Busy day for Protocol on IRL/NI. Already said earlier today what needs to be said about Belfast High Court ruling (though reaction of Brexitists could still fill an entire psychiatric conference...). Now, some brief comments on this afternoon’s Commission announcement, voila:
1) obviously very good news to see certain temporary measures on foodstuffs (I won’t need to smuggle my ham sandwich over on the ferry this weekend...); as well as other more lasting adjustments (eg on trade in medicines, need for extra car insurance docs, status of guidedogs...)
2) but on core issue, of UK’s legal duty to enforce basic EU customs rules on GB trade into NI, this really is only a temporary fix: doesn’t resolve need for UK to start doing its job properly; whether that’s by agreeing to regulatory alignment or just enforcing the agreed rules
3) by the way: so much for the “genius of the free market”! Even if we make some allowance for UK traders foolishly believing Johnson’s initial lies, they’ve still had plenty of time to adjust by now. Protocol = adapt your supply chains. Otherwise, you’re part of the problem too
4) more importantly: Commission announcement doesn’t solve underlying challenges facing EU/IRL/NI. 1st, an ideological & untrustworthy UK regime willing to use NI as proxy in its manufactured confrontations with EU - a cynical game designed to shore up Johnson's domestic support
5) And 2nd, an increasingly belligerent loyalist movement in NI itself that refuses to accept any responsibility for its own disastrous Brexit strategy & instead positively magnifies dangers of Johnson's strategy: whipping up exaggeration, resentment, fear & hostility.
6) DUP & Co, just admit. Any Brexit was going to cause serious trouble for NI. Tories’ Hard Brexit = worst possible outcome, with NI offered up as sacrificial lamb. If you want to oppose Johnson’s Protocol, then offer a credible alternative. What’s that? Yip - deafening silence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's bemusing that those Brexitists who spent years shouting loudest "you lost, get over it" are now the ones who appear least able to accept the consequences of their own actions. Less funny? The indelible stains that their lie-to-victory tactics leave on UK public life, eg...
... today alone we read that Sunak Government promises DUP new legislation whose sole apparent aim = to confirm the existence of an objectively verifiable and incontrovertible fact: that NI is part of the UK. Parliament's job is now to tell us "earth revolves around sun"?! And...
... even respectable media outlets offering credibility to bizarre Johnson-led conspiracy theory about how someone now changing their job has the automatic effect of also retroactively changing their past behaviour. Brexit Britain really does lead the world in scientific marvels!
Having read the various elements of the “Windsor Framework” (the title may be designed to appeal to unionists, but it is actively alienating for nationalists)... here is a short thread summarising my second impressions:
1) recall main pillars of existing Protocol: NI follows certain EU rules on goods= avoids hard border with IRL + gets privileged Single Market access; but UK accepts degree of internal separation between NI-GB; & EU accepts part of its external frontier is in hands of 3rd country
2) against that background, new deal = complex package of diverse measures: amendments to Protocol, changes to decisions taken under Protocol, changes to EU & UK legislation, joint recommendations & declarations, unilateral declarations & commitments etc… Not easy to navigate!
Reading parallel documents on new Protocol deal published by UK Gov & by Commission = sometimes hard to believe they're talking about same thing. Partly because Tories can't resist usual propaganda (evil EU red tape, great Brexit freedoms, blah blah blah). But first impression?
May not be such a radical transformation as UK Gov claims. But certainly very significant changes here. Yes, many Protocol fundamentals remain intact. But both sides have reinforced compromises required to prevent hard IRL/NI border while also protecting EU & UK internal markets.
Exemplified by green/red lane system: much simplified movement of GB goods into NI if pose no risk to Single Market; but subject to multiple conditions & promise of robust enforcement. Adjustment of original compromise, rather than rewriting of entire system, but still major deal
Protocol deal sounds very interesting, but full significance depends on draft legal texts. Eg "Stormont Break": will it apply to all future changes to EU law inc to acts already listed in Protocol; or is veto only for future changes to EU law within scope, but not listed as such?
After all, eg if "Stormont Break" only applies to future EU measures relevant to, but not already listed in, Protocol, Art 13 already foresees need for EU & UK to agree on application to NI / deal with consequences if not. So new deal creates *internal* UK process to decide that.
In that case: "Stormont Break" wouldn't affect existing Protocol system whereby future changes to any EU rules that is already listed in text will automatically apply to NI - without intervention of UK, central or devolved, other than Assembly's overall power to reject Protocol.
It's tedious having to repeat ourselves every time Protocol on IRL/NI hits UK headlines (so many past threads...) but bottomless pit of Brexit dishonesty & incompetence makes the task unavoidable.
So... a few simple bullet points, reminding us how to refute common ERG/DUP lies:
1) Brexit means borders. Inherent and inescapable. And after all, borders are what the Brexitists wanted. But in the case of NI, that border cannot be across land with IRL. So it has to be across sea with GB. Only question is: how visible and cumbersome will that sea border be?
2) If UK had chosen "soft Brexit" (continued membership of customs union and single market) the NI/GB border could have been minimal. But ERG/DUP supported "hard Brexit" = extreme dislocation between EU and UK. Which inevitably meant NI/GB border needs to be far more complicated.
Among the reasons ERG / DUP extremists have manufactured to scupper Protocol, their hatred of the European Court of Justice is perhaps the weirdest.
Here is a summary of the actual law - so that when we get further details of any EU-UK deal, you can sift fact from propaganda:
1) Withdrawal Agreement, including for Protocol, uses standard international dispute settlement: political negotiations between EU & UK; if those fail, EU or UK can go to arbitration panel. But if dispute involves interpretation of EU law, panel must seek guidance from ECJ
2) That is a constitutional requirement imposed by EU law: only the ECJ can interpret EU law in a way that becomes binding on the EU itself. Hardly a surprise: EU law belongs to the EU! And not unique to the Brexit treaty: it applies in other EU agreements with non-EU states too