Loyalists protest the Protocol (Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)
As the prospect of yet another election looms over Northern Ireland, the UK government faces a moment of decision in its Brexit negotiations. This may seem strange since, in theory, Brexit was delivered in 2020. Things, however, are not that simple.
Perhaps the most lasting problem with the EU referendum was that the character of the withdrawal was not specified at the time, making further divisions inevitable. These might have been resolved had the Withdrawal Agreement not collided with an already existing treaty: the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which presupposes the participation of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in the structures of the European Union. From the start, the Irish government signalled the potential for friction. Its British counterpart, however, opted to postpone addressing the issue by maintaining there were no difficulties in sight.
As became swiftly clear, this was never going to work. The dilemmas divided every political party in the United Kingdom, both internally and externally. This first led to the collapse of Theresa May’s government. May’s successor, Boris Johnson, plotted a new course that would involve a more exacting Brexit. In the end, a way forward was carved out between the British and Irish premieres at Thornton Manor in 2019, leading to the drafting of the Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement: a controversial regulatory “border” would run down the Irish sea, while checks on goods would be carried out at the entry points into Northern Ireland. According to Johnson, the new accord represented a “reasonable and fair” outcome for all parties.
And yet, before long, the Johnson government would jettison its own deal. From an Irish and European vantage, this retreat from an internationally binding treaty amounted to a flagrant exercise in bad faith.
The concrete manifestation of the British government’s repudiation of its obligations takes the form of a Bill introduced into the House of Commons in June to overrule the Protocol and thus a key part of the architecture of the Withdrawal Agreement itself. Currently, having passed its third reading in the Commons, the Protocol Bill is being scrutinised in the House of Lords. It seems likely it will be amended in the upper chamber and sent back to the lower house for consideration by MPs. In the meantime, it is possible that progress in negotiations with the EU will render the Bill superfluous, though Rishi Sunak’s new government still hopes the mere existence of the Bill could force the EU to back down.
As wrangling behind the scenes continues, there is general agreement that the Protocol has inhibited commerce in Northern Ireland. Already by July 2021, more than 40,000 documentary checks had been conducted on agri-foods destined for Northern Ireland’s retailers. From a British perspective, the legalistic mindset of European officials has prevailed over more flexible and pragmatic solutions.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“And yet, before long, the Johnson government would jettison its own deal. From an Irish and European vantage, this retreat from an internationally binding treaty amounted to a flagrant exercise in bad faith”.
Stopped reading there. As cack-handed as the Tories have been in this regard – the EU has also not acted in good faith with regard to NI – and more specifically with regard to the implementation of the protocol. It weaponised the border in order to either a) trap the UK in its regulatory orbit, or b) pull NI out of the UK if it tried to “properly” leave. ROI, as ever, was the EU’s favourite useful idiot.
The trade frictions caused by the EU’s unnecessarily harsh implementation of the protocol (completely disproportionate to the risks actually posed by the goods coming into ROI from GB*) were a clear sign of its own bad faith in the matter.
*For contrast: the EU’s outer border in Bulgaria has basically been outsourced to the local mafia. They “check” the lorries and their contents, and often bully the lorrydrivers and extract money from them (up to EUR 750 per vehicle). This money has all gone intop private purses with the ringleaders buying themselves expensive villas with the spoils. Not only that – the “checks” done only lasted 6 minutes: not enough. Over the last 10 years, it is estimated that about 410,000 tons of fruit&veg with pesticide levels exceeding those required by the EU have got into the EU this way.
You can read more in this article in Austria’s DerStandard (only in German, sorry): https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000138675751/die-mafioesen-machenschaften-an-der-bulgarischen-grenze
Bear in mind, this is just one country of several similarly corrupt ones along the EU’s outer border on the eastern side. You can more or less guarantee that practices like this aren’t limited to Bulgaria.
My point is: compared to that, a few British pork pies and pot plants just are not a risk. The EU way, way, WAY overplayed the risk to pursue its own agenda which didn’t really have anything to do with the GFA or peace. It showed at best a fundamental misunderstanding and at worst a blatant disregard to unionist concerns – all the while claiming to “protect the peace”. It has been mendacious from start to finish. Its arguments for implementing the NIP in the way it has claimed is necessary depends on a view of the single market as some kind of hermetically-sealed biosphere which the above news casually blows right out of the water. Boo-hoo.
Arguing that only the British government acted in bad faith is indicative of a very colourblind, selective approach. Tbh I expect better from Unherd.
The ironic thing being that as the EU integrates and centralises further, Ireland will be the first to be thrown under the bus by its masters to whom it showed such loyalty. If you think our #FBPE types are bad on Twitter, in Ireland, pro-EU worship more or less borders on sycophantic. Oh how disappointed they’ll be when their dreams of a United Ireland fail to materialise because those in Brussels, Paris and Berlin want a federal United States of Europe instead.
As with the Bulgarian border, even more so with Albania.
Hear, hear!
I wish your response, a welcome rebuttal to the EU and it’s supporters, is more widely circulated.
It completely baffles me how a country that for 45 years rigourously implemented every Brussels directive and rule, suddenly found itself subject to the most bureaucratic barriers, just to satisfy the pique of our former masters at our democratic decision to leave the EU.
There’s no doubt whatsoever that the EU is punishing our country (keenly aided by the Irish Republic), and using Northern Ireland and it’s people as the weapon of choice.
This Government needs to jettison the Protocol now, remove the absurd internal border and reassert it’s sovereignty over all of its national territory.
Then, and only then, can we have a mutually respectful relationship with the EU.
No it absolutely does not need to jettison the Protocol and I don’t think even Article 16 would achieve that – doesn’t it just suspend part/all of it?
My argument is absolutely in favour of keeping the Protocol (which has become a part of the UK’s constitutional fabric) but finding a way to make it work. The UK could perhaps agree to enter into certain agreements on phytosanitary checks (I think that was one of the issues) and the EU could think about the separation of goods into lanes (those destined for ROI, those destined for NI), as suggested by the UK government.
It needs compromise and a willingness to admit to certain mistakes – FROM BOTH SIDES.
This makes sense
Those three capitalised words at the end of Katharine Eyre’s post explain why it will not happen until the EU accepts that its new Holy Roman Empire does not extend to Britain. And that won’t happen while EU bureaucrats can convince themselves that loss of territory (NI, Gibraltar – preferably Scotland) is the price rebellious Albion must pay for exercising its treaty right to withdraw.
Yes, you see, Rasmus – I think our opinions are much closer than they first appear. And the truth is the same for both our little contretemps on Unherd as it is for the UK-EU-NI issue. Everybody has to get over themselves and admit fault for us all to get to decent solutions.
That is true. But for the UK to get that decent solution it will have to convince the EU that it can be trusted to 1) implement whatever agreement it gets in good faith. 2) not use whatever concessions it gets to undercut the EU market rules and get rich by diverting trade and production out of the EU and into Britain. And after the Brexiteers reign there is little trust left and a lot of ground to make up.
I have heard it said that the deal between Norway and the EU is actually full of holes. The EU does not mind because Norway is a small economy, mainly deals in products that do not compete with the EU, such as oil and fish, and anyway is so much weaker that it cannot risk upsetting the EU by exploiting those holes to the max. Britain is a big, competitor economy and feels itself strong enough to challenge the EU as an equal. That takes a lot of trust and a lot of clear rules to support a deal.
And the EU is going to have to demonstrate that whatever it offers that it is not pursuing ulterior motives as with NI. The demand for trust goes both ways and the EU has destroyed the trust many Brits (self included) ever had in it. Plus, it made such a commotion over the need to protect the single market, it totally boxed itself in and now its going to be politically very costly to climb down off that. As I said elsewhere, my 5 year old nephew is better at strategic thinking than people in Brussels seem to be.
Plus, I don’t understand the level of paranoia the EU seems to have about competition. I think it would be inspired/forced to do lots of things better if it had a bit of outside incentive. This consistent attempt to simply strangle or block any competition isn’t always good for the consumer.
As ever you must remember the last sentence in the letter from a Mr Manet setting out the idea – A rough translation from French to English -“And to cut the balls off the English.” I wish I had downloaded that letter but it seems to have been withdrawn and later copies excluded that last sentence. Anyone know where it can be found?
The Protocol explicitly states that it is a temporary arrangement but the EU seems very reluctant to negotiate the permanent agreement.
I believe it also states that it can be amended if it’s not working as desired which makes a mockery of a lot of the rhetoric about “jettisoning” the agreement. The UK govt sought to renegotiate, as permitted: cue global screaming fit by the EU and refusal to negotiate, which forced the British to look at other ways to sort out the problem…whereby they promptly chose a pretty silly course of action. It’s been like watching 2 dogs fight under a carpet.
Katherine, the only point I would add is I was astonished to note.
We export four times more value to Eire than NI directly without any issues on hitting standards.
The amount NI export to mainland Europe is a sixth of the export value from GB to NI.
The NI export to Eire is one third the value of GB to NI.
In otherwords even if the EU thought the flows would lead to substantial poor quality non compliant exports post brexit flooding the EU, itself a nonsense proposition, the amounts are so small no amount of time spent on full blooded compliance is necessary. Computer generated light touch analysis and occasional spot checks is all that is required.
It would be useful if the American President was briefed on the numbers that involve in total 6 Billion of exports which leave the NI for the EU both Eire and Mainland in the course of a year whilst we export 40 Billion alone to Eire.
I doubt POTUS is able to be usefully briefed of anything other than his own name and what say of the week it is.
It does not work that way, unfortunately. First, exports that do not pass though NI are covered by the normal customs regime, veterinary checks, etc. If there is a problem, the EU can increase checks as needed.
Second, once there is a hole in the EU customs wall, there is no reason to think that the flows would remain tiny. Just for starters, who would export direct from the UK to Eire, if you can save the time and expense of customs checks by routing the goods through NI instead? Next, Britain would have every interest in promoting this new facility for goods produced in Britain, or exported into Britain, to flow into the EU without having to be checked for compliance. And if efficient checks depend on British cooperation, all Britain has to do to thwart them is to not cooperate. Refuse to hire the necessary personnel, or to pass the necessary information. The EU – unlike Britain – is not willing to simply break a treaty if they do not like the result, so they want to ensure up front that they have legal safeguards available in case of conflict.
It is part of the story that people in the EU (here quoting a Danish minister, after the Brexit referendum, but before the withdrawal), believe that Brexit makes no economic sense for Britain. The only way they see it could be profitable is if Britain can put itself in a position where it could take business away from the EU by undercutting the EU rules for workers protection, animal rights, GMOs, health and safety, tax and customs duties, any kind of red tape. And since people in the EU believe that Britons are rational – and have noted that they have little respect for signed treaties, let alone more informal understandings – they take it for granted that any loophole offered will be ruthlessly exploited. Can you blame them?
They weaponised Northern Ireland as was seen and herd in the BBC documentary, laughing about the effect with Irish collusion. Bad faith was obvious and vindictiveness because we dared to abandon their hoped for superstate with a large financial contribution from Britain.
Isn’t it about time we faced the reality that, from the moment the Good Friday Agreement was signed, Northern Ireland was a lost cause.
Then we could divert the huge sums we waste on the Barnett Formula to doing something useful, e.g.assisting those Loyalists who would rather leave than live in a United Ireland.
Good grief, the question of whether the gfa should ever have been signed is a Pandora’s box that I’m definitely not opening now. Too hypothetical to the matter at hand. It has been signed and that’s the reality we’re dealing with.
And why would people leave their native land as you suggest?
The British community in Northern Ireland is going nowhere. If the IRA couldn’t murder and bomb it into surrender, then there’s no chance the EU or anyone else is going to succeed.
The Westminster government of whatever political hue, owes a debt to Ulster that can never be repaid, the cemeteries and memorials in France and Flanders Fields, are testament to that.
It’s time for British government responsibility to be accepted for ALL the constituent parts of our United Kingdom.
Can’t believe this blinkered nonsense was deemed worthy of the Unherd readership, and thanks for taking the time to do its deconstruction.
Excellent points. I couldn’t agree more.
The Irish border should never have been an issue in the negotiations. It became the chosen battleground for the EU to prove the impossibility of Brexit, yet it needn’t have been. Originally Brussels thought Gibraltar could provide that lever, but quickly realised that with 99% of Gibraltarians wanting to side with the UK, they’d not get the desired reaction without serious provocation. Our troubled history with Ireland lent itself perfectly to casting the UK in a poor light if they didn’t give ground when threatened with risking the hard won peace of the GFA.
The sticking point was the threat from the EU and Mr Varadkar. Yet the threat was a chimera. A phantom. It was leverage, pure and simple, and UK Remainers seized on it as the intractable impasse that proved Brexit was impossible.
As David Trimble noted: “It is not true that Brexit in any way threatens the peace process. There is nothing in the Good Friday Agreement which even touches on the normal conduct of business between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Leaving the EU does not affect the agreement because the EU had nothing to do with it. “
Lord Trimble was one of the architects of the GFA, unlike Mr Blair and the various EU Bureaucrats who merely turned up for the photo-op signing. He actually knew what he was talking about – rather than those who used it as a slogan.
The reasons it became an issue were political not practical. It was all about leverage – and nothing more. So, no, I’m afraid it was not the UK Govt, but the EU Commission who were – from the very outset – acting in bad faith.
It is a matter of record that after the 2016 referendum Taoiseach Enda Kenny convened a joint committee of ROI and UK civil servants to resolve any border related issues. It was only after the arch EU supplicant Leo Varadkar became Taoiseach that the issue arose as he fell in with Brussels plan to use it as leverage in negotiations.
It didn’t go unnoticed at the time, as senior Irish diplomat noted “This emotive issue has been used as a weapon by those wanting to thwart Brexit — not least Michel Barnier. But Mr Varadkar, too, has pursued a high-risk strategy which could backfire badly, given that Britain is vital to Irish economic interests.”
What could have threatened the GFA was erecting manned customs posts along the border. Yet NO ONE was advocating that.
The WTO adjudicated there was nothing in its rules that would force the UK, the ROI or EU to erect a hard border after Brexit.
The UK Govt categorically said it would not do so.
The ROI categorically said it would not do so.
The EU categorically said it would not do so..
The media talked of a “hard border” as though a new Berlin Wall were about to be erected! This idea that an ‘open border’ meant ‘no border’ was a misreading of the argument. Certain BBC journalists and pundits went on about it as though there was no (pre-Brexit) border between ROI and NI.
The UK and ROI have different currencies, different tax rates, VAT, excise duties, different laws and legal systems. There was always a border – one which Customs authorities managed by intelligence-led policing of freight, which could have continued after Brexit.
Both the head of the UK customs and Irish customs said they could have operated without any customs posts but the issue since became heavily politicised – to no-one’s benefit.
David Davis’s team were planning to negotiate a Canada ++ style FTA – that was also the only offer that the EU themselves had countenanced – Had Theresa May and Olly Robbins not ceded the timetable to Barnier and indicated their own weakness, we might have got further.
Had we gone along with a Canada style deal the EU’s stated position was that “In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border, while respecting the integrity of the Union legal order. In this context, the Union should also recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law.”
At the outset the preferred solution was for a bilateral agreement to be thrashed out between UK and ROI, with the EU giving assent once negotiated. (Despite what nay-sayers insist it was indeed possible to do so. )
If they actually read the damn treaties they’d see that “Only the European Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts concerning areas within its exclusive competence. EU member states may only do so themselves if empowered by the European Union. Accordingly, it falls to the European Union to decide whether to empower member states to conclude international treaties in fields of exclusive EU competence. “
If a bi-lateral agreement was reached between UK and Dublin then all Brussels would have to do was give it the nod and the issue could have been resolved without erecting a hard, physical border.
All it required was goodwill and a genuine wish to see the matter resolved in a mutually beneficial way. However, it proved the sticking point that it became because the EU Commission charged M Barnier with the task of using the issue as leverage. To no one’s advantage. Indeed, the endless comments from Remain zealots about Brexit causing a return to the Troubles was fuelling the fire and potentially turning that threat into reality.
The bad faith was not coming the UK Govt at all. It was always about politics and leverage. It was the EU who were using the idea of peace in Ireland as a bargaining chip – yet to suggest such a thing has been deemed heresy.
Excellent sum up
Well said. I always thought that May’s administration made a catastrophic error (well, several) at the start of the Brexit negotiations by totally accepting the EU’s framing of the Irish issue.
What prevented us from saying ‘whatever happens, we won’t be putting any new infrastructure in place to impede the flow of people and goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and will continue to work closely with our Irish friends and partners to keep cross-border criminal activity at a minimum. If that means a few companies will take advantage of the loophole this may create, that’s a small price to pay’? Nothing, so far as I can tell. A totally unforced error. But then I gather that rather fits the historical pattern of British policy in Ireland.
Maybe a bit of a conspiracy theory, but I have little doubt that the Protocol was accepted by the U.K. in the full knowledge that it they would be able to unwind it fairly quickly.
I suspect the DUP also knew well in advance that the U.K. government was going to accept the Protocol and then undermine it. The rest is just theatrics.
Thank you for that erudite comment.
The other day you produced a brilliant analysis of what Scotland ‘cost’ the English taxpayer.
What is the cost of Northern Ireland to the English taxpayer, and can it be substantially reduced?
If it cannot, surely it is time to end this arrangement? Despite appearances England is not, NOR should be a charity for the ‘Celtic Fringe’ or however one wants to describe it.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and it’s people are British taxpayers: or haven’t you noticed that?
They are in receipt of enormous, completely unjustifiable subsidies, complete parasites if you like, and we (England) can no longer afford such largesse.
Or have I missed something?
Virtually every region in the UK outside London and the South East could, using your terms be described as parasitic. If we followed that logic we would be left with a very small Union.
A reduction is necessary and the ‘saving’ should be invested in the Red Wall.
Yes, you’ve missed something. A lot.
British citizens are British citizens. British citizenship is not restricted just to those you, personally, consider deserving, no matter where in the UK and Northern Ireland they reside. Or would you care to jettison the unemployed, the poor, the long-term sick, the pensioners, children … after all, they’re all ‘disproportionately’ recipients of the UK’s resources, rather than net contributors.
“Charity begins at home”, and in this case that means (Northern) England.
Again, it would be easy to resolve the matter in ‘a mutually beneficial way’ – if only the two sides could agree on what would be beneficial. The problem is that they can not. If only the EU would accept open and essentially unpoliced access to the EU of British products (or imports) made under exclusively British rules there would have been no problem. Equally, if the UK could have accepted being bound by EU rules there would have been no problem. Since the two sides could not agree, one would have had to sacrifice its interests to get that agreement – and the EU did not choose to volunteer.
I’m in agreement with the two other commenters. I’m not going to go out of my way to defend the UK, but let’s not pretend that Dublin and Brussels were acting in good faith either. Varadkar openly boasted about this being the chance to lord it over Britain and the EU clearly wanted to make Northern Ireland a battleground over this by keeping the UK close and within its sphere of influence. A shame as I previously wouldn’t have minded a closer relationship with the EU post-Brexit, but given the imperious behaviour of the EU (not the UK) and Dublin’s inability to move past the Potato Famine and Easter Rising from a political perspective, I say sod them.
Dublin doesn’t really have a say. They can only do what the EU lets them do.
They could at least seem less enthusiastic about it!
As an Irishman, I say sod you right back. Brexit proved that Britiain is the country that is hung up on it’s past. You displayed a deep sense of post-colonial entitlement when it came to the border and assumed that you could dictiate terms to Ireland like you did during our “shared” history. The sense of outrage of Little Englanders that Ireland used it’s EU membership to secure it’s desired outcome is rather amusing.
As a second-generation Irishman, I would like to return your sodding sod off back to you with a sodding shamrock on top. You and your Imperial masters in the EU deserve each other.
The Fine Gael led government of Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney allowed and encouraged the EU to use the risk of a hard border with Northern Ireland as a wedge issue to undermine Brexit. The EU wanted to punish the exiting UK pour encourager les autres, and Fine Gael wanted to play the United Ireland card for domestic electoral reasons, in line with Coveney’s remarkably undiplomatic statements as Foreign Affairs Minister. For Fine Gael, this has backfired, because ramping up anti-British and anti-Unionist sentiment in the South will always objectively help Sinn Fein and hurt Fine Gael, and because a United Ireland may now be uncomfortably close. Just because they’re cynical, doesn’t make them politically savvy. In reality east – west trade was far more important to the domestic economies of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland than North – South trade was to either of them, and a common trade area was a requirement of the 1800 Act of Union, which most observers previously took to be foundational constitutional legislation for Northern Ireland, whose constitutional status was guaranteed by the Good Friday Agreement. EU customs checks have imposed massive additional regulatory costs on businesses operating in Northern Ireland, out of all proportion of the volume of trade between the UK and EU flowing through Northern Ireland. This is supposedly to protect the integrity of the Single Market, despite the EU having for years largely ignored smuggling from Russia into the EU through Transnistria and elsewhere. The Irish government could play this foolish game because they knew that the UK will never reciprocate in kind by, for example, cutting off gas supplies, not least because that would cut off Northern Ireland too. In the context of all this to describe the Irish as being “aghast at old-style British imperiousness” is beyond laughable.
…remarks like “Northern Ireland is the price Britain must pay for leaving the EU” by a very senior EU apparatchik (forget which one, they all sound the same to me) wasn’t a very constructive way to set the scene for this discussion…
…although it is very much of a piece with the rage and indignation that greeted a perfectly democratic vote by a decent majority in this Country…to exercise our right under treaty, to freely leave what we had consistently been assured was a voluntary and mutually beneficial trading arrangement…
…which to rather a lot of us here looked a lot more like the Satraps of a proto-Empire looking to bring a disobedient and recalcitrant province back to it’s due obedience to the Brussels/Berlin Axis, who had clearly come to consider themselves to be our lawful overlords…than a discussion between sovereign equals.
All I can say is thank God they haven’t got their Army yet, because I’ve a pretty clear idea who it might have been deployed against if they had…
Professor Bourke is, I’m sure, an expert on political thought but it’s a pity he has stepped outside his expertise to offer his opinions on international treaty law. If David Trimble believed the NI Protocol was contrary to the Good Friday Agreement that’s good enough for me.
And how we can have an article about the Protocol that doesn’t mention Article 16 is beyond me.
I stopped reading after the lie in the second paragraph that ‘the Good Friday Agreement … presupposes the participation of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in the structures of the European Union.’ Nothing thereafter can be worth the time or trouble of intelligent consideration. The premise is blatantly dishonest.
“The DUP, meanwhile, along with other unionist parties in Northern Ireland, believes that the Protocol undermines their position in the United Kingdom. Obviously this needs to be addressed. But…”
And there, in this article, the legitimate grounds for Unionist fears are set out for them. A passing, mandatory and reluctant reference to the other side’s position and then on with the nationalist rhetoric, on with the 100-year continuation of the cold war against the English.
If there truly were no border, if Ireland were ‘united’, what would the Irish do? What fight could they pick and with whom? What leverage would they have in the EU or with the British? What fairy story could they spin to dementia sufferers in the White House?
Who exactly was responsible “that the character of the withdrawal was not specified at the time”? Maybe the Remain supporting UK Government trying to force a Yes Vote with its “uncertainty of leaving” campaign pitch, while offering a “special status” in the EU that was half out, would have left the UK on the sidelines and was unsustainable in the medium term!
Hmm. Odd that there is no mention about what the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish – which is to remain British. (despite 30 years of violence trying to convince them otherwise)
Odd to forget that the Irish govt signed the Good Friday Agreement too- which expressly supported this majority view. But I guess it ok as long as you can get the EU/USA/Ireland to disregard all that. Ireland gave up its territorial claim on Northern Ireland. But then decided to do the exact opposite when Simon Coveney (Minister for Foreign Affairs) said he supported a United Ireland in his lifetime.
To me, calling the UK irascible in dealing with the EU is a bit like calling President Zelensky irascible for not for not sitting down and honouring the recent referendum in Donbas organised by that nice man Mr Putin.
It could turn out that Brexit, and its aftermath, has accelerated what looks like an inexorable shift toward a united Ireland.
Does it?
The demographics of Northern Ireland will shift depending, as they always have, on the relative attractiveness of living in NI and in Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The allegiances of Northern Ireland’s populace will depend on family background, on religious (and, increasingly, secular) beliefs and areas of consensus, and on trade conditions. ‘Brexit’ is a moment in time, even if it lasts for a decade or two before its eventual shape is known. It’s far too early to predict which way the political wind will blow but, whatever NI’s population wants, that troubled area deserves the best wishes and efforts of all of us on both sides of the Irish Sea.
These red scores are very predictable. How about a counter argument? It would make a change from the Pavlovian ticks.
You commentators have a weird idea of what ‘good faith’ means. The EU has offered various deals, and they have had every intention of honouring those deals. That is dealing in good faith. They do not share your goals, they do not want Brexit to succeed, and they are pushing hard to get what they want. I understand why you do not.like it, but that is not ‘bad faith’, that is just driving a hard bargain. Bad faith means offering a deal while you have every intention of breaking it or subverting it later. As Johnson has done.
Unfortunately it is clear to everybody that you can make a deal that will stick even with a tough opponent, as long as he negotiates in good faith. You cannot deal with a dishonest one, because his promises are worthless.
Bad faith is also implementing an agreement in a way which subverts its core aim, which is what the EU has done. All the while saying it wants to “protect the peace”. If that isn’t bad faith I don’t know what is.
The EU, in its own bitterness over Brexit (which was paranoid, no other country was ever going to leave – the ones which have the euro literally can’t) went over the top and drove Britain to pursue a far harder Brexit than would ever have been the case if they had been pragmatic.
But far from admit the mistake (which they are merrily making again with CH over the framework agreement), they’ve dug their heels in, making a sensible deal now all but impossible.
Both sides need to admit their mistakes in order for problems to be solved here, but there is no chance of that while the EU (and the Remainer commentariat) insists its “all Britain’s fault”.
The other commentators here are acknowledging the British government made mistakes and hasn’t handled this well. The EU needs to show maturity and magnanimity and do the same.
ADDITION: coming off the high horse and stopping with this attitude of “we, the EU are always right and we will force what we want on our friends and neighbours no matter what” might – shockingly – result in long term gain. Good trading relationships with the UK and CH, as well as the creation of a kind of halfway house which can be used to catch countries (justifiedly) getting restless in the candidate waiting room (North Macedonia et al). The EU’s own pigheadedness means it has bad relations with the UK, negotiations with CH that have completely broken down, and no answer to give to candidates old and new. As far as strategic thinking goes, I think my 5 year old nephew is stronger than the EU.
You are saying that the EU is trying to force its ‘friends and neighbours’ to give it what it wants, making it impossible to reach *what Britain thinks* would be a ‘reasonable and mutually beneficial’ deal. The trouble is that the EU has different interests and very different ideas about what would be reasonable or beneficial. Britain wants a regime where you can export to NI and onwards to the EU without bureaucratic obstacles or any real impediments to selling into their market under your rules, and being ‘mature’ and ‘magnanimous’ and ‘pragmatic’ is just code for giving you what you want. In effect you are trying to force the EU to give you what you want, and taking offence when the EU refuses to cooperate. The offence is understandable, but it has nothing to do with good or bad faith.
Rasmus,
I have to say it is you that appears to have “a weird idea of what ‘good faith’ means.”
The cognitive dissonance in your comment is staggering.
Had a Boris Johnson Govt invoked Article 16 to deny vaccines to an EU member state – even threatened it – You and every Remainer in the country, would have been apoplectic. It would doubtless have been described as an overt act of war and condemned in the most hyperbolic terms imaginable.
Yet when the EU Commission actually invoked Art 16 – only withdrawing it in the face of universal criticism – the BBC and Guardian seemed to airily dismiss it, as though it were a mere typing error.
This rare moment of honesty from the New Statesman rather neatly summed up the position in February of 2021:
Brexiteers used to accuse the EU of using the border issue in bad faith, feigning a stake in the peace process when it was really using the issue for negotiation leverage. Suddenly, the EU has conceded the point: after years of making the case for these provisions, and their importance for peace and stability on the island of Ireland, it itself has reneged on them to widespread outcry.
We don’t know yet what its ramifications will be in practice. But the principle is conceded: the EU has surrendered the moral high ground over the Irish border.
Just so. Remainer posters ought to remember that when throwing around statements like “The EU has offered various deals, and they have had every intention of honouring those deals. That is dealing in good faith. …… Bad faith means offering a deal while you have every intention of breaking it or subverting it later. ” That last line rather perfectly encapsulates the Commission’s attitude to Ireland.
Once Leo V had played his part as Brussels useful idiot, once the EU had been allowed to weaponise the issue of the Irish border for purely cynical advantage, he and the rest of Ireland, both sides of the border, were thrown under the bus to cover the EU’s litany of blunders over Covid vaccines.
I agree with the basic argument here, but the EU did not actually invoke Article 16. Nevertheless, the fact that it was even being spoken of in EU circles…and especially in such a context as vaccines where the EU had got itself into a big pile of doo-doo due to its own stupidity, showed either extreme ignorance…or that the arguments underpinning the protocol were bogus all along. I reckon a mix of both.
Actually it did. Article 16 was invoked, though not implemented. It was withdrawn very soon after being invoked, due to the immediate backlash from all points of the political spectrum.
This appeared in the rolling news of the Guardian at the time, “…. amid a row over vaccine delivery shortfalls, the EU has invoked article 16 of the NI protocol which allows the EU or UK to unilaterally suspend aspects of its operations if either side considers that aspect to be causing “economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
That account had been amended by morning, after the EU backed off, and then conveniently memory-holed by the Remain supporting press.
There have been many such incidents where the truth is “edited”, because their faith in the EU could not survive a truthful account of their behaviour.
Again, ‘good faith’ does not enter into it. Invoking article 16 was stupid and likely counter productive and a hostile act, but it was not a breach of any promise. Securing vaccine supplies in the middle of a serious pandemic was a new and unforeseen problem and would seem to be a perfectly legitimate reason to invoke urgent crucial interests. It was certainly unfriendly, but then, it was Britain that chose to leave the friendship club. If Britain invokes article 16 now, it would be as a way of avoiding the clearly foreseeable (and entirely foreseen) consequences of a treaty that they themselves had signed only a few years ago.
As for ‘weaponising’ the border issue, that would mean using it as a pretext for extracting concessions elsewhere. That has not happened. The EU has pushed two clean and consistent demands: To avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, in the interest of the peace process and of the EU member Eire. And to allow exports from the UK to the EU only with reliable administrative controls on the goods that come in, in the interest of protecting the integrity (and the exclusivity) of the EU internal market. It is true that the combination made it impossible for the UK to be fully united (trade-wise) and fully free to set its own regulations while disregarding the EU, but that is not weaponising anything. The EU has no independent interest in screwing up Britain; it is not their fault if their legitimate demands and the reality of Northern Ireland in combination make it impossible for the Brexiteers to achieve their dreams.
Who cares! Northern Ireland should become part of one united Ireland.
It’s the same as The Falklands and Gibralter, these should be given back to Argentian and Spain.
Given that the OVERWHELMING majority of Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders (99% when last asked) wish to retain their current relationship with the UK, by what right would you impose such tyranny upon them?
The Good Friday Agreement includes the possibility of a ‘Border Poll’
Is there anything stopping the majority party in NI from asking for one? The polls suggest it might not get a ‘united Ireland’ majority.
The polls are often wrong. What do I know?
Let them have the poll and find out.
A few years ago, I’d have agreed with that proposition. The increasing secularisation of society on both sides of the ‘border, and the decoupling of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church from the laws and institutions of the Republic of Ireland meant that the objections of the ‘Protestant community’ to cross-border co-operation was fading towards insignificance. The EU, however, by weaponising the Good Friday Agreement (in total contradiction of the content of that short document) has poisoned the debate to such an extent that a Border Poll, conducted now, would very probably produce the very return to violence that Brussels claims it seeks to prevent.
The Good Friday agreement only confirmed what the UK legislated back in 1973: that NI citizens (rather than Stormont) could decide their future. There was a referendum following that decision https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/36/section/1/enacted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll