Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

OK but if the pro-government side rejected the agreement why did the government sign it? There is no reading of this situation which doesn't clearly make it the UK government's fault.

What do you mean by pro-government?

Unionists aren't necessarily pro-government (see Theresa May's torrid time in office). Some of them came close to supporting the protocol but then things shifted in unionist politics.

Their identity as British is core to them, but that doesn't mean they like or support the British government (if anything they tend to be more British than the Brits) and they've always had a very independent and distinct political culture.

But as I say about 85% of people in Northern Ireland don't trust the British government, it was loyalists who painted Gove's address on a wall when he was responsible for administering the protocol ("We don't forget"). The nationalist and Irish position was basically the same; the unionist and UK government was never the same  - it's why unionists in parliament (though this was only the DUP) voted against every deal. That isn't because the nationalists and Irish conspire to agree a position it, it's just their priorities happen to align on this.

I think they signed because they either anticipated it would be interpreted and implemented very liberally (this was also the position of the Nobel prize winning UUP peace negotiator Lord Trimble who endorsed the deal and then said it needed to be cancelled if this was how it was implemented), or that they'd be able to "fix" it after the event. I also think they underestimated the depth of unionist feeling and that unionist feeling would coalesce so quickly - and I partly blame the EU for that the Article 16 night was incredibly radicalising in terms of unionist attitudes.

They have issues with the consent mechanism - which was the thing Johnson and the EU agreed (and was different than May) to claim some democratic process within Northern Ireland - but also fundamentally they feel the way barriers are required on some things now and will be required in the future is trying to force them into an economically united Ireland - and they think that's deliberate. They think the nationalists and the Irish government weaponised support for the GFA/BA in Europe to do this (there is, after all, no provision in the GFA/BA prohibiting a land border - the treaty was in many respects about republicans acknowledging the existence of a border). I don't think the government realised where the feeling was coming from - I've said before I don't think Whitehall is anywhere near as plugged into unionist feelings as it was during the Troubles because it wasn't necessary during peaceful years and it's a small province so those feelersweren't that important any mrore.

The NIP is a fudge - it's a compromise with a lot of room for interpretation that's drafted deliberately vaguely so both parties can sign up. But I also think it raises the possibility that the issues May's government was raising about Northern Ireland (because May is conscientious and gives a shit about the union) were not just cakeism that was easily dismissed but reflected the political reality in unionists and maybe they should have been listened to rather than just immediately written off as cherry picking.

Well I don't think the Irish Republic is eager to bend to the demands of the UK either. That is not really their brand.

I think the opposite - I think Ireland is the country that wants most flexibility. I saw an interview with Simon Coveney where he talked about the protocol - he said Ireland wants as much flexibility as possible in the protocol including taking risk based approach, so supermarkets are low risk of becoming smugglers so shouldn't need to be checked.  He also acknowledged that Brexit has severely weakened the lines of communication between Dublin and the unionist community that had been developing since 98 - for the long term that's something that will need time to heal and grow again.

I find your position puzzling to say the least. If the English won't give a fuck about the GFA, what makes you think someone in Lyon, Patras or Seville will?

I don't think it's up to people to care - I'm aware that I'm one of about five people in GB who's biggest reason for voting Remain was Northern Ireland and I really care but that is a niche position. Which it should be, it's a tiny province with about the same population as Kent and no-one should have to care about that.

But it's a fragile post-conflict society. Both the UK and the EU made a commitment to peace. The Protocol currently is not working as designed - the EU is redrafting its medicines regulations to exclude Northern Ireland from certain provisions after the NIP inadvertantly threatened NHS supply chains, no-one intended that when they signed the NIP but it is how it works as currently read. I think it'd be better if both the EU and the UK could work together on mutually agreed solutions and hopefully either convince unionists to back the Protocol or work out an alternative - with the parties in Northern Ireland - that has cross-community support.

As I say I think in retrospect it probably should have been a Northern Irish led process. My position is the same as the EU's was - this issue needs a flexible, creative solution and "computer says no" legalism isn't it. In an ideal world I'd freeze it as it is - so any checks currently happening carry on any new ones are paused - and appoint big beasts from both sides so a former senior minister and a former commissioner to basically move to Northern Ireland and work with the parties there to develop a solution and if necessary chivvy along London and Brussels into compromising. A bit like Senator Mitchell did during the peace process. Because I think it's the Northern Irish bit that's key and has been ignored through this entire process.

I have to be honest the weirdest opinion I hear is this is all for domestic consumption because - as you say - no-one cares. Frost's speech this morning was at 9am on the second day of conference to a room that was about 1/4 full - if this was for domestic consumption you'd give him a different slot. And I work for a liberal-left media company and we have morning conference with reporters - today was the Tory conference. The reporters said that people weren't bringing up Brexit very much - the view that was being pushed by government and party hacks was that they got Brexit done and now it's about "delivery" on other issues to show they're about more than Brexit. Disputes about Northern Ireland change zero votes in GB (and none of the British parties run in Northern Ireland).

[The Brain]

Yeah well, who gives a fuck? There are 447 million people in the EU tired of Northern Irish asshattery and the Johnson regime's latest shenanigans. Whatever the consequences, the British government is to blame. They should sort it out if the situation in their province deteriorates. Should not be our business.

I agree completely. No one sane gives a flying fuck about British self-inflicted wounds.

[Sheilbh]

One problematic faction is the Unionists. They were pro-Brexit and their poorly hidden agenda is to overturn the GFA and reinstate a border. That's not a realistic policy though and they have painted themselves into a corner from which it will be hard to get out again.

There is nothing in the GFA that prohibits a border.

And I'd point out Doug Beattie who's the leader of the UUP which is now leading the polls - they opposed Brexit. He said today that if they didn't support Brexit because it would destabilise the union, they're certainly not going to support the protocol for the same reason.

That said, the main problem in Northern Ireland is the British government.  Neither EU nor Unionists trust it at all. The British government first threw the Unionists under the bus by signing the NIP, then went rogue on the implementation of the NIP.

The only way out of the impasse is for the British government to build trust with both EU and Unionists again. However, it does the opposite. It is further eroding its credibility as a party interested to be a honest partner in a negotiation. Unless that changes, there will be no mutually agreeable situation in Northern Ireland.

I don't even know what building trust with the EU and unionists at the same time would look like - they have diametrically opposed views.

[Zanza]

The reason why Frost wants to dismantle the NIP is also fairly obvious. It works and given time will show that the de facto Single Market membership of Northern Ireland is very beneficial. That makes a mockery of Brexit, which Frost cannot accept.

[Jacob]

I don't even know what building trust with the EU and unionists at the same time would look like - they have diametrically opposed views.

Sticking by your deals is kind of fundamental to build trust. There can be no trust if you're not a credible negotiation partner.

[Sheilbh]

The reason why Frost wants to dismantle the NIP is also fairly obvious. It works and given time will show that the de facto Single Market membership of Northern Ireland is very beneficial. That makes a mockery of Brexit, which Frost cannot accept.

Again any theory which relies on people in GB noticing Northern Ireland has to explain the last five years before I pay attention

I saw Stephen Bush's post on this - and he's another person who follows NI more closely than is healthy (the New Statesman has a strong Catholic British-Irish influence among their journalists who make sure everyone knows about Northern Irish issues ) - but I think it's too clever by half.

[Zanza]

I don't even know what building trust with the EU and unionists at the same time would look like - they have diametrically opposed views.

Then the British government should better start figuring that out.

[The Brain]

I get the feeling that the British people still doesn't understand at all the UK's standing in the world. Even in 2015 a changing world had made the UK less important than the old seat of Empire. And the complete collapse of British prestige in the years after 2016 has made the country a laughing stock that no one takes seriously.

[Sheilbh]

Sticking by your deals is kind of fundamental to build trust. There can be no trust if you're not a credible negotiation partner.

But that's what I mean - the unionist position is that it must be cancelled (not amended); the EU position is that the problem is it's not been implemented. I don't know how you build trust with both those parties.

My point is simpler - the purpose of the NIP is to support the peace process and implementation has no support in one of the two parties in the peace process. So at the minute the NIP isn't doing what it's meant to do and implementing it in full also won't. Every unionist political party opposes the NIP - the peace agreement requires cross community support for the institutions to work and they will not function without unionist support and participation (though, a slight nuance, is the UUP have said they won't collapse the institutions over this).

Also some of the implementation is devolved (agriculture for example) and unionists in the executive are refusing to implement those bits despite repeated "instructions" from Westminster (largely so they have a paper trail they can wave of all the times they refused to implement it and were criticised by Westminster). I've mentioned before but civil servants are suing to basically get an order from the court to disobey the minister and implement the bits of the NIP they're responsible for.

I've yet to see any Commissioner or comment from the EU that explains how implementing the NIP over the objections of every unionist political party and possibly through central government overriding the executive helps support the GFA/BA - which is the purpose of the NIP. At the minute - it depends on the 2022 Stormont election - it is likely that the Northern Irish Assembly vote on this in 2024 will support the protocol with a simple majority but no unionist support. The history of Northern Ireland is that one community prevailing over the other doesn't work.

[Tamas]

Maybe the EU has not addressed how to implement the NIP over Unionist objection because that's not the EU's problem. The UK has sovereignty over NI and they made a commitment to implement the NIP.

Clearly EU officials don't want to be the ones starting border checks again, so they haven't told Frost to go fuck himself. The UK government is betting on the EU so not wanting this that they will agree to further fudge the fudge so that NI and through it the whole UK economy will remain part of the single market.

[Zanza]

The reason the Unionists are not even willing to constructively engage with the NIP but are in fundamentalist opposition is that they know the British government supports this. Maybe not explicitly, but implicitly the Brexit minister wants the NIP to fail out of a motivation to make the hard Brexit even harder and to isolate Britain further from Europe to make any rapprochement much harder.

If the British government was not as duplicitous about the whole affair, stakeholders would know where it stands, which is the foundation of trust. Even if you disagree with someone, as long as you consider them honest, you can trust their actions. But the British government must always be assumed to not stand by its word, neither towards unionists nor EU.

So the British government needs to start being honest about its intentions.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe the EU has not addressed how to implement the NIP over Unionist objection because that's not the EU's problem. The UK has sovereignty over NI and they made a commitment to implement the NIP.

The EU signed the NIP for the purpose of protecting the peace process and ensuring there's no hard border in Ireland. That's why it's the EU's problem if the only way to deliver their solution is to undermine the peace process by forcing it on one community.

Clearly EU officials don't want to be the ones starting border checks again, so they haven't told Frost to go fuck himself. The UK government is betting on the EU so not wanting this that they will agree to further fudge the fudge so that NI and through it the whole UK economy will remain part of the single market.

That's nonsense - for a start that was May's deal that the backstop would cover the entire UK. That was already an option.

I've not seen any desire from any bit of government to get in the single market. Their entire message to GB business is get over it and adjust. And I've not seen any complaints from the UK government about EU checks from GB - they're not ready to launch the GB side checks because they're not competent. But I've not seen any griping about not being in the single market

The reason the Unionists are not even willing to constructively engage with the NIP but are in fundamentalist opposition is that they know the British government supports this. Maybe not explicitly, but implicitly the Brexit minister wants the NIP to fail out of a motivation to make the hard Brexit even harder and to isolate Britain further from Europe to make any rapprochement much harder.

The reason is because that's what unionists do.

But as I say unionists are always fundamentalist in their opposition (so are Republicans if you're negotiating with them) - and their national story/identity as a community is tied up with fundamentalist resistance. The four unionist parties issued their joint statement opposing the NIP on the 99th anniversary of the Ulster Covenant in 1912 in opposition to the Home Rule Bill, which, eventually lead to the creation of Northern Ireland - it's the start of a really distinctive ulster unionist politics. But also unionist rhetoric on Maggie Thatcher agreeing the Anglo-Irish Agreement ("Where do the terrorists operate from? From the Irish Republic! That's where they come from! Where do the terrorists return to for sanctuary? To the Irish Republic! And yet Mrs Thatcher tells us that that Republic must have some say in our Province. We say never, never, never, never!"). That was the agreement that formed the basis for the peace process. The literal catchphrase of unionism is "no surrender" (from the 17th century siege of Derry through to now)

Unionism does not need a single hint from London to refuse to engage or adopt a fundamentalist position. Northern Ireland now has a population of about 1.9 million - in 1912 over 500,000 people signed the Ulster Covenant, I think they estimate about 200,000 attending the Ulster Says No march on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They tend to be quite good at mass mobilisation in opposition to things.

I'd also add that in January until the EU stated that they intended to use Article 16 to suspend the protocol and impose vaccine export controls (so Northern Ireland would not have been part of the single market for the purposes of export controls) there were some unionists talking about caution and working with it to see how it would operate in practice. It only lasted for a few hours but it's impossible to overstate the impact of the vaccine incident in radicalising unionist opposition.

If the British government was not as duplicitous about the whole affair, stakeholders would know where it stands, which is the foundation of trust. Even if you disagree with someone, as long as you consider them honest, you can trust their actions. But the British government must always be assumed to not stand by its word, neither towards unionists nor EU.

So the British government needs to start being honest about its intentions.

I think what they want is what they've set out and it's basically what Sam Lowe said. I don't think that will be enough to convince unionists - but I think it might just be enough to fracture their opposition and that's a base to build cross-community support.

[Syt]

The reason the Unionists are not even willing to constructively engage with the NIP but are in fundamentalist opposition is that they know the British government supports this. Maybe not explicitly, but implicitly the Brexit minister wants the NIP to fail out of a motivation to make the hard Brexit even harder and to isolate Britain further from Europe to make any rapprochement much harder.

If the British government was not as duplicitous about the whole affair, stakeholders would know where it stands, which is the foundation of trust. Even if you disagree with someone, as long as you consider them honest, you can trust their actions. But the British government must always be assumed to not stand by its word, neither towards unionists nor EU.

So the British government needs to start being honest about its intentions.

My impression is that the UK government have no idea what they want and have no inclination to seriously figure it out. They lash out at the EU to try and hide that while secretly hoping this will yield a solution without having to dedicate any brain power to it.

[Tamas]

Boris Johnson has insisted there is no crisis in supply chains but admitted just 127 visas for tanker drivers had been granted.

Asked by BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he believed there was a crisis, the prime minister said "no" and said difficulties were linked to the revival of the economy, calling it "a giant waking up".

Advertisement

Johnson said the government had asked the road haulage industry to provide the names of foreign drivers who would want to come to the UK, and only 127 had been produced so far.

"What that shows is the global shortage," he said.

The prime minister said a difficult winter of the petrol crisis, shortages on supermarket shelves and soaring energy bills were symptoms of the economic path the country was on that would tackle a long-term lack of productivity, low wages and under-investment in energy and infrastructure.

"This government is doing the difficult, long-term things. We got Brexit done, which was a very difficult thing to do, and we are now going to address the big underlying issues that face the UK," he said.

Part of the problem was that businesses had been able to "mainline low-wage, low-cost immigration for a very long time," Johnson said. ""I think actually this country's natural ability to sort out its logistics and supply chains is very strong. But what we won't do is pull the lever marked 'uncontrolled immigration'."

Advertisement

The prime minister doubled down on his insistence that disruption would be temporary but said it was part of the transition to offering more people better pay and conditions, saying drivers often had to "urinate in bushes" because the workforce was not valued by the industry.

"What you can't do is go back to the old, failed model where you mainline low-wage, low-skilled labour – very often very hard-working, brave, wonderful people – who come in, working in conditions that frankly are pretty tough, and we shouldn't be going back to that," he told BBC Breakfast.

In broadcast interviews, Johnson defended the cut in universal credit, linking it to his drive to increase pay. "What we won't do is take more money in tax to subsidise low pay through the welfare system," he told LBC.

Johnson also criticised workers who had not returned to their offices, saying there were Downing Street staff still working from home.

He said young people who wanted to learn "can't just do it on Zoom" and said they would be "gossiped about and lose out" if they worked from home. He said the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, had written to No 10 staff telling them to "get back to their desks".

Rich pickings, this one.

[The Brain]

Well there you have it. Right from the arse's mouth.