Post
by macliam » Mon Jun 13 2022 11:19am
So, today we are due to see the government proposals for the NI Protocol. Brandon Lewis has proclaimed that nothing in it will be contrary to international law, which is very different to the previous suggestion that they were prepared to "break international law in a very specific and limited way". Presumably, the feedback received from the US government, amongst others, has caused a rethink.
Unless it is some suggested clarification of the wording (which would NOT satisfy the DUP), or proposals for achieving the agreed goals for the NIP by means other than those used now (which would seem uncontroversial) it's hard to see how any concrete unilateral proposals would not contravene a legally binding international agreement in spirit, if not in substance.
The key issue remains - the border between NI and the Republic is the only land border that the UK has with an EU member - and without membership of the EU Single Market or a bilateral agreement on trade and immigration between the EU and the UK, there is a need to ensure that goods and people moving between the two are compliant with the rules and standards applicable. However, having a "hard border" on the island of Ireland is contrary to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and therefore a potential threat to peace.
So, the Protocol was an attempt to address both those issues, basically by making NI a member of the EU Single Market and obviating the need for border controls between it and the Republic. However, that means that there then need to be controls between Great Britain and NI..... the "border" must be somewhere, if there is no bilateral agreement to obviate it. This "border in the Irish sea" is unacceptable to the unionists who refuse to countenance any different treatment of NI from any other constituent part of the UK.
The Tories have claimed, repeatedly, that the current situation affects trade in NI - and they are right - NI has shown a far bigger bounce back after Covid than any other UK region - seeing a positive increase in trade, whereas the second highest performer, London, was still negative overall. This seems likely to be due to its unique position. Certainly, there have been specific issues with the NIP, many of which have already been addressed - but denying NI the bonus of its position as a member of the Single Market threatens to return it to pre-Brexit levels, when it consistently brought up the rear of all the UK regions in terms of growth.
So why look to force a change? Well, obviously, it is "better" to have no rules, than to have to comply with them..... or to set your own rules without the need to agree them with others - who could disagree? But to do that you need a framework, which has proven impossible to implement. So, given that is the case, what are the drivers for the UK government to take action NOW? Firstly, the DUP, having failed to achieve a majority in the recent elections, is now exercising a stranglehold on the Assembly. Secondly, the extreme Brexiteers within the Tory party still object to oversight of the NIP by the ECJ and want to get away from that.
The problem here is that it was the British government who proposed the NIP to avoid the dreaded "backstop" and move past the border issue to "get Brexit done". So, for all the talk of EU intransigence or that the EU is applying the Protocol too harshly. This suggests either that the UK government only agreed to the Protocol in order to kick the ball into the long grass - and always intended to break it later, or that they did not consider the impact of the protocol before signing it. Neither looks good for Johnson et al.
But what impact can this all have? Obviously the first impact is to undermine the entire Leaving agreement between the UK and the EU, which would drive us into the hardest of hard Brexits. Then, if NI loses its position within the Single market, its economy will be impacted. Then if a land border DOES become necessary, there is the issue of the GFA. That's leaving aside the fact that, whilst Suella Braverman might think what is being proposed is "legal", others may well disagree.... and it takes two to Tango.
One thing which was reported on RTÉ last week might surprise people too... An immigrant to Ireland (not an Irish citizen but with legal residence papers), cannot legally cross into NI - even though there is no border for his identity to be checked. There have been cases where such people have been detained - and deported. It was not suggested that the reverse is or is not true, but the "no border" policy is plainly for trade only.
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me