Hello dear readers,
Another week of news, and another week of ‘unprecedented’ stories. I put that word in italics because frankly I look forward to the day when every other item on the news isn’t about something unprecedented.
I’m not talking about a ‘70 years on the throne’ kind of unprecedented. I quite like that type, wih all the flypasts and concerts and tea-drinking bears. No, I mean unprecedented in the sense of trying to put refugees on a plane to have their asylum claims processed in another continent. (interesting twitter thread here on how this may actually not be so unprecedented after all).
Or unprecedented like seeking to override an international agreement which was meant to square the realities of Brexit with the complexities of Northern Ireland. A move which is likely illegal, and counter productive to finding a lasting solution with the EU.
One of the reasons you hear it so much is that the word ‘unprecedented’ is a favourite among news presenters. And for good reason. It’s a great go-to opening question: ‘Is this unprecedented?’ which can be directed at pretty much any guest on pretty much any topic. It’s up there with “What’s the latest?” and “What’s next?” as a vague, one-size-fits-all news anchor question when there was no time to properly prep for an interview. Yes. That happens sometimes.
Useful though it may be, unprecedented is not the word that’s been on my mind over the past few days.
My word of the week is ‘unthinkable’. Because that’s what both those issues would have been considered by most people not too long ago.
And not just those two issues.
The storming of Capitol Hill - currently in the spotlight due to public hearings before a House of Representatives select committee - was unthinkable even in the hours before it actually happened on January 6th 2021.
And of course, the whole of Brexit was unthinkable.
At least it was for Europeans living in the UK. Sure, some within the Conservative Party had been grumbling about Europe for decades, but I don’t know a single EU citizen in the UK pre-2016 who considered getting British nationality because they worried the UK might leave the European Union. Not one.
Now things are different.
Unthinkable just doesn’t seem that unthinkable anymore. Certainly not to the asylum seekers who were nearly sent to Rwanda on Tuesday, a country none of them thought they might end up in as they started their perilous journey to the UK. The flight didn’t take off as planned, but that’s likely a temporary reprieve and not a change in policy.
Meanwhile the continued political convulsions over the Northern Ireland protocol don’t fill anyone with confidence that Brexit is, as they say, done.
Is it unthinkable that, if relations between the UK and EU deteriorate further and the withdrawl agreement is breached, the UK government would revise the status of millions of Europeans who have successfully applied to the Settlement Scheme? Yes, I like to believe that is unthinkable.
But that’s not the perception on countless Facebook groups dedicated to EU communities in the UK , that are full of ‘my path to British citizenship’ stories. These are all people who have already been granted Settled Status to remain in the UK. But many feel that is not enough to truly cement their right to live in the country they’ve called home for years. Frankly, I don’t blame them.
It’s sometimes said that nationality is a right and not a privilege. Though I share the sentiment that it should be a right, in reality nationality is absolutely a privilege. Most migrants know that, even the ones with Western passports that open doors which are closed to others. Let alone the asylum seekers who risk their lives to travel to safe havens, only to be threatened with an unthinkable journey to a destination they did not choose.
On a final note, the seemingly never-ending discussions over the Northern Ireland protocol has thrown up an interesting new concept from the UK government called the doctrine of necessity: A legal loophole which a state can use if facing “grave and imminent peril”.
I doubt the EU will find the use of this doctrine very persuasive. But it’s a good phrase to keep in mind. Because there is no telling when what is unthinkable today by some, will be deemed a necessity in future by others
Excellent and certainly thought provoking. I must confess though, with all the talk of the NI Protocol and the UK Govt's proposals for rewriting it, I certainly had thought about trade as a possible EU response. I hadn't though considered that those with Settled Status might get drawn in as a consequence. Worrying times on so many levels. Also the open armed welcome (supposedly) towards Ukrainian refugees is in stark contrast to those fleeing war in other continents and now facing the Rwanda "solution". Does this Government even think about the optics of its policies?