Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Irish protocol.
Options
Comments
-
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn’t say how Northern Ireland is to consent to the continuation of the protocol arrangements — it just says that the UK "shall seek democratic consent in Northern Ireland in a manner consistent with the 1998 Agreement". Beyond that, the details of the consent mechanism are for the UK to decide.Do we know what would happen to the consent mechanism if Stormont collapses? Do they just skip the vote or hold it in the commons or what?
The UK government set out a process for the consent mechanism in a unilateral declaration, which has been supplemented by ministerial regulations. It's the unilateral declaration and the regulations which provide for a simple majority vote in the Assembly.
Under the declaration/regulations made by the UK, if the assembly is not functioning when the time for consent comes - i.e. the state of affairs that prevailed between January 2017 and January 2020 - any elected member of the assembly can put down a motion to consent to the protocol and require the presiding officer to summon the assembly to debate and vote on that motion. The motion will pass if supported by a simple majority of the assembly members who turn up and vote, so those opposed to the protocol can't prevent consent being given by boycotting the sitting; only by turning up to the sitting and winning the vote.
The declaration/regulations do not say what will happen if, when consent time comes, direct rule has been reimposed and the assembly has been dissolved. It will be up to the UK to make some arrangement by which NI can consent, or refuse to consent, to the continuation of the protocol; we don't know what that arrangement will be; just that it has to be consistent with the GFA. But note that the Withdrawal Agreement says that the NI Protocol ceases to apply if consent is sought, a decision is reached, and the decision is not to consent. So if the UK fails or is unable to put in place a consent mechanism, or if one side or other in NI successfully sabotages the mechanism so that it doesn't operate, the NI Protocol continues to apply. The only way to stop it applying is to have a consent mechanism, operate the consent mechanism, and arrive at a decision under the mechanism not to consent to continued application.0 -
They got to vote in the UK elections didn't they? Isn't the UK electorate allowed to decide for itself what it wants?- The European Convention of Human Rights by the manner in which the people of Northern Ireland have had a new arrangement foisted on them without any say.
And if that isn't sufficient "say", then doesn't that mean that Brexit itself "foisted ok NI against the wishes of the people there" an even bigger travesty?
Isn't this really just a UK/DUP ruse to put "facts on the ground" (brexit) and blame others for the consequences?0 -
Yes absolutely a hard border on the island or in the Irish Sea is a problem
Get it into your head mate - the leadership of Unionism threw in its lot with a faction of the Conservatives that doesn’t give a f*ck about ye. Implementing Brexit (you know, the thing that ye supported) at all costs was of far greater importance than Unionists’ parity within the UK. You all got sold down the river and it was the DUP who did most of the paddling.
Johnson’s priority now is ploughing on with the status quo. You’re less than 2% of the UK population. Nobody in Britain cares about or even thinks about Irish Unionists. Sorry.2 -
Get it into your head mate - the leadership of Unionism threw in its lot with a faction of the Conservatives that doesn’t give a f*ck about ye. Implementing Brexit (you know, the thing that ye supported) at all costs was of far greater importance than Unionists’ parity within the UK. You all got sold down the river and it was the DUP who did most of the paddling.
Johnson’s priority now is ploughing on with the status quo. You’re less than 2% of the UK population. Nobody in Britain cares about or even thinks about Irish Unionists. Sorry.
The harsh truth on it.
The only thing sadder is this attempt to rewrite recent history and blame others for their utter ineptitude0 -
OK, so I’ve done a bit of digging. I found the fundraiser page for this legal action that was set up by Ben Habib, briefly a Brexit Party MEP and one of the applicants in these proceedings.
(On an aside: fundraising is not going so well. They’ve had to extend the appeal period, and even with that they’ve only raised just over half of the £150k that they are looking for.)
In explaining the legal action, the page includes a fair number of highly polemical statements and some pretty broad-brush legal claims. (“The Protocol breaches the Act of Union 1800, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Belfast Agreement and indeed the Article 50 process laid out in the treaties for the European Union . . . powerful symbol of Northern Ireland’s resulting severance from Great Britain . . . foisted on Northern Ireland by the EU and the British Government . . . time to take decisive action etc. etc.”) Fair enough; that’s par for the course. They are fundraising, after all, and they need to ginger up the target market.
Still, you can pick through all that and look for some of the more concrete stuff to find out what the action is all about, legally speaking. They don’t like the Protocol, obviously, and they are appealing to others who feel the same, but that’s not much of a basis for a legal challenge. So what is the basis?
First clue is in the very first paragraph: Boris Johnson “has unlawfully implemented the Northern Ireland Protocol”. They are not claiming that the protocol itself is unlawful; just that manner in which the British government has chosen to implement it is.
Do they give any detail of this unlawfulness? They do:
“On 9th December 2020, The Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, unlawfully varied the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and undermined the Belfast Agreement by replacing its consent provisions with the consent mechanisms set out in the Protocol.”
What was it that happened on 9 December? That is the date that Brandon Lewis made the regulations that I linked to in my earlier post, amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to set out the consent mechanism that the NI Protocol calls for. (The fundraising page says that he replaced the existing consent provisions, but that’s not correct. The original consent provisions are still there, and they still apply to all the decisions that they used to apply to. What the 9 December regulations do is add a new mechanism for giving - or withholding - consent to the NI Protocol, which isn’t a decision that the NI Assembly would ever have been required or entitled to make under the 1998 Act or under the Belfast Agreement.)
The fundraising page does also say - more than once - that the Protocol as a whole must be removed and replaced, but that seems to be a political imperative for them, not a legal claim that they are asking the court to rule on.
So it seems their strategy is to ask the court to rule that the regulations adopting the consent mechanism are legally invalid, on the grounds - a degree of guesswork on my part here - that Lewis had no power to amend the NI Act 1998, or at any rate that he had no power to amend it in this particular way, by adding this particular consent mechanism.
As pointed out in my earlier post, should they succeed in this, the (legal) result is not that the Protocol is removed and replaced, or anything of the kind. Legally, it would continue to apply and, in the absence of any valid consent mechanism, it would apply indefinitely. The fundraising page is tactfully silent on the question of how they hope to get from successfully attacking the consent mechanism to getting the Protocol removed and replaced.
I think - more guesswork - they could be thinking of two possible avenues:
One: If the current consent mechanism is invalidated by the courts, the UK is under an obligation - ironically, set out in the hated Protocol itself - to introduce a valid one. Their hope may be that the UK will make regulations applying the existing “petition of concern” mechanism to this question, and they reckon they can block consent with this mechanism.
Not a very realistic hope, to be honest, and even if it comes to pass they’d still be stuck with the protocol until 2024, which is very much not what they want. So they may be placing more hope in . . .
Two: A court order invalidating even part of the implementation of the Protocol will bring renewed political pressure to bear on the UK government. They’ll have to do something, and the something that they will do will be limited by the fact that they can no longer get away with bare-faced lies about the protocol not obstructing GB:NI trade, etc, etc. The pressure will force the UK either to repudiate the Protocol and suffer the consequences or, more realistically, to try to renegotiate the Protocol with the EU into something that creates less of an NI:GB barrier.
This, too, is not a massively strong hope. Johnson got away with telling barefaced lies the first time around, and it was widely pointed out at the time that they were barefaced lies. Anybody who cared about this issue then was wholly aware of what Johnson was doing and what the consequences for NI would be. And, as Johnson’s superpower has always been telling barefaced lies and being forgiven for it, there is no reason to think that that strategy will fail him now. If the court action forces Johnson to do something, Johnson will do something, and claim that the something he has done has solved the problem, a claim which will be accepted by everybody who matters (matters to Johnson, that is). And indeed it will have solved the problem, if you think the problem is Johnson’s political embarrassment. But it will certainly not have solved the problem, if you think the problem is the NI Protocol. Johnson will not approach the EU to renegotiate the NI Protocol because it's a racing certainty that the EU would (a) refuse, and (b) point out to Johnson that if he needs or wants to reduce NI:GB barriers there are lots of things the UK can do to bring that about without amending or replacing the Protocol.0 -
Advertisement
-
Get it into your head mate - the leadership of Unionism threw in its lot with a faction of the Conservatives that doesn’t give a f*ck about ye. Implementing Brexit (you know, the thing that ye supported) at all costs was of far greater importance than Unionists’ parity within the UK. You all got sold down the river and it was the DUP who did most of the paddling.
Johnson’s priority now is ploughing on with the status quo. You’re less than 2% of the UK population. Nobody in Britain cares about or even thinks about Irish Unionists. Sorry.
The more the DUP and hardcore Unionists rail against the NIP, the more isolated they become. Sideshow Bob didn't walk into as many rakes as the DUP have done with Brexit. The DUP originally saw a hard Brexit as a way to put distance between the North and the South, but this has backfired spectacularly. The people leading NI Unionism have some serious blinkers on, not just politically but socially as well. Where are the social progressives to take the reins of the DUP and get the place to the same level of modernity as elsewhere in these islands? No, instead we're looking at people like Edwin Poots who is a young earth creationist. Not to say Poots isn't entitled to his beliefs, but I'd be mighty surprised if his view on things was in line with wider society in NI or even ordinary Unionists.0 -
Surveys of DUP supporters suggest that Poots and his ilk are very much out of line with the views of younger DUP voters, not only with things like creationism but with their generally socially conservative stance (on abortion, etc). But they remain DUP voters because their vote is not determined by social issues, but by other issues on which their views and Poots are more aligned.The more the DUP and hardcore Unionists rail against the NIP, the more isolated they become. Sideshow Bob didn't walk into as many rakes as the DUP have done with Brexit. The DUP originally saw a hard Brexit as a way to put distance between the North and the South, but this has backfired spectacularly. The people leading NI Unionism have some serious blinkers on, not just politically but socially as well. Where are the social progressives to take the reins of the DUP and get the place to the same level of modernity as elsewhere in these islands? No, instead we're looking at people like Edwin Poots who is a young earth creationist. Not to say Poots isn't entitled to his beliefs, but I'd be mighty surprised if his view on things was in line with wider society in NI or even ordinary Unionists.
Older DUP voters are more likely to share socially conservative views. But they, too, say that this is not the main issue for them, and not the reason why they vote DUP.
The bottom line is that, electorally speaking, the DUP leadership could stand to be more socially progressive. They probably would not lose many socially conservative voters - there aren't that many of them and, besides, where would they go? - and they might win some unionists for whom social issues are a dealbreaker and who currently vote UUP or Alliance.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Surveys of DUP supporters suggest that Poots and his ilk are very much out of line with the views of younger DUP voters, not only with things like creationism but with their generally socially conservative stance (on abortion, etc). But they remain DUP voters because their vote is not determined by social issues, but by other issues on which their views and Poots are more aligned.
Older DUP voters are more likely to share socially conservative views. But they, too, say that this is not the main issue for them, and not the reason why they vote DUP.
The bottom line is that, electorally speaking, the DUP leadership could stand to be more socially progressive. They probably would not lose many socially conservative voters - there aren't that many of them and, besides, where would they go? - and they might win some unionists for whom social issues are a dealbreaker and who currently vote UUP or Alliance.
Yeah, surely Unionists parties could muster up a clutch of younger politicians who are both a bit more socially progressive and pro-union. If there are Unionist voters who can be both of those things, then those things are not mutually exclusive, and the DUP has no excuse not to have more dynamic politicians at the helm, except that they seem to be held to ransom by an out of touch minority within Unionism.0 -
Yeah, surely Unionists parties could muster up a clutch of younger politicians who are both a bit more socially progressive and pro-union. If there are Unionist voters who can be both of those things, then those things are not mutually exclusive, and the DUP has no excuse not to have more dynamic politicians at the helm, except that they seem to be held to ransom by an out of touch minority within Unionism.
Didn't they dump Arlene because she was too Liberal for them?
She was pro union, but to think no voting to keep praying the gay away was the final straw says a lot.0 -
In agreeing and implementing the Protocol the following has breached:
- Article 6 of the Act of Union 1800 (an act of constitutional importance) by treating Northern Ireland and its people differently to the rest of the United Kingdom;
Northern Ireland, as in the territory it comprises, technically has not remained part of the UK continuously since 1800. It left the Union and rejoined it in 1922 after being part of the Irish Free State for about a day.
Just saying0 -
Advertisement
-
FileNotFound wrote: »Didn't they dump Arlene because she was too Liberal for them?
I'd say being at the helm for the implementation of the NI protocol had something to do with it.0 -
Kind of funny that the DUP are only realising now their beloved Tories don't give a toss about them.
Will probably take a lot longer for the thickos on the Shankill to cop it though.0 -
Unionism is stifling the north's potential to benefit from its unique position.
https://twitter.com/MorpheusNI/status/1395297150901293062?s=20
A NEW 12,000-word document setting out Economy Minister Diane Dodds’ vision for the next decade has been criticized for omitting any reference to the Irish protocol or the all-island economy
___________________________________________________________________
SDLP MLA Sinead McLaughlin recently asked DUP economy minister Diane Dodds whether Stormont’s tourism recovery steering group intended to bring forward a plan and programme to connect the Causeway coast and Wild Atlantic Way in terms of joint promotion, other joint marketing and route signage.
In her reply, Dodds queried the economic rationale of doing so while raising concerns about whether the North’s brand might be diluted under such a joint initiative.
_____________________________________________________________________
At this point we should start considering the costs of not having a United Ireland.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Unionism is stifling the north's potential to benefit from its unique position.
https://twitter.com/MorpheusNI/status/1395297150901293062?s=20
A NEW 12,000-word document setting out Economy Minister Diane Dodds’ vision for the next decade has been criticized for omitting any reference to the Irish protocol or the all-island economy
___________________________________________________________________
SDLP MLA Sinead McLaughlin recently asked DUP economy minister Diane Dodds whether Stormont’s tourism recovery steering group intended to bring forward a plan and programme to connect the Causeway coast and Wild Atlantic Way in terms of joint promotion, other joint marketing and route signage.
In her reply, Dodds queried the economic rationale of doing so while raising concerns about whether the North’s brand might be diluted under such a joint initiative.
_____________________________________________________________________
At this point we should start considering the costs of not having a United Ireland.
You are being shortsighted Tom. Once we get the checks on the Irish Sea minimised and clarity in everyone's minds where the international border is, then we can certainly take advantage of our unique position. This puts any chance of Irish unity off for generations0 -
You are being shortsighted Tom. Once we get the checks on the Irish Sea minimised and clarity in everyone's minds where the international border is, then we can certainly take advantage of our unique position. This puts any chance of Irish unity off for generations
Totally separate from the UI question and something that I have found odd since Brexit WA.
When i first heard the half in UK, half in EU (Sorry for my ignorant description) position NI could be in, I really thought they could be on a winner.
Potential for the likes of Pharma to be able to supply both markets without the potential hassle of customs etc. Tech to live in the grey zone etc.
Maybe I was utterly naive, but it does seem that what could have been opportunity is being missed entirely at the moment. Havent read the Dodds bit so cannot comment there. Just speaking generalities.0 -
You are being shortsighted Tom. Once we get the checks on the Irish Sea minimised and clarity in everyone's minds where the international border is, then we can certainly take advantage of our unique position. This puts any chance of Irish unity off for generations
You demonstrate perfectly why Unionism is beyond redemption. The DUP has been instrumental in shepherding us all into this position and instead of being apologetic, and conciliatory, Unionism becomes even more belligerent.
The ground is shifting under your feet. Unionists, now an ever-diminishing minority, have been worked into a position where they need Stormont more than Nationalists.
Nationalists have SF/SDLP in the north, Dublin in the south, Brussels on the continent, and Washington across the pond. Unionists can't even trust Whitehall.
Checkmate.1 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »You demonstrate perfectly why Unionism is beyond redemption. The DUP has been instrumental in shepherding us all into this position and instead of being apologetic, and conciliatory, Unionism becomes even more belligerent.
The ground is shifting under your feet. Unionists, now an ever-diminishing minority, have been worked into a position where they need Stormont more than Nationalists.
Nationalists have SF/SDLP in the north, Dublin in the south, Brussels on the continent, and Washington across the pond. Unionists can't even trust Whitehall.
Checkmate.
Unless the two new leaders can pull off a miracle I think they are gonna get a spanking at the next election.
I think decent Unionists have had enough of the 'union' at all costs nonsense and I don't think their shenanigans will be excused.
If they are excused then I think the rot in unionism will continue unchecked.0 -
Did anyone see this? A 19 year old loyalist trying to tell us that loyalism shouldnt take violence off the table if they dont get their way on the NIP, I couldnt believe my ears
https://twitter.com/AndrewEQuinn/status/13949471490839429140 -
The British Ambassador has written to the Irish Times to further the British view of reality...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/british-government-and-the-ni-protocol-1.4570703?mode=ampBritish government and the NI protocol
Sir, – Your editorial describes the British government’s approach to the Northern Ireland protocol as “reckless” (“The Irish Times view on the row over the Northern Ireland protocol: A bout of reckless sabre-rattling”, May 20th).
What would be truly reckless would be to ignore the growing levels of concern in Northern Ireland about the operation of the protocol and the possible consequences for political stability in Northern Ireland and thus the Belfast Agreement itself.
As I wrote in these pages on March 5th, the protocol is not an end in itself: its objective is to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its dimensions. This includes preserving Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK, ensuring stability of the powersharing institutions in Northern Ireland, and preventing a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The protocol is thus a unique solution to uniquely complex challenges.
It is unsurprising that giving effect to it, with limited time to prepare and in the midst of a pandemic, has been challenging, notwithstanding extensive work by the UK and the Northern Ireland Executive and huge efforts by businesses to meet the requirements.
It is also clear that its operation is having a substantial impact on both business and consumers in Northern Ireland. The UK and the EU agreed that the protocol should have as little impact on everyday lives in Northern Ireland as possible. Sadly, this is not currently proving the case.
There are also political challenges. The European Commission’s invocation of Article 16 in late January, however quickly withdrawn, damaged cross-community confidence in the protocol. The British government’s objective remains to ensure stability and post-Covid recovery in Northern Ireland at this sensitive time politically. This is crucial to maintaining strong support for the Belfast Agreement. As we have repeatedly said, we want to find pragmatic solutions to the challenges of implementation, through constructive discussions with the European Commission. These have been taking place in the last few weeks and will continue. The UK has engaged fully in that process, submitting options and ideas that would help to address some of the serious issues with how the protocol is operating. This is not the place for a running commentary on the discussions. We want to find “workable solutions on the ground”, as the UK and EU agreed earlier in the year.
Ultimately, we will always do what is required to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its dimensions, and thus the stability of Northern Ireland itself. – Yours, etc,
PAUL JOHNSTON,
British Ambassador to Ireland,
British Embassy,
Dublin 40 -
You are being shortsighted Tom. Once we get the checks on the Irish Sea minimised and clarity in everyone's minds where the international border is, then we can certainly take advantage of our unique position. This puts any chance of Irish unity off for generations
Why is the part in bold important?0 -
Advertisement
-
The ambassador's got a job to do, I suppose, and he has to do it as best he can. But it's a bit rich for anyone talking about political challenges to mention the EU's 4-hour invocation of Article 16 in January, but ignore HMG's week-long stated intention deliberately to violate the NIP, sustained from October to December last year, and now being renewed in briefings to the press. The failure to mention this is such a glaringly self-serving omission as to substantially reverse the effect that the ambassador (presumably) hoped to make by mentioning at political challenges of this nature. He'd have done better not to mention them at all than to mention them while ignoring the most obvious and outstanding example.
And the UK government's concern about the operation of the Protocol and possible consequences for political stability in NI, and its commitment to ensuring stability and post-Covid recovery in NI, would be easier to take seriously if the UK were not ruling out, for purely ideological grounds, obvious and beneficial steps which it could take immediately to alleviate the adverse impact of the Protocol on NI. It was after the UK had negotiated, signed and ratified the Protocol that it adopted its policy of rejecting on principle any alignment with the EU, and of favouring divergence for its own sake. If they couldn't see then how this would exacerbate the impact of the Protocol they can certainly see it now. At the very least, the ambassador's letter would benefit from a statement of why, despite its professed concern for NI, the UK is not willing to moderate policies like this in ways which that concern suggests that they need to.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
The entire British approach to this seems to consist of complaining about self-inflicted pain.0 -
irelandrover wrote: »Why is the part in bold important?
We have to get away from any notion or reality of a border within the UK. No matter what measure we put on it, the border is quite clearly between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.0 -
What is your realistic alternative?We have to get away from any notion or reality of a border within the UK. No matter what measure we put on it, the border is quite clearly between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
And no there won't be a border on the island nor will Ireland leave the CU or SM
Pretending that a border can go on the island is simply a desire to turn your back on the peace that the majority North and South want0 -
We have to get away from any notion or reality of a border within the UK. No matter what measure we put on it, the border is quite clearly between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
This just seems crazy. Surely if there isn't a clear border then it helps trade and tourism.
Ireland is a more attractive tourist location. Having a clear border prevents people crossing over and prevents tourism to the north.0 -
Northern Ireland is in a unique position where it can trade freely with both GB and the EU.irelandrover wrote: »This just seems crazy. Surely if there isn't a clear border then it helps trade and tourism.
Ireland is a more attractive tourist location. Having a clear border prevents people crossing over and prevents tourism to the north.
However, some unionist politicians such as those in the DUP feel that some distorted view of loyalty to GB is more important that the welfare of their constituents. They would prefer if a border went up as that would distance them from the source of all evil, Dublin. They don't care if that results in unemployment, the decimation of agriculture and tourism or even in a rise in terrorism and deaths. Bigotry wins over common sense :rolleyes:0 -
Seth Brundle wrote: »What is your realistic alternative?
And no there won't be a border on the island nor will Ireland leave the CU or SM
Pretending that a border can go on the island is simply a desire to turn your back on the peace that the majority North and South want
You are missing my point (and ironically making my point)
There is an international border on the island of Ireland. Do you really not realise that?0 -
We have to get away from any notion or reality of a border within the UK. No matter what measure we put on it, the border is quite clearly between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Just be honest and admit that Unionism wants its precious hard border back because it hates that nationalists live as if it wasn't there at all.
This is why we need to end British jurisdiction in Ireland, Unionists will always seek to stop the osmotic movement of people and business in Ireland, as they see the north as their little colony.0 -
You are missing my point (and ironically making my point)
There is an international border on the island of Ireland. Do you really not realise that?
It's still there.
The border with the UK for us in the EU is in the Irish Sea. You may have missed the UK agree to leave NI in the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.0 -
Advertisement
-
Did anyone see this? A 19 year old loyalist trying to tell us that loyalism shouldnt take violence off the table if they dont get their way on the NIP, I couldnt believe my ears
https://twitter.com/AndrewEQuinn/status/1394947149083942914
Yeah I saw it. Its standard Loyalist tactics that. They're on their way out. Soon they'll have no influence.0
Advertisement