THE BRITISH government’s disownment of the Withdrawal Agreement is so blatant and unashamed that it’s difficult to draw an analogy that adequately coveys the level of duplicity and mendaciousness.
Boris Johnson and Lord Frost, the UK’s key protagonists in the negotiations under which the protocol was agreed, now behave as if they inherited a mess of somebody else’s making. Earlier this week in his speech in Portugal, the man whose official title was 'chief negotiator for exiting the European Union' blamed his own government’s predicament and Brussels' pernicious motivations for Britain being effectively trapped in a deal they never wanted but were nonetheless happy to sign up to.
We should arguably take Dominic Cummings’s vengeful interventions with a pinch of salt yet his assertion that the withdrawal negotiations weren’t conducted in good faith and “cheating foreigners is a core part of the job” has more than a ring of truth.
It is understating things somewhat to suggest these antics undermine trust, but in British politics, as across the world, gaslighting and reneging on commitments increasingly appear to be the norm.
Even the very nature of the apparent problems with the protocol are difficult to nail down – is it about consent, disrupted supply chains, or does it relate to the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) oversight? The ever-moving goalposts and rewriting of the rules appear deliberately designed to cloud the argument and obscure the landing zone.
It is into this atmosphere of suspicion and artifice that the European Commission has presented its response to July’s British government command paper. Maros Sefcovic argues that what the commission has tabled is "very far-reaching”, and it certainly goes well beyond what we would’ve expected previously from the bloc, which for a long time was adamant there could be no renegotiation or dilution of the post-Brexit trade arrangements.
Brussels proposes a unique deal around agrifood products that will significantly reduce the number of checks on goods arriving at the north’s ports from Britain, while there’s also moves to ensure the supply of medicines flows easier, coupled with arrangements that’ll help avert the banning of British sausages and other chilled meats. Perhaps most surprising is that the commission will give consideration to changes in oversight of the protocol, though it appears unlikely to relinquish the role of the ECJ as the ultimate adjudicator.
The proposals are being pitched by Mr Sefcovic and his allies not as concession to the British government but as measures that are of benefit to Northern Ireland, practically and politically, with many based on recommendations from the region’s businesses.
So it appears the European Commission is in problem-solving mode, and while ostensibly the British government has signalled that it wants a resolution, its past record always leaves questions about its sincerity. The Tories also know confrontation with the EU plays well to its base and helps distract the British public from the self-harm precipitated by Brexit,
Then there is unionism, whose leaders appear happy to share a platform at the Tory conference or present a video for Ulster Day disparaging the protocol, but have very different ideas on the way forward. The Ulster Unionists yesterday said they would consider what Brussels had proposed, while Jim Allister won’t be happy until the entire arrangements are dismantled. The DUP was conspicuously quiet for most of yesterday, which suggested it would give a measured response that enables the party to at least buy time rather than pressing the nuclear button and forcing what could easily turn out to be a disastrous election.
If it’s accepted that some form of protocol is necessary then the template for a resolution appears to exist. It now depends on how much pragmatism and flexibility will be shown by the key players.