovereignty of the Chagos Islands if he were elected Prime Minister. Per their manifesto for the upcoming election, the Labour Party committed to “allow[ing] the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed.” As for the current status of the Chagossians living in both the UK and on Mauritius, Corbyn called the entire situation “utterly disgraceful” and asserted that “[the Chagossians] need a full apology and they need adequate compensation.” Corbyn added that “I believe the right of return to those islands is absolutely important as a symbol of the way in which we [Britain] wish to behave in international law.”

However, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit success in late January 2020, many of the departure’s impacts will be felt in Britain’s 14 Overseas Territories. According to a representative from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “the UK has put in place a number of measures for the Overseas Territories in the event of a no-deal.” What this means for the Chagos Islands is not entirely clear, especially because the terms of Brexit have not been explicitly defined thus far in the transition period. 

The focus of a pro-Brexit deal was primarily centered on the repercussions regarding Northern Ireland and the potential return of a hard border between the north and the south, thus news on the impact on Britain’s Overseas Territories has been limited. Some of these Overseas Territories rely on aid from the European Union (EU), and a hard Brexit is likely to severely damage the economies of these territories that rely on the UK’s involvement in the larger EU community. 

Current Affairs

In 2017, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sent the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the U.K. to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in February 2019 that the British separation of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius was illegal and ordered the U.K. to relinquish control of the islands “as rapidly as possible.” However, because the ruling was merely an advisory opinion, the case was referred back to the United Nations (UN) for a vote. In May 2019, UNGA’s final vote was shockingly low: 116 countries condemned the UK’s decision and only six supported it. Despite extensive lobbying by the U.S. and the surprising abstention of 56 countries--many of them being U.K. allies such as Canada, France, and Germany--the single-digit support highlights the magnitude of international dissatisfaction regarding the UK’s imperialistic behavior in the Indian Ocean. While the vote was nonbinding, it affirmed the ICJ’s previous ruling and set a six-month deadline by which the UK must withdraw from the Chagos Archipelago so that it could be reunified with Mauritius. As of April 2020, no progress has been made in achieving this objective.

What Comes Next?

For the UK, the UN vote was crucial in highlighting Britain’s waning popularity in the international community, seeing as how a number of UK allies failed to actively support the UK during the voting process, instead choosing to abstain. For the U.S., they have an interest in maintaining Camp Justice. Increasing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean and the close proximity of the island to both U.S. adversaries and allies furthers American foreign policy objectives by allowing the U.S. to maintain a formidable presence in the area. However, the United States’ lease on Diego Garcia is effective only until the year 2036. What happens after the lease runs out is currently unknown.

Brexit: The Mess That Could Set Back Years of UK-Ireland Progress

All of us are getting news notifications on our phones and computers, almost on a daily basis, on Brexit and the issues surrounding the exit deal. But what actually is Brexit and why does it really matter?

In a June 2016 referendum, voters in Britain, Wales, Scotland, and most parts of Northern Ireland chose to leave the European Union in a close vote of 51.9 to 48.1 percent. The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 28 member states located primarily in Europe that works to promote stability and economic cooperation between its member states. Since March 2017, the United Kingdom and European Union have been engaged in negotiations on the terms of the UK’s exit and the future of their relationship. One of the main challenges to finding an agreement on a final deal has been meeting the requirements of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.

The UK is currently part of the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union is a principal component of the EU. There are no tariffs or non-tariff barriers to trade between members of the customs union, and members states impose a common external tariff on all goods entering the union.The single market is made of the 28 EU member states and seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. After Brexit, the UK will leave both the customs union and single market.

This will raise questions about the status of the Irish border, particularly whether or not the border will become a customs border with all the associated checks and controls that come with that title. A customs border is a border control that checks any items and goods crossing the border, where taxes or tariffs could be imposed.This will most likely create practical and economic challenges and could reverse relations between the US and Ireland and all the progress that has been made in recent years.

The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was a source of major conflict and violence between the two countries. When the Republic first split from the UK and Northern Ireland, the border line was insignificant. However, after some time passed, hostility between the UK and Ireland resumed. As a result, the UK established customs checks at the border. The two countries eventually entered into a trade war and tariffs were placed on agricultural produce, steel, coal, and other things. By the late 1960s, this trade war turned violent. Conflict broke out in Northern Ireland between nationalist militaries (like the Irish Republican Army) who believed that Northern Ireland was rightfully part of Ireland and the British were oppressors; and as such, there should be no restrictive border between the two states. Ireland's Nationals population unionist militaries fought back to defend their place in the UK. Both groups brought violence to the streets by blowing up buildings and setting off car bombs, among other things.

The UK deployed thousands of troops to Northern Ireland during his time, who became a common target of nationalist attacks. A lot of these attacks occurred at the border of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which for nationalists was the ultimate symbol of British occupation. The UK military secured the borderline with walls, towers, guns, and patrols. They controlled the 20 official border crossings with an iron grip and screened all people and vehicles crossing the partition. The conflict in Northern Ireland turned this into a hard border. The violence lasted for more than 30 years and killed over 3,600 people. This period of time is most commonly known as the “Troubles”.

The Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998, brought an end to the conflict and established power-sharing in Northern Ireland. The agreement gives EU membership to the UK and Ireland, while also creating an understanding for the UK and Irish governments to cooperate on EU matters. The Good Friday Agreement also allows people born in Northern Ireland to choose either Irish citizenship, British citizenship, or both. The UK has stated that it wants this option to continue after Brexit. The agreement also established special EU funding programmes, known as PEACE, to reinforce the peace process and support cross-community projects. It also created the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC), which allows the governments in Dublin and Belfast to cooperate in various areas, including agriculture, education and transport. The UK, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the European Commission have all agreed that the withdrawal process cannot undermine the Good Friday Agreement.

Once the UK leaves the EU, the only land border will be the 310-mile line between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and decisions will have to be made on how to manage the movement of people and trade across that border. The UK, Ireland, and the EU have all said they want to maintain the Common Travel Area, which has been in place for most of the period since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. The CTA allows free movement of British and Irish citizens between the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. The agreement also gives access to various government services in each country. Ireland will continue to allow free movement for citizens in the other EU countries, while the UK is thinking about an inland control approach. Through access to labour markets and social security, the UK will enforce immigration policy without requiring checks on people crossing the Irish border. This move would greatly affect and possibly lead to the breakdown of the CTA.

The UK, Ireland, Northern Ireland and the European Commission have also all agreed there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, for trade as well as people (European Commission Joint Report). The UK’s decision to leave the EU Single Market and Customs Union means that it will become a “third country” to the EU, creating a land border between the UK and the EU. This is the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and if no arrangements are made for the Irish border, the EU will have no choice but to put in place the standard checks it has at its border with other third countries. These would include both customs checks, documentation of products, proof of where the good originates, collection of tariffs, and regulatory checks, all to verify that goods comply with the EU’s standards.

Last November, UK Prime Minister Theresa May published her original Brexit plan that included an Irish border backstop. The backdrop is an insurance policy to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if the UK leaves the EU without securing a concrete deal. Both the UK and EU agree on the need for a backstop to ensure no hard border returns.

The backstop was the most hotly debated issue in the parliamentary debates on the draft Withdrawal Agreement. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is the unionist and socially conservative party political party in Northern Ireland. The DUP is also in a coalition with May and her Conservative Party in Parliament and they are notably pro-Brexit. In January, however, their 10 MPs in Parliament voted against Prime Minister May’s Brexit Plan. The party has always been against a “special status” for Northern Ireland in the Brexit negotiations, saying any differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain could threaten to break up the United Kingdom.

To the DUP, the backstop represents everything they don’t want for Northern Ireland: regulatory differences that mean only Northern Ireland would continue to follow some EU rules, no time limit, and the ability to exit the backstop would need to be agreed jointly by the UK and EU. On December 4, 2017, DUP leader Arlene Foster said that the DUP “will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom.” Foster also added that the DUP also does not want to see any changes to the current border arrangements between the North and the Republic.

A majority of people in Northern Ireland, however, support the backstop (most likely due to the fact it would give Northern Ireland special access to both the UK and EU markets). In January of this year, the UK government published proposals on how the UK can influence both the decision to use the backstop and its governance if it comes into effect. The proposals also reaffirmed the UK’s commitment that the rest of the UK will abide by the Single Market regulations being applied in Northern Ireland.

Ireland and Northern Ireland also share a single electricity market and electrical infrastructure. Keeping this arrangement will require Northern Ireland to continue to comply with EU regulation, without having any say over their development. If this agreement is not kept in tact, the single electricity market could be reversed, along with any benefits brought about by it. A notice from the UK Government published in October 2018 said if the UK leaves the EU with no deal, electrical supply from Ireland to Northern Ireland could be disrupted.

One of the problems for the Ireland is that its economy is intertwined with the economy in the UK. Currently, around 80% of the goods Ireland exports are transported to the UK or go through the UK. Ireland also sources 41% of its food imports and 55% of its fuel imports from the Britain. According to the Irish Ministry of Finance in October 2016, Brexit “is expected to have a material negative impact on the Irish economy.” A report from the Irish Government also called for “the closest possible trading relationship between the EU and the UK.”

On January 15, 2019 members of parliament rejected Prime Minister May’s Brexit deal by 432 votes to 202 - which is a historic political defeat in Britain. Then on March 12, after Theresa May had gone back to the EU to secure further legal assurances, Parliament rejected the deal again. And March 29, which was the original day that the UK was due to leave the EU, Parliament rejected the deal for a third time. Since Parliament did not approve Theresa May's withdrawal deal in a vote on March 12, May was forced to ask other EU leaders to delay Brexit. They agreed to postpone it until May 22 if MPs approved her deal in a new vote. On March 29, the UK missed that deadline and faced leaving on April 12 instead. But May has now gone back to the EU to ask for another extension - which the EU has agreed to. The new deadline is October 31. However, the UK can leave before then if May can get her deal approved by Parliament. The government will continue talks with Labour to try to come up with a solution. If the two sides do not come to an agreement, Theresa May has said she will propose additional options to members of parliament to work out a future plan.