Opinion

Newton Emerson: We are seeing the rise of a uniquely Irish Brexit phenomenon

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson writes a twice-weekly column for The Irish News and is a regular commentator on current affairs on radio and television.

Picture: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Wire.
Picture: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Wire. Picture: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Wire.

EVER since Nick Clegg coined the term ‘Brenial’ there has been agreement across the political spectrum. Please God, no more Brexit neologisms.

Unfortunately, a new word is required for one uniquely Irish Brexit phenomenon - the person who pretends to be a remainer but is secretly delighted at the prospect of chaos. Even more unfortunately, that word has to be ‘Bretender’.

You can spot a Bretender by their outrage at any suggestion that Brexit’s problems in Ireland can be solved.

Electronic customs checks? A unionist fantasy, apparently, despite being an Irish government proposal scoped out by Dublin’s Revenue Commissioners.

Joint British and Irish immigrations controls? An affront to Irish sovereignty, although this is how the common travel area has developed over almost a century.

Bretending is a mainly republican vice, for obvious reasons. The United Kingdom’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.

Something rather different is going on in Northern Ireland’s rights sector, as represented by its 160-strong umbrella body the Human Rights Consortium (HRC).

HRC brought and part-funded one of the two judicial reviews against Brexit at Belfast High Court two weeks ago, which were considered together and rejected on all grounds.

HRC had asked the court to find if triggering Article 50 to leave the EU should require the consent of both Westminster and Stormont, in order to uphold the Good Friday Agreement.

The second case, brought by victims campaigner Raymond McCord, had further asked if Brexit would breach the Good Friday Agreement.

The dismissal of all these concerns by Mr Justice Paul Maguire means that, in legal terms at least, leaving the EU need not threaten the agreement or the peace process.

I could say the applicants in both cases should be delighted to have their fears allayed, although that would be Bretence on my part. HRC and McCord were never going to emerge from court and say words to the effect of: “Phew! We were completely wrong about Brexit, so let’s make a Titanic success of it.”

However, there might have been some pause for thought at having every point of their argument thrown out. Instead, HRC wants its case considered by the UK Supreme Court. It is currently crowd-sourcing towards the estimated £100,000 cost of this under the slogan “Protect Northern Ireland’s peace process and human rights from Brexit.”

An accompanying statement adds that HRC’s Belfast case brought “very strong Northern Ireland based legal arguments” - despite the judge finding every one of them to be groundless.

Last week, a separate judicial review in London’s High Court found Westminster must give consent for Article 50. This did not vindicate HRC because the London ruling did not consider the Good Friday Agreement, whereas the Belfast case was premised on Article 50 undermining it.

That may explain HRC’s tangential response. In a series of tweets, it said: “NI court got it wrong”; “triggering Article 50 has a direct effect on our rights, NI issues must be central”; and it also quoted the London judgment: “the effect of giving notice under Article 50 on relevant rights is direct.”

However, the London and Belfast rulings were about entirely different sets of rights. In Belfast, the court was asked to consider the European Convention on Human Rights as enacted via the Northern Ireland Act 1998 under the Good Friday Agreement.

In London, the court was asked to consider general rights arising from EU regulations and directives - workplace protections, for example - as enacted via the European Communities Act 1972, which brought the UK into Europe. This has nothing to do with Northern Ireland’s peace process, agreement or associated rights.

The rights sector is not Bretending on Brexit - its objection to leaving the EU is undoubtedly sincere. Nor do I believe its motivations are republican, although it is odd that HRC only asked non-unionist political leaders to join its judicial review, despite Mike Nesbitt’s Remain stance.

However, its concerns may be not so much the sanctity of the agreement as simple distaste at Brexiteer politics. On the morning after the referendum vote, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, an HRC member and co-funder of the Belfast case, blamed Leave’s victory on: “nationalist sentiment, xenophobia and thinly veiled racism.”

While all those things may be wrong, it is also wrong to portray them as legal breaches of the agreement - and with so many Bretenders hoping for disaster, it is a dangerous line to take.

For the sake of the peace process, the rights sector needs to show some Brestraint.

newton@irishnews.com