News

ANALYSIS: Monday's events should focus minds

Arlene Foster spells out DUP opposition to all-Ireland regulatory convergence. Picture by David Young/PA Wire
Arlene Foster spells out DUP opposition to all-Ireland regulatory convergence. Picture by David Young/PA Wire Arlene Foster spells out DUP opposition to all-Ireland regulatory convergence. Picture by David Young/PA Wire

IT may be years before we find out exactly what happened on Monday and whether the two governments and EU were really so naive as to believe the DUP would easily acquiesce to standalone north-south regulatory convergence – or what they like to cast as a 'slippery slope' towards a united Ireland.

Given the power currently wielded by the DUP at Westminster, dissatisfaction with the imposition of a deal would have manifested itself much more effectively than the sporadic street protests witnessed five years ago after Belfast City Council's flags decision, so for that reason the Brexit negotiations have returned to the drawing board.

Where the blame lies for Monday's mess depends on who you talk to.

Some point to the Whitehall civil servants leading the negotiations and an overly ambitious effort to bounce everybody into a deal before having all their ducks in a row.

There's also a theory that Leo Varadkar's officials broke cover too early and spooked the DUP in the process.

The reaction in Wales and Scotland may have also cast doubts among the Tories.

To point the finger at RTÉ Europe editor Tony Connelly, as some have done, appears a diversionary tactic where the messenger, rather than the message, is singled out.

There's no shortage of theories about how Monday's events evolved but it could be argued that little about the outlook for agreement has actually changed – merely that the protagonists in London, Brussels and Dublin got a timely reminder of how difficult and dogged the DUP can be when circumstances dictate.

Unionists have been adamant all along that they would not accept any solution that puts barriers between Northern Ireland and Britain, which they argue is what the EU text implied.

This week's events may even add merit to the argument that you can't solve the border until you sort out the post-Brexit trade arrangements.

If anything, the fall-out from Monday will focus minds not just on what happens in Ireland but in Britain also, where the mandate for Brexit was a comparatively slim 51.9 per cent and did not include explicit backing for leaving the single market or EU customs union.

Speaking to The Irish News last week, Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney spoke of a potential solution that enabled the UK to trade within a "redesigned" single market.

While there would many obstacles to overcome with the EU, such an agreement may even be localised, involving just Britain and Ireland.

Yesterday, David Davis suggested the whole of the UK could align its regulations in certain areas with the EU following Brexit.

The attractiveness of such a 'customs union partnership' scenario is that it would allow cross-border trade, while not imposing barriers in the Irish Sea.

There have been many calls for innovative solutions in recent months but essentially what's required is practical answers that can be sold, in part at least, to all constituencies.

The lesson from Monday is that the way to garner compromise is through persuasion rather than ambush.