Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Duque de Bragança]

IIRC it was Raab that seized on an apparently harmless remark from Macron about NI being in an island and made a mountain out of it implying that Macron was denying the UK's sovereignty on NI.

I think it was Johnson - he went in very strong in an interview after the bilaterals saying that some in the EU needed to realise that the UK is a country with territorial integrity. And again - if we're trying to de-escalate - it is really, really important that no-one suggests Northern Ireland is not part of or different from the UK.

The briefing was then that Macron had implied that Northern Ireland wasn't part of the UK anyway. The Elyssee briefed that the point he was making was that Northern Ireland isn't geographically contiguous with the rest of the UK - so he was making an NI-GB point.

I think the French were possibly imprecise in their language in a way that wasn't alive to the sensitivities of NI or to playing into Johnson's narrative. I'm not sure if Johnson pounced on a non-English speaker fubbing things which is bad form, or if Macron's phrasing was genuinely unclear (I think this is possible having watched Macron's English interviews and addresses) in which case I think Johnson's response is another example of my theory that we've left Europe to become French.

For Macron, French Guyane was also an island. 

https://youtu.be/ggNTfiGGEks

[Zoupa]

and I still think peace should be the priority of everyone. Not the integrity of the single market

Well sorry but that's not how any of this works. You guys keep harping on about sovereignty and territorial integrity. The EU is not responsible for keeping the peace in your colonies...

[Threviel]

https://mobile.twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1404095831238709250?s=21

Good statement by Macron.

I think I'm in love with that guy.

[The Brain]

Northern Ireland is the UK's problem. And as long as you kowtow to terrorists it will continue to be a problem. It is extremely unsound how you make all decisions about NI based on not pissing off the terrorists. Terrorists dictating policy is, or rather should be, unacceptable. When terrorists become a threat to state policy you must destroy them. If the state isn't Jehovah then why is it?

[Tamas]

Yeah I mean come on Sheilbh, technically the NI is the same for the EU as Ukraine and their Dombass troubles. And before you say "but Ireland" well, Ukraine has a substantial Hungarian minority right across its border with Hungary (and the EU) and they have been on the receiving end of both the nationalist fervor since the Russian invasion as well as being collateral damage for legislation made to curtail Russia's influence on the Russian minority.

[Josquius]

What I don't get is the comeback about Paris and Toulouse surely Corsica is right there as an easier comparison?

Hungarians in Ukraine as a comparison- That would be a valid comparison if we were just talking about Londonderry rather than the whole of Northern Ireland.
Also helps for those Hungarians no doubt that Ukraine is EU friendly and very open to allowing them to travel freely to Hungary. And that Hungary doesn't seem keen on making them a political issue.

[Duque de Bragança]

https://mobile.twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1404095831238709250?s=21

Good statement by Macron.

I think I'm in love with that guy.

Too late, Brigitte preempted you when he was 15. 

[Duque de Bragança]

What I don't get is the comeback about Paris and Toulouse surely Corsica is right there as an easier comparison?

Hungarians in Ukraine as a comparison- That would be a valid comparison if we were just talking about Londonderry rather than the whole of Northern Ireland.
Also helps for those Hungarians no doubt that Ukraine is EU friendly and very open to allowing them to travel freely to Hungary. And that Hungary doesn't seem keen on making them a political issue.

Corsican nationalists would actually appreciate the parallel: French colonialism in Corsica!!!

[Tamas]

What I don't get is the comeback about Paris and Toulouse surely Corsica is right there as an easier comparison?

Hungarians in Ukraine as a comparison- That would be a valid comparison if we were just talking about Londonderry rather than the whole of Northern Ireland.
Also helps for those Hungarians no doubt that Ukraine is EU friendly and very open to allowing them to travel freely to Hungary. And that Hungary doesn't seem keen on making them a political issue.

You think? It doesn't reach you in the news because you are not involved (neither there is a substantial Hungarian-ancestry minority in the US) but there are semi-regular violent incidents and regular legal curbs on minority rights and the Hungarian foreign ministry never misses a chance to complain - it plays well with nationalists at home and serves the interests of Uncle Putin, so it's a double win.

[Valmy]

Brexit's ultimately responsible for the challenge of Northern Ireland - and Northern Ireland was, with the union, the biggest reasons I voted remain. But I don't think it makes unrest or violence inevitable. That's up to the choices of politicians now.

I was furious at how little Northern Ireland mattered in people's votes, and I still think peace should be the priority of everyone. Not the integrity of the single market from an as yet unrealised risk from a geographically remote post-stamp sized corner of Europe, or the right to eventually at some point diverge (but not now).

Yeah that was infuriating. The Good Friday agreement just thrown away with barely a public discussion.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I mean come on Sheilbh, technically the NI is the same for the EU as Ukraine and their Dombass troubles. And before you say "but Ireland" well, Ukraine has a substantial Hungarian minority right across its border with Hungary (and the EU) and they have been on the receiving end of both the nationalist fervor since the Russian invasion as well as being collateral damage for legislation made to curtail Russia's influence on the Russian minority.

I'm not sure either of those work. I mean - Donbass is not in the single market, Northern Ireland is. There are ongoing negotiations between the EU and UK over how to implement it and how to make it work basically. Although it does point out why I get to why I'm dubious about the EU's fears that this will set a precedent because I can't imagine any other scenario where the single market frontier would be within a country. That is why I think it does need the technical talks because the other frontiers of the single market are the sea, Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, Belarus and the former Yugoslav states that's different than a frontier within a country - and the NIP acknowledges this.

But also I'm taking the EU at its word. You go back four years and the EU has been saying, as Donald Tusk put it, that "it is of crucial importance to support the peace process in Northern Ireland." That's what the NIP is there for and I'm afraid that involves the EU, for the first time, in supporting the peace process in Northern Ireland. If that wasn't a priority and the focus was just on the single market then that's fine but that's a different position than the EU has taken for the last 4-5 years. And from what I'm aware the EU hasn't made similar commitments around the Donbass or for Hungarian minorities.

Northern Ireland is the UK's problem. And as long as you kowtow to terrorists it will continue to be a problem. It is extremely unsound how you make all decisions about NI based on not pissing off the terrorists. Terrorists dictating policy is, or rather should be, unacceptable. When terrorists become a threat to state policy you must destroy them. If the state isn't Jehovah then why is it?

This is the criticism of the GFA that's been around for years especially on the unionist side. But also just that power-sharing basically polarises and creates incentives for communities to vote for the hard-liners. It was the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP who made peace happen, but because you institutionalise both sides having a say you're probably better off voting for the hard-liners so the people who benefited from peace were the DUP and Sinn Fein while the UUP and SDLP were almost wiped out for a while. At the minute it looks like Sinn Fein and the DUP were fat and lazy in power and there are signs that the SDLP and possibly the UUP are fighting back - which is good.

The political unionists are not linked to terrorists - the DUP and UUP are not the political wings of terrorist organisations. Ian Paisley was particularly bad in whipping up emotions but then stepping away from any call to violence - in loyalist circles I understand he was known as the Grand Old Duke of York because he led them up the hill and down again. But there are examples of literal terrorists shaping policy in Northern Ireland - Martin McGuinness obviously was the Deputy First Minister, I think until recently about half of Sinn Fein's MLAs, MPs and MEPs either had links to the IRA or had served convictions relating to terrorism. In contrast unionism and loyalism tended to have a more arms length relationship.

And obviously Sinn Fein is likely to win the next Irish election. From what I understand the British intelligence servies and the Gardai think that they are still ultimately run by the army council of the IRA.

Yeah that was infuriating. The Good Friday agreement just thrown away with barely a public discussion.

I mean there's nothing in Brexit or the NIP that contradicts the Good Friday Agreement. It's more like we've blown away the foundations of that agreement and are trying to re-build them before it collapses.

And to an extent not talking about it makes sense. Northern Ireland is a province of about 1.8 million people. It was a big issue in wider UK politics only because of the Troubles. Once peace started to properly work it fel back to being about as important as any other area of 1.8 million people (with the slight complication that none of the mainstream British parties compete in Northern Ireland). This is part of my worry that London and Dublin in the 15-20 years of peace have actually lost the back-channel contacts and the experience that governments had in the 70s-90s in the event there is violence - because for 15-20 years it was solved and politicians didn't need to worry about it.

[Sheilbh]

What I don't get is the comeback about Paris and Toulouse surely Corsica is right there as an easier comparison?

Yeah on a geographical basis.

But as I say it doesn't quite get a post-conflict society with two sides, it's more an area with a small separatist terrorist group.

[Tamas]

I'm not sure either of those work. I mean - Donbass is not in the single market, Northern Ireland is. There are ongoing negotiations between the EU and UK over how to implement it and how to make it work basically.

Uhm, I thought that was covered in the treaty? I think what you meant is the UK are trying to weasel out of the inconvenient details of it and that's what the "ongoing negotiations" are about.

[Tamas]

What I don't get is the comeback about Paris and Toulouse surely Corsica is right there as an easier comparison?

Yeah on a geographical basis.

But as I say it doesn't quite get a post-conflict society with two sides, it's more an area with a small separatist terrorist group.

The apt comparison would have been Algiers.

But otherwise how is this the EU's problem? The UK left. The UK left specifically so that the EU would stop having a say on how we run stuff. So we have signed a treaty with the EU to put a border on the Irish Sea to solve the British problem of NI being a bothersome colony. Then immediately after it comes to effect and first signs of totally predictable troubles start, we start weaseling out of it and re-starting the "EU is evol dictator" talk like we were still members.

I bet even after Wales leaves following Scotland and NI it still be somehow the EU's fault.

[Sheilbh]

Uhm, I thought that was covered in the treaty? I think what you meant is the UK are trying to weasel out of the inconvenient details of it and that's what the "ongoing negotiations" are about.

Well as I say the EU view is that the UK reached this agreement and is now trying avoid it, the UK government's view is that the EU reached this agreement (which doesn't include SPS alignment despite a lot of negotiation on that point) and is trying to re-open it to win points they didn't get in the first round.

But also there were always going to be ongoing negotiations that's why the NIP has created the Joint Committee (most treaties don't require an ongoing committee to discuss implementation). It's also very complex so both parties need to work on the technical details of how it will actually work in practice - this has already come up in the context of the use of a drug for certain treatments in the UK but not the single market.

So to give just one example - I mentioned earlier that goods not "at risk" of going into the single market don't have any customs duties. It then says goods are not "at risk" if they're not going to be commercially processed in Northern Ireland, or it fulfils defined criteria. But it then says it's up to the Joint Committee to set out what that defined criteria is. So there will be ongoing negotiations about that - and that is because the treaty sets out the broad legal rule but then delegates developing detailed rules to the Joint Committee. Similarly the Joint Committee is tasked with keeping Northern Ireland "integral" place in the UK internal market under review and  "adopting appropriate recommendations" with the aim of keeping port checks to a minimum. As I say my suspicion is if things were de-escalated and it was just the technical teams we'd probably see that "at risk" concept being used quite liberally in multiple areas - it's a bit like Chekhov's shotgun, you don't include a clever legal solution in your drafting if you don't want it to be used. Unfortunately politics has got in the way.

And also, I used to advise on European law, it is normally unclear what it means in practice. There's nothing unusual about this. It sets out principles but there could be a lot of ways to reach that principle, so 90% of the work of European law is done by bodies like the Joint Committee issuing guidance and technical papers and, frankly in really vague areas where there's no guidance, lawyers taking a view and building a defensible position for that. European law and European treaties are rarely detailed enough to ever be definitive - they're like a line drawing which you need to colour in; and UK regulations tend to take the opposite approach of being very specific and detailed but lacking an over-riding principle (though the UK has become more European over time). It's why in Europe there's a rarely a "loophole" because there is normally an underlying principle, but there is always the risk that even when you were trying to comply you failed; in the UK (and US) there is more likely to be a loophole because there's often no principle, but you know what you need to do to follow the law.

Having said that I've not got much time by the fact the UK government is suprised the EU is behaving in a "legally purist" way - that's generally what the EU does (and as a lawyer when things are unclear the safest advice is normally the most expensive, with lots of legal checks ).

The apt comparison would have been Algiers.

Except the demographics are wrong

The Northern Ireland Life and Society set of polls has been run by academics for a few decades - their latest edition had support for a united Ireland at 30%. That's broadly where it's been for many years. There's a shift in people thinking a united Ireland is more likely at some point, but not in the support for it - which is obviously far too low to call a border poll. And, incidentally, I think Sinn Fein winning elections in Ireland will probably have as big an effect on attitudes to a united Ireland as Brexit has had on the union.

I think the best probably is somewhere like Bosnia or Lebanon. There's about 30% people who are constitutional nationalists, there's about 40-45% of people who are constitutional unionists and there's about 25-30% who are either generally non-algined or soft nationalists/unionists (they might culturally identify one way or another - like the Irish language and the GAA/go to the odd march but it doesn't really impact their constitutional views). At the minute the protocol has buy-in from two of those groups, I think it needs buy-in from all three to work - at the minute it's a bit like announcing a grand policy for Bosnia that's got staunching backing from Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs but the Bosniaks hate it

But otherwise how is this the EU's problem? The UK left. The UK left specifically so that the EU would stop having a say on how we run stuff. So we have signed a treaty with the EU to put a border on the Irish Sea to solve the British problem of NI being a bothersome colony. Then immediately after it comes to effect and first signs of totally predictable troubles start, we start weaseling out of it and re-starting the "EU is evol dictator" talk like we were still members.

Because the EU has repeatedly stated that it's crucial to preserve the peace process. And you can't have it both ways. If the EU had said our priority is protecting the integrity of the single market and the rights of EU citizens, but Northern Ireland is part of the UK and it's on them to protect peace - that's fine and it's a respectable position. But they didn't the EU repeatedly said and both parties agreed, jointly, to preserve peace in Northern Ireland.

As I say I think the EU underestimated the extent it would get dragged into the mire in Northern Ireland. But if you've said you want to protect peace you can't then pursue a policy that will likely undermine peace and disown responsibility.

The worst example of this I've seen was in some Twitter thread by one of the Brussels correspondents that the Commission accepts that the technical details probably need to be quite flexible because of the uniqueness of this single market frontier. But they want them implemented in full first so they can assess quite how far they need to go (and to avoid the UK taking the piss no doubt). That'd be fine if it was Gibraltar or GB and all we were talking about was economic damage, but in Northern Ireland chances are if you implement them in full the damage will be done by the time you've worked out what degree of flexibility is appropriate.