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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Irish protocol.
-
12-05-2021 7:26am#1The protocol will be challenged next week in the british high courts.
I am interested in what you guys believe is an appropriate way forward if it is declared illegal, as I have a haunch it will.
Is it appropriate to continue down an illegal road or will it be time for a rethink?0
Comments
-
Nitpick: In the High Court of Northern Ireland. It will likely find it's way eventually to the UK Supreme Court in London, but that's some way off.The protocol will be challenged next week in the british high courts.
Any basis for this hunch, or is it just a feeling in your waters?I am interested in what you guys believe is an appropriate way forward if it is declared illegal, as I have a haunch it will.
The legal action seeks a declaration that the NI Protocol is inconsistent with the Act of Union.Is it appropriate to continue down an illegal road or will it be time for a rethink?
That wouldn't necessarily mean it was "illegal", though. Parliament, in UK constitutional theory, is sovereign; Parliament can amend, override or repeal the Act of Union if it cares to. And Parliament has, of course, ratified the treaty of which the NI Protocol forms part, and has enacted legislation to give effect to it. I do not think the court can set that aside.
So even if the applicants get the declaration they seek, it doesn't follow that the court will declare the protocol to be "illegal". Indeed, it's not clear what relief the court can order, beyond the bare declaration.
In truth, I think the applicants are mostly interested not the legal effect if the proceedings succceed, but in the political effect. They hope that successful proceedings will increase the political pressure for the treaty to be amended, and the protocol to be replaced, with something that isn't seen to violate the Act of Union.
That would be acutely embarrassing for the British government, because of course the reason why the treaty contains the NI protocol is because they refused to ratify an earlier version of the treaty, which didn't contain the protocol and didn't violate the Act of Union. The EU were quite happy to make a treaty on those earlier terms; it was the UK that wouldn't have it, because it was an obstacle to the hard brexit that the looney wing of the Tory party insisted on.
So political pressure to renegotiate the treaty and dispense with the NI protocol so as not to violate the Act of Union translates pretty directly into political pressure on the UK government to moderate its hard brexit policy to something more consistent with the Act of Union, and then seek to renegotiate the treaty with the EU along those lines. And the present UK government will fight that tooth and nail. (I can't see the EU being thrilled either, but the question will probably not arise for them, because HMG will not ask them to renegotiate the treaty.)
It'll also embarrass the DUP. (I note that the driving force behind these proceedings is Jim Allister.) For reasons which it would probably take years of expensive psychoanalysis to uncover, the DUP strongly backed the push for hard Brexit, despite the obvious political and economic damage it would inflict on Northern Ireland and, the court may now rule, the violation of the Act of Union that it entails. The DUP are supposed to uphold the union; they will be mortified if the court rules that the policies they supported have undermined it.
So, what should happen if the court rules in favour of the applicants? What should have happened all along; the UK should pursue an implementation of Brexit which pays attention to the wishes and interests of both parts of the union. But will that happen? Most unlikely; as the Queen's speech this week shows, this is a government which doesn't like being held accountable through the courts, so they will not be disposed to accept the implications of a court ruling that their policy undermines the union. It's been clear for some years that their policy undermines both the union with Scotland and the union with Northern Ireland and that they don't give a damn about that. I wouldn't expect that to change.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Nitpick: In the High Court of Northern Ireland. It will likely find it's way eventually to the UK Supreme Court in London, but that's some way off.
Any basis for this hunch, or is it just a feeling in your waters?
The legal action seeks a declaration that the NI Protocol is inconsistent with the Act of Union.
That wouldn't necessarily mean it was "illegal", though. Parliament, in UK constitutional theory, is sovereign; Parliament can amend, override or repeal the Act of Union. And Parliament has, of course, ratified the treaty of which the NI Protocol forms part, and has enacted legislation to give effect to it.
So even if the applicants get the declaration they seek, it doesn't follow that the court will declare the protocol to be "illegal". Indeed, it's not clear what relief the court can order, beyond the bare declaration.
In truth, I think the applicants are mostly interested not the legal effect if the proceedings succceed, but in the political effect. They hope that successful proceedings will increase the political pressure for the treaty to be amended, and the protocol to be replaced, with something that isn't seen to violate the Act of Union.
That would be acutely embarrassing for the British government, because of course the reason why the treaty contains the NI protocol is because they refused to ratify an earlier version of the treaty, which didn't contain the protocol and didn't violate the Act of Union. The EU were quite happy to make a treaty on those earlier terms; it was the UK that wouldn't have it, because it was an obstacle to the hard brexit that the looney wing of the Tory party insisted on.
So political pressure to renegotiate the treaty and dispense with the NI protocol so as not to violate the Act of Union translates pretty directly into political pressure on the UK government to moderate its hard brexit policy and make it consistent with the Act of Union. And they'll fight that tooth and nail.
It'll also embarrass the DUP. (I note that the driving force behind these proceedings is Jim Allister.) For reasons which it would probably take years of expensive psychoanalysis to uncover, they strongly backed the push for hard Brexit, despite the obvious damage it would inflict on Northern Ireland and, the court may rule, the violation of the Act of Union, which they are supposed to uphold, not undermine.
So, what should happen if the court rules in favour of the applicants? What should have happened all along; the UK should pursue an implementation of Brexit which pays attention to the wishes and interests of both parts of the union. But will that happen? Most unlikely; as the Queen's speech this week shows, this is a government which doesn't like being held accountable through the courts, so they will not be disposed to accept the implications of a court ruling that their policy undermines the union. It's been clear for some years that their policy undermines both the union with Scotland and the union with Northern Ireland and that they don't really care that it does. I wouldn't expect that to change.
Not just U.K. breaching it’s articles. Eu at it as well. Here’s the reasons below that I think the courts will rule in ni unionists favour0 -
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;
- The Withdrawal Agreement Act 2018 (as amended), on which the Protocol is based, by not adhering to its requirement not to vary the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (another act of constitutional importance). The government had to vary that Act in order to give effect to the Protocol;
- The Belfast Agreement by changing the relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom without its people's consent;
- Article 50 of the Treaties for the European Union which provides for the withdrawal of a country from the EU. That Act makes no allowance for leaving part of a country behind, as has been Northern Ireland. The Act also prohibits the establishment of long term arrangements, such as the Protocol, within any withdrawal agreement;
- 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.1 -
EU is not a party to the Act of Union and is not bound by it and so can’t breach it. Plus I doubt that the legal proceedings will seek any ruling about the actions of the EU; that would give the court an excuse to throw the whole case out as being being beyond the jurisdiction of the NI courts.Not just U.K. breaching it’s articles. Eu at it as well. Here’s the reasons below that I think the courts will rule in ni unionists favour
Some of these claims are more of a reach than others, and are included, I think, for polemical effect. The Art 50 claim is going nowhere; NI has not been “left behind” in the EU. NI law continues to implement some parts of EU law but the same is true of, e.g., Norway, and nobody suggests that Norway is therefore “in” the EU. Likewise the ECHR point is a bit awkward; Brexit itself is being foisted on the people of NI not so much without any say as against their expressed wishes. I don’t think you can challenge the NI Protocol on this basis and yet argue that Brexit was just fine and dandy.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;
- The Withdrawal Agreement Act 2018 (as amended), on which the Protocol is based, by not adhering to its requirement not to vary the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (another act of constitutional importance). The government had to vary that Act in order to give effect to the Protocol;
- The Belfast Agreement by changing the relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom without its people's consent;
- Article 50 of the Treaties for the European Union which provides for the withdrawal of a country from the EU. That Act makes no allowance for leaving part of a country behind, as has been Northern Ireland. The Act also prohibits the establishment of long term arrangements, such as the Protocol, within any withdrawal agreement;
- 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.
This also goes to the argument that the Withdrawal Agreement Act violated the Belfast Agreement by changing the relationship of NI with the rest of the UK without NI consent; Brexit itself (as implemented by the Tories) changed that relationship, because Westminster acquired powers over NI which previously it had not had - those powers were exercised in Brussels. NI voted against Brexit, as you know, so if the Belfast Agreement argument is valid then it is an argument against Brexit as a whole, not just against the NI Protocol.
There is, I think, more merit in some of the other points, but they are all going to run up against the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. The Act of Union is an act of Parliament; Parliament can amend or override it. There might be some argument on the detail of regulations made by ministers - where the Withdrawal Agreement Act gives ministers a choice about how to implement the NI Protocol, then they have to choose the implementation option which is consistent with the Act of Union rather than the one that isn’t - but I think this is going to be pretty much around the margins.
You could argue that the government acted unlawfully in signing the Withdrawal Agreement in the first place, because the WA was inconsistent with the Act of Union and while Parliament can override the Act of Union the government can’t. But I think the answer to that would be that any such illegality would have been “cured” when Parliament ratified the WA, and enacted legislation to implement it.1 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Good summary by Peregrinus. You'd imagine that the UK government would be far more likely to try amend the Act of Union rather than go back and seek a softer Brexit.0 -
Advertisement
-
The will of the British people must be sovereign lol
Unionism has always wanted a veto on Ireland, now it wants a veto on the UK too1 -
The question for Unionism is, even if they win this case, what is the solution for the UK?
At the very least it puts the UK back at the drawing board with the WA in tatters.
We in the EU can but watch that and await fresh proposals and a new trade agreement.
Any comment on what might happen if it does succeed Peregrinus? Thanks for the clear and comprehensive reply BTW.0 -
Surely if these points are found to have merit they will cut both ways - changing the relationship with Ireland would be as much a breach for nationalists as the argued change of the relationship with the UK is for Unionists.- The Belfast Agreement by changing the relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom without its people's consent;
- 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.0 -
I assume they are not a concern for their elected representatives who are campaigning for a changeDeleted User wrote: »Surely if these points are found to have merit they will cut both ways - changing the relationship with Ireland would be as much a breach for nationalists as the argued change of the relationship with the UK is for Unionists.0 -
I don't know what relief the applicants are seeking. Are they just looking for a declaration by the court that the WA (inc NI Protocol) is inconsistent with the Act of Union? Or are they asking the the court to go further, and strike down various UK measures on the grounds that they are invalid because of this inconsistency? Without knowing the answer to this question we are floundering a bit.FrancieBrady wrote: »The question for Unionism is, even if they win this case, what is the solution for the UK?
At the very least it puts the UK back at the drawing board with the WA in tatters.
We in the EU can but watch that and await fresh proposals and a new trade agreement.
Any comment on what might happen if it does succeed Peregrinus? Thanks for the clear and comprehensive reply BTW.
But, regardless, I think it goes too far to say that, if the applicants win, "it puts the UK back at the drawing board with the WA in tatters". The WA is an internationally binding treaty. The UK courts can no more unilaterally set it aside than the UK government or the UK parliament can. No matter what the courts rule, the UK is bound by the WA unless and until any variation is agreed between the UK and the EU. And for the reasons already pointed out the UK won't want to seek a variation, and the EU won't want to agree to one.
So if the court rules that there is some legal problem, some mismatch between the provisions of UK law and the requirements of the treaty, then the first instinct of the present UK government will be to ignore or deny this and, if they can't do that, to remedy the problem by bringing UK law into line with the treaty. The UK can do that unilaterally, whereas they can't unilaterally bring the treaty into line with UK law. And they'll have an obvious preference for a solution that they do control over one that they don't.
So, if the UK government has to act, then I think the action they will take is to enact legislation to cure the defect. If that means introducing legislation to make an explicit amendment to the Act of Union, then so be it. There is no doubt that Parliament can amend the Act of Union - it has done so many times. And since Johnson has a thumping majority, and his control of the parliamentary party is pretty total, there is no danger of a government defeat.
Plus, the WA is supposed to be Johnson's great achievement, and he was elected in 2019 on a manifesto of implementing it. Embarrassing as it might be to accept that it has been implemented in a technically deficient fashion which now needs to be rectified, it would be far more embarrassing to perform a volte-face, rubbish his own achievement, repudiate his manifesto commitment and denounce the WA. Plus there would be real-world consequences for the UK of such a course that would go well beyond embarrassment.
I think what Johnson probably would do is try to use the development to his own advantage - go to the Joint Committee that supervises the implementation of the Protocol, suggest that this court judgment is potentially very destabilising and argue that its a reason why the EU needs to be more flexible in the operation of the protocol.0 -
Advertisement
-
Politically, yes. But, legally, the two are not on all fours. The GFA says that "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland [as part of the United Kingdom] save with the consent of a majority of its people". It doesn't say anything similar about the status of NI with respect to the Republic.Deleted User wrote: »Surely if these points are found to have merit they will cut both ways - changing the relationship with Ireland would be as much a breach for nationalists as the argued change of the relationship with the UK is for Unionists.
The main issue here is whether the relevant GFA provision means, without the consent of a majority:
(a) that no aspect of NI's constitutional position within the UK can be altered in any way whatsoever; or
(b) NI's constitutional position can't be altered in such a way that it ceases to be part of the UK; or
(c) something in between; if the change to NI's constitutional position is sufficiently significant, then it can't happen without majority consent, but lesser changes can.
If option (a) is the correct one, then Brexit itself is a violation of the GFA, since the way in which Brexit has been implement involves Westminster reclaiming for itself certain powers which were devolved.
If option (b) is correct, then neither Brexit nor the NI protocol violate the GFA, since NI is still part of the UK.
So the applicants will be hoping that the court finds that option (c) is correct. The problem here is, where to draw the line between constitutional changes that require majority consent and those that don't? There is nothing in the GFA to suggest where that line might lie, or even to hint that such a line exists. And people who rely on the GFA to object to the Protocol (but not to Brexit) tend to describe the line using very contentious, very polemical and mostly very loose language; NI has been "left behind" in the EU. They're going to have to get a lot more rigorous and realistic in their thinking if they hope to persuade the court that the GFA creates such a line between different measures that affect the relationship of NI with Westminister.0 -
Yes absolutely a hard border on the island or in the Irish Sea is a problem[Deleted User] wrote: »Surely if these points are found to have merit they will cut both ways - changing the relationship with Ireland would be as much a breach for nationalists as the argued change of the relationship with the UK is for Unionists.0 -
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »2nd one isn't a problem for us.
Seems to be for Unionism here though having resulted in wrecking their own areas a bit, and the demise of two unionist party leaders. Otherwise all seems good with it.
Who is ‘us’?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Politically, yes. But, legally, the two are not on all fours. The GFA says that "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland [as part of the United Kingdom] save with the consent of a majority of its people". It doesn't say anything similar about the status of NI with respect to the Republic.
The main issue here is whether the relevant GFA provision means, without the consent of a majorit:
(a) that no aspect of NI's constitutional position within the EU can be altered in any way whatsoever; or
(b) NI's constitutional position can't be altered in such a way that it ceases to be part of the UK; or
(c) something in between; if the change to NI's constitutional position is sufficiently significant, then it can't happen without majority consent, but lesser changes can.
If option (a) is the correct one, then Brexit itself is a violation of the GFA, since the way in which Brexit has been implement involves Westminster reclaiming for itself certain powers which were devolved.
If option (b) is correct, then neither Brexit nor the NI protocol violate the GFA, since NI is still part of the UK.
So the applicants will be hoping that the court finds that option (c) is correct. The problem here is, where to draw the line between constitutional changes that require majority consent and those that don't? There is nothing in the GFA to suggest where that line might lie, or even to hint that such a line exists. And people who rely on the GFA to object to the Protocol (but not to Brexit) tend to describe the line using very contentious, very polemical and mostly very loose language; NI has been "left behind" in the EU. They're going to have to get a lot more rigorous and realistic in their thinking if they hope to persuade the court that the GFA creates such a line between different measures that affect the relationship of NI with Westminister.
A few very helpful posts. Excellent and informative pereguins0 -
-
-
Has anybody got any 'actual' figures that show a major issue in the north with the Protocol...has it resulted in scarcity of anything or has it caused the collapse of business?
Not interested in anecdotes or 'my friend told me' stories. Actual data/factual accounts.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Has anybody got any 'actual' figures that show a major issue in the north with the Protocol...has it resulted in scarcity of anything or has it caused the collapse of business?
Not interested in anecdotes or 'my friend told me' stories. Actual data/factual accounts.
Inconvenience and diminution of sovereignty. Data is difficult on subjective issues.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Doesn't look like the UK is too bothered what Unionists think of the Protocol.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/13923896194303303690 -
Challenging this in the courts sounds good and all but what happens then should they class it as unacceptable under whatever guise.
Current brexit deal scrapped and NI in a worse situation?
All a right Farce, hanging onto a nation that cares not 1 sh1t about the North.0 -
Bit of Unionist meltdown on Nolan Live tonight.0
-
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »What happened?
Donaldson has announced that he will make power-sharing unworkable if the NI Protocol isn't resolved.
In my view Unionism is in a position where collapsing power-sharing is a greater loss for them than Nationalists.
The conversation on the future of the north will move to ending British jurisdiction.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Donaldson has announced that he will make power-sharing unworkable if the NI Protocol isn't resolved.
In my view Unionism is in a position where collapsing power-sharing is a greater loss for them than Nationalists.
The conversation on the future of the north will move to ending British jurisdiction.
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?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
It would become a constitutional debate in Westminster as to what would happen the consent, but seeing as NI is administered under executive authority of the Sec State by the Civil Service in any absence of Stormont, my opinion is that the Secretary of State would sign off on it at that time.
Jesus but official Unionism are a thick bunch.0 -
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
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement