Boris Johnson has made three suggestions concerning the Northern Ireland backstop in a letter to Donald Tusk issued overnight. They provide no basis for thinking there is any desire on his part to reach agreement on this issue. The first claim was:
First, it is anti-democratic and inconsistent with the sovereignty of the UK as a state.
His argument is:
The backstop locks the UK, potentially indefinitely, into an international treaty which will bind us into a customs union and which applies large areas of single market legislation in Northern Ireland. It places a substantial regulatory border, rooted in that treaty, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The treaty provides no sovereign means of exiting unilaterally and affords the people of Northern Ireland no influence over the legislation which applies to them. That is why the backstop is anti-democratic.
This is, of course, nonsense. Northern Ireland has, in effect, a written constitution that the people of Northern Ireland voted for. It is the Good Friday Agreement. And that is binding. It was democratically chosen. And no border is part of that Agreement. So this argument cannot apply to Northern Ireland.
Nor then can it apply to the rest of the UK either. That's because we are a signatory to that agreement. And in any case, first of all Northern Ireland is a separate jurisdiction from the rest of the UK, with its own law, Parliament (albeit suspended) and very clearly different constitutional arrangements that have, in my lifetime, permitted the ending of free movement between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. To suggest a border in the Irish Sea is not democratic is then wrong, not least when it already exists on abortion rights and so many other issues.
Whilst to argue that we cannot be democratically bound by a commitment given is absurd. I suggest the UK tries to reclaim the USA if it thinks matters once decided can be reversed and then see what happens.
This argument is, then, wrong. So too us the second:
Second, it is inconsistent with the UK's desired final destination for a sustainable long-term relationship with the EU. When the UK leaves the EU and after any transition period, we will leave the single market and the customs union. Although we will remain committed to world-class environment, product and labour standards, the laws and regulations to deliver them will potentially diverge from those of the EU. That is the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.
The backstop is inconsistent with this ambition. By requiring continued membership of the customs union and applying many single market rules in Northern Ireland, it presents the whole of the UK with the choice of remaining in a customs union and aligned with those rules, or of seeing Northern Ireland gradually detached from the UK economy across a very broad ranges of areas. Both of those outcomes are unacceptable to the British Government.
Accordingly, as I said in Parliament on 25 July, we cannot continue to endorse the specific commitment, in paragraph 49 of the December 2017 Joint Report, to 'full alignment' with wide areas of the single market and the customs union. That cannot be the basis for the future relationship and it is not a basis for the sound governance of Northern Ireland.
The rest of the UK can make the changes Johnson desires. Northern Ireland cannot. And the rest of the UK has given up the right to demand that Northern Ireland does. The Good Friday Agreement meant that was the case. And there is a sea border that facilitates this. Again, the argument does not reflect the UK's constitutional commitments. And remember the backstop only applies to the rest of the UK because the UK demanded that it did so: the EU did not want this.
So we come to the third argument:
Third, it has become increasingly clear that the backstop risks weakening the delicate balance embodied in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. The historic compromise in Northern Ireland is based upon a carefully negotiated balance between both traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, consent, and respect for minority rights. While I appreciate the laudable intentions with which the backstop was designed, by removing control of such large areas of the commercial and economic life of Northern Ireland to an external body over which the people of Northern Ireland have no democratic control, this balance risks being undermined.
The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement neither depends upon nor requires a particular customs or regulatory regime. The broader commitments in the Agreement, including to parity of esteem, partnership, democracy and to peaceful means of resolving differences, can be be met if we explore solutions other than the backstop.
One wonders what Johnson knows of the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps th3 most critical part of it was that, whilst it was agreed in Northern Ireland, of course, the factor which ensures consensus it would work were the international guarantees. The UK, Ireland and the USA guarantee this Agreement. They accepted obligations to support it. Two are doing so. One is not.
And if Johnson was so worried, he could ask that Northern Ireland keep a seat in the EU parliament and representation in Brussels. It would be an odd request, bit of all potential demands one that might be deliverable, maybe. That would, then, overcome the issue. But nothing Johnson says comes remotely close to that. This was not a letter written in good faith.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is a fairly typical word salad which reflects its author’s long history of open mendacity. Its absence of coherent argument, its evidence of profound ignorance of the UK’s treaty obligations and its tone of whinging special pleading are all signs of a man – and an administration – sunk deep in self-delusion.
Willi Frischauer’s old comment on the verbiage of the supposedly ‘new’ Nixon springs immediately to mind. “You know, the thing that worries me about these politicians, is that they may actually mean what they say.”
“The treaty provides no sovereign means of exiting unilaterally and affords the people of Northern Ireland no influence over the legislation which applies to them.”
I love it when Brexiteers make the case for Scottish Independence, and the break-up of their precious union. All Scotland needs to do is cut and paste.
This is the most disingenuous piece of writing I have ever seen. It is playing to the Leave brigade with cod awareness and sincerity.
The economic turmoil of BREXIT alone will undermine the GFA. Result? Conflict. Economic turf wars mixing with nationalist and religious zealotry.
There is no consideration of any losing element or the consequences thereof.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king. To me, that sums up Johnson a treat.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“This is the most disingenuous piece of writing I have ever seen. ”
You should get out more, Pilgrim. 🙂
Try reading the mainstream media … Lol (That’s not a serious recommendation; I mostly gave up doing so years ago)
Andy
I see the MSM all the time, and I agree with you – it is un self consciously awful and banal
This letter from our ‘prime minister’ however has mendacity running right through it – pure and simple. Hollow words from a hollow man who has been gifted a job he has no right to have.
It makes me sick.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“It makes me sick.”
Typical pronouncement of the ‘Post-truth era’, I’m afraid. I think we’ve, most of us, had enough of it, but we’re likely to get a lot more. 🙁
Are you now a constitutional and legal expert?
Because the letter Johnson wrote just sets out exactly the same problems that Geoffrey Cox QC did – and he and his team certainly are.
Geoffrey Cox is a criminal lawyer, as I recall
Not a constitutional expert at all
Geoffrey Cox is not a criminal lawyer. His practice (used to, before he stopped) covers supranational commercial work, human rights and constitutional law.
Either way, he also has a significant team of lawyers behind him.
Do you? Are you claiming that you are a legal expert, despite having no training, never practiced law etc? Are you really saying you know better than the Attorney General and his team of lawyers?
I really do think I am entitled to an opinion, yes
And I am well aware that every morning all over the world 50% of lawyers who walk into court to express an opinion find that other lawyers do not agree with them
Whoop. Whoop!
Tautology alert:
“Geoffrey Cox is a criminal lawyer, …..” 🙂
James says:
“Geoffrey Cox……..His practice (used to, before he stopped) covers supranational commercial work, human rights and constitutional law.”
Erm…..So what?
He’s a technical wordsmith who will make and present a case (regardless of merit) for anyone who will meet his probably outrageous demands for payment. That’s what legal professionals do.
As I understand it, Geoffrey Cox’s expertise is in presenting a case, not in being right, or authoritative. I think you are confusing the role of a brief, or advocate with that of a judge. And even judges can behave meretriciously when required to do so.
“It is the Good Friday Agreement. And that is binding. It was democratically chosen. And no border is part of that Agreement.”
A completely untrue statement. The border is not even mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement. In any case, there already is a border with different legal jurisdictions and tax and duty regimes on either side – all managed perfectly adequately without border infrastructure.
There is no border in the GFA
Precisely
There is NO MENTION of the border in the GFA, other than in reference to ‘cross-border arrangements’. Consequently, it acknowledges the existence of the border but makes no comment whatsoever on its nature. ‘No Border’ is therefore not part of the agreement.
With respect, I disagree, as I think would anyone with any knowledge of what its intention was
your argument has gaps
All arguments have gaps
To solve the back-stop problem, why does the EU not grant special status to R. of Ireland to trade tariff free with the UK until the overall deal is complete.
The CTA that predates the EU is already an exception for travel, just expand this concept…a Common Travel Area for goods. The R. of Ireland is just over 1% of the EU population after Brexit…not a major divergence at all. A small local waiver on the basis of the GFA.
Otherwise a hard-border down between Larne-Stranraer as Varadkar has sought is as much contrary to the GFA and has no Unionist consent as a hard border between Newry-Dundalk.
You do know what the EU is, I presume?
And that what you are saying makes no sense?
“….by removing control of such large areas of the commercial and economic life of Northern Ireland to an external body over which the people of Northern Ireland have no democratic control……..” – so Johnson’s letter.
Ummmm – er – just remind us, Johnson: what percentage of those voting in the referendum in the six counties voted to remain in the EU? What percentage of the voters wanted to continue to be in that “external body”? There is certainly an issue of democracy here. My feeling is that to refer to the backstop as undemocratic is surely a perversion of logic.
I’m having a real hard time trying to understand what the objectives of the Brexiteers are with respect of Northern Ireland.
The way I see you have the following options:
i) UK stays in a customs union and keeps free movement, including NI
ii) UK except NI leaves customs union and ends free movement, border in the Irish Sea
iii) UK incl. NI leaves customs union and ends movement, north south border in Ireland.
But the Brexiteers will not accept any of the three. Their argument seems to be that i) is totally out of the question, that is why we are leaving. ii) It’s absolutely unacceptable to them that there should be a difference between NI and the rest of the UK. And that iii) is unacceptable, but also unnecessary, if it happens it will be the fault of the EU.
So the question is posed to the Brexiteers, how do you solve this problem? To which they reply “Malthouse, alternative arrangements, technology”. But of course when pressed on what that would entail, they can’t give an answer… because it’s not possible.
The rhetoric amongst Brexiteers now seems to be “well, if there’s a border with the EU, then that is the fault of the big, bad EU, not us!”.
Which is the most impossible logical situation to be in…
– It’s the UK (Brexiteers) that wants to exit the EU and have an independent regulatory regime for our goods and services. This is not compatible with an open border, not on the EU’s terms, but also not the UK’s. It’s not ‘taking back control’ to have an uncontrolled flow of smuggled goods into the country through NI.
– It’s the UK that wants to end free movement. It’s not taking back control to have an open border where people can just come and go as they please. As far as I can tell it is impossible to have immigration controls between Ireland and the UK post free movement, without first coming up some incredibly sophisticated system. I mean come on, we don’t even do exit controls at our ports. We have pretty much no idea who is in the UK as it is.
So – the Brexiteers are demanding the impossible. It’s contradictory ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Somewhere they have to make a decision about having a border somewhere, and clearly that’s not politically acceptable between the Republic and NI.
Disingenuous doesn’t even begin to cover it. More like, trying to achieve the logically impossible without even knowing what they want to achieve.
See a blog reply
Precisely Benz0, the Brexiter position is nonsense. And Johnson knows it, as does his controller, Cummings. Johnson is well known for his mendacity, and his lust for power. The aim is to demand of the EU something he knows perfectly well they can’t and won’t give.
The aim is to try and put the blame on the EU for the forthcoming disaster of a no-deal. And there are certainly a lot of people in England at least who are stupid enough to be taken in by this.
It’s quite simple. If the UK cuts all ties to the EU which it does in a ‘crash out’ scenario, it becomes a third country to the EU like all the other non-EU countris round the world. Therefore, there will have to be border checks, NTBs, and tariffs imposed on goods and people moving between the EU and UK. This is not some EU plot, its reality.
But it will be said to be an EU plot
Indeed, that’s already happening.
sickoftaxdodgers says:
“The aim is to try and put the blame on the EU for the forthcoming disaster of a no-deal……”
Well……yes. A continuation of the ‘policy’ of blaming the EU for everything that was wrong in England that led to the call for Brexit in the first place; a huge smokescreen for Westminster ineptitude and lack of competence stretching back for decades.
“…….And there are certainly a lot of people in England at least who are stupid enough to be taken in by this”
Well…..yes. 17.1 million of them according to the referendum result (in the UK as a whole) and there is a deep reluctance to discover how many of those have truly re-considered their decision ….something we can never be sure of because they simply cannot be asked the same question again; even if calls for a second referendum were to be heeded the ground has now shifted so far and attitudes have hardened and polarised in such a way (based on an additional three years of disinformation) that the result would be no more valid than the first.
The window to revoke A50 and reconsider the whole issue rationally was lost many months ago. That was the only rational default outcome and the groundswell of public opinion (expressed as an online petition) was simply ignored. ‘No Deal’ is not, and never was a possible default result. ‘No Deal’ can be delivered in name only and will be an act of entirely disingenuous national self harm.
Benz0 says:
“I’m having a real hard time trying to understand what the objectives of the Brexiteers are with respect of Northern Ireland.”
I reckon, in part, because Brexit is a faith-based proposition. Not a rational one. So to believe six impossible and incompatible things before breakfast is part of the dogma.
[…] as result we are utterly rudderless. And they are utterly clueless. Hence this wholly appropriate comment on the blog from someone who calls himself Benzo but whose real identity I admit I […]