Kites are flown and backstop rows rumble on… The supporters of a Deal are trying to elide cross border harmonisation over agriculture with support for only a slightly tweaked backstop, but the DUP are having none of it. The spinning inspired by Downing St is having one intriguing effect – to allow Boris Johnson to reduce the impression of united opposition against him and allow him to appear as the new champion of a Deal, boosted by the fact that only he can strike it. Is their nightmare becoming reality at last: the world against the DUP?
The Times claims were shot down as soon as they appeared
Boris Johnson was handed a lifeline by the Democratic Unionist Party last night when it agreed to shift its red lines in a move that could help to unlock a Brexit deal. The Times understands that, for the first time, the party has said it would accept Northern Ireland abiding by some European Union rules after Brexit in a deal to replace the Irish backstop.
The DUP has also said privately that it would drop its objection to regulatory checks in the Irish Sea, which it had called unacceptable as this would separate Northern Ireland “politically and economically” from the mainland.
Arlene Foster
UK must leave as one nation. We are keen to see a sensible deal but not one that divides the internal market of the UK. We will not support any arrangements that create a barrier to East West trade. Anonymous sources lead to nonsense stories.
The Times persists, alleging splits in the DUP
Despite Ms Foster’s insistence, party sources now say that they could accept regulatory divergence with the “consent” of Northern Irish democratic institutions. They made clear that this would not require the Northern Ireland executive and assembly, which collapsed more than two years ago, to be up and running before October 31.
“That could happen in the transition period,” they said, adding they were “positive” that a deal could be done. The agreement could find favour in Brussels as the EU is most concerned about Northern Ireland becoming a back door into its single market for non-compliant goods if the UK signed trade deals with countries such as the US.
Well quite.
The so-called Stormont lock is more of problem that this run of stories allows . Dublin and the EU reject the idea of the Assembly having a veto on something as fundamental as the operation of EU single market; and would the Assembly parties even if sitting, be likely to agree anyway? The DUP might welcome some divergence proposed by the UK; Sinn Fein would more likely oppose it on principle and in solidarity with Dublin. A role to regulate SPS standards is a different matter but these comprise only 30% of cross border issues.
It is perhaps surprising that the UK has not sharply questioned the championing of the peace process by Dublin and the EU, when the lion’s share of responsibility rests with the British government. They haven’t bothered to answer Dublin’s most serious charge that a No Deal would threaten the peace process. The issue is nuanced. The turmoil over Brexit adds propaganda value to dissident republican activity but it is not its inspiration. The threat of disorder around the border spreading to greater violence is in different category although they could of course connect. The May and Johnson governments have largely left public comments on the security threat to the police, including raising the spectre of police from GB reinforcing the PSNI. This is only conceivable if at all to fill in for routine police work if PSNI resources have to be diverted to crowd control or more serious violence. Recent police comments are really about lobbying for the PSNI’s share of 20,000 extra police promised by Boris Johnson This is a distinct agenda.
UK reticence towards fears of a major threat to peace is probably based in the judgement that the threat of violence on or near the border is limited and containable. The border itself would remain open. To attack Irish checks near the border would be a major new departure and would only harm any republican cause. Checks on the British side would be well away from the border and would not offer easy targets. In other words the security assessment of threat to the peace process although never to be dismissed, is probably that it is limited and containable. But nobody likes to say so for fear of tempting fate.
Former BBC journalist and manager in Belfast, Manchester and London, Editor Spolight; Political Editor BBC NI; Current Affairs Commissioning editor BBC Radio 4; Editor Political and Parliamentary Programmes, BBC Westminster; former London Editor Belfast Telegraph. Hon Senior Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, Univ Coll. London
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
