When is a border not a border? When clever word play helps build bridges on Brexit
THE relative silence coming from Brussels and Westminster tells a tale. Clearly, the two negotiation teams are getting closer and closer.
There seems to be an acceptance by the EU negotiators that they can wear a proposal from Theresa May for a UK-wide backstop, rather than one merely confined to Northern Ireland.
There is some uneasiness in Brussels regarding this, in that it is felt that it could be used by the British to retain the benefits of EU membership while, at the same time, allowing them to do separate free-trade deals, with the rest of the world.
Indeed, Taoiseach Varadkar articulated his fears in this regard, when he stated that ‘you couldn’t have a situation where the UK had access to the single market, which is our market, and, at the same time, was able to undercut us in terms of standards, whether it was environmental standards, labour laws, State aid, and competition’. The EU negotiators are insistent that any such concession would not form part of the overall deal, but would have to be negotiated between the EU and the UK in a separate deal. In effect, this would mean that the ‘Irish backstop’ would still be part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
To readers, this may seem to be a rather nonsensical academic exercise. And yet, from a practical point of view, if the UK-wide backstop is accepted, it will dictate how goods are dealt with as they are transported to and from the mainland of Europe to the UK, and through the UK to the North and the South of Ireland.
The so-called ‘Irish backstop’, which was heralded as being bullet-proof, may well prove to be a rather hollow and ineffectual concept. It was always accepted, in reality, that we would never get to a situation where the North of Ireland would be annexed from the UK in regard to EU matters. But, a UK-wide backstop will merely ‘kick the can down the road’ in that, after any transitional period involving such an arrangement, a full UK exit from the EU will still have to be negotiated.
AS always, in the EU, the words and language used are all-important. Years ago, when I was Minister for Marine, I fought against the European Commission, and the rest of the member states to try to retain the ‘Irish Box’, which was a long-standing agreement whereby Irish fishermen had exclusive rights over a large area of the waters surrounding our island.
The deadline whereby the Irish Box ceased was due to occur during my time as minister. I had many tortuous meetings with the then EU Commissioner for Fisheries, Franz Fischler, pleading with him and his officials to allow this to continue.
Many other member states, but particularly the Spanish, wished to gain equal fishing opportunities, right up to our shores. I kept insisting that, from a political point of view, I had to have an ‘Irish Box’, no matter what size it was. I said to him that I had to be able to tell the Irish people that we succeeded in retaining exclusive control over most of the waters around our shores, despite EU rules regarding free movement. Eventually, Fischler agreed to a smaller area surrounding Ireland. He said he was able to justify this, based on marine scientific research available to him, which showed that juvenile stocks there had to be protected.
It was agreed that this new smaller area would be known, at EU level, as a specially designated ‘sensitive area’ for juvenile stocks surrounding Ireland. He insisted that, in Brussels, I could not refer to this area as ‘the Irish Box’, but that it was okay with him if, at home in Ireland, I called it, the ‘new Irish Box’. It turned out to be a play on language which satisfied the different audiences in Ireland and in Brussels.
I was reminded of this experience, recently, when I read a report on the Brexit negotiations regarding how goods would be treated in the event of a UK-wide backstop being agreed.
The language surrounding the new EU border after Brexit is being morphed from ‘border controls’ into the more anodyne ‘technical checks’.
Apparently, it was felt by all that the use of the word ‘control’ suggested that there would be physical checkpoints at or near the various border crossings. Random ‘technical checks’ are being made out to be much less obvious and intrusive and could be carried out by EU customs officials, or a new joint Irish/British registry body.
It’s even suggested that private contractors could be used. It appears that what is being envisaged is that there will be no checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, but that there will be checking of goods from Britain into Northern Ireland, if they transit through the Republic. (Apparently, over 60% of all trade from the UK into Northern Ireland goes through Dublin.)
ALL in all, this was being suggested in order to assuage the sensitivities of the DUP while, at the same time, adhering to the principle of ‘no hard borders of the past’, promised by all sides.
One way or the other, we are fast approaching the endgame. It seems to me that in the next couple of weeks, the last remaining issue, the Irish border, will be dealt with by a fudge. The UK-wide backstop with the suggested random technical checks will remain in place until something better is put in place.
The Irish Government will get its way by having the threat of the ‘Irish backstop’ being implemented, knowing full well that, probably, it will never be required. These suggestions were designed to help May get a deal across the line in Westminster.
We will know soon enough how all of this pussyfooting will go down with the rest of the EU leaders. Ultimately, any agreement in Brussels will be based on highlevel principles and nuanced language.
It remains to be seen how, in practice, ordinary citizens and business people, going about their normal daily lives, will be affected by these convoluted arrangements.