Dominic Lawson

During the referendum campaign, David Cameron was ridiculed when he declared that Britain leaving the Eu could put the Continent of Europe at risk of war. no one believed it: probably not even Cameron.

But now those leading the campaign to thwart Theresa May honouring the result of that referendum are using the threat of civil war to terrify us.

Specifically, they claim Brexit will create a ‘hard border’ between northern ireland ( outside the Eu) and the republic of ireland (inside it), and that this could somehow provoke ‘the men of violence’ to return to terrorism.

The former prime minister John Major — who last week admitted he wanted to stop Brexit happening at all — was at it again yesterday, warning that such a ‘hard’ border would become a ‘target … for unionist or nationalist fringes that wish to provoke trouble’.

Risk

The argument, also put by Tony Blair and Michel Barnier, who leads the Eu’s Brexit negotiating team, is that a customs border between the north and South of ireland puts at grave risk the entire good Friday Agreement.

This scare-mongering enrages David Trimble, the former unionist leader who won a nobel Peace Prize for his role negotiating that settlement: ‘it is not true that Brexit in any way threatens the peace process. There is nothing in the good Friday Agreement which even touches on the normal conduct of business between northern ireland and the republic.

‘Leaving the Eu does not affect the agreement because the Eu had nothing to do with it — except that Michel Barnier turned up at the last minute for a photo opportunity.’

Why, then, are Barnier and the European Commission making this issue so central to their negotiations, even to the extent of suggesting, to the outrage of the Prime Minister, that a new border be drawn across the irish Sea, with northern ireland becoming a detached subordinate province of the Eu?

The reason is ireland is actually Brussels’ weakest link in its attempt to drive a hard bargain with the uK. More than any other Eu state, ireland is dependent on unimpeded free trade with Britain. More than any other Eu state, ireland wants a deal that retains the maximum amount of ease of business.

Cunningly — and ruthlessly — Barnier’s team have turned this weakness into a strength by weaponising the good Friday Agreement. This is designed to terrify the British into agreeing to become an affiliate of the Eu Customs union. This would be a crazy idea from our point of view, as we would be compelled to adhere to all the Eu’s external tariffs, and lose the power to negotiate our own trade deals with other nations.

Yet Labour has fallen headlong into this elephant trap. Last week, after flying to Brussels for talks with Barnier, Jeremy Corbyn declared his party’s support for Britain becoming an appendage of the Eu Customs union.

Technology

As Professor Vernon Bogdanor, a remainer and leading constitutional expert, pointed out in the Laboursupporting guardian, this would ‘make Britain in effect a client state of the Eu’.

But the craziest thing of all is that this notion of a ‘hard border’ in ireland postBrexit is not even believed in Brussels. Last year, the Eu parliament itself produced a lengthy paper (Smart Border 2.0. Avoiding a hard border on the island of ireland) authored by Lars Karlsson, the former director of the World Customs Organisation and Deputy Director general of Swedish Customs.

it concluded that modern technology and customs practice meant there was no need for a ‘hard border on the island of ireland: The solution presented here can be implemented regardless of the legal framework for the uK’s exit from the Eu.’ But you don’t need to project into the future. Think of the world we live in today. How often have you been stopped by customs officials when you return from a trip abroad? Actually, it’s hard to find one if you do have something to declare.

This goes for business, too. When the Commons Brexit Committee investigated this matter, they were told by the chief executive of HMrC, Jon Thompson, that his staff physically inspected only 0.5 per cent of imports from non-Eu countries.

And Thompson went on to tell the Committee: ‘We do not believe, and this has been our consistent advice to ministers, [that] we require any infrastructure at the border between northern ireland and ireland under any circumstances.’

Shaming

indeed, we can observe this in the way in which business moves between the Eu and Switzerland — which is not a member, nor in any customs union with it.

A highly successful businessman friend, who, incidentally, is very much not a Brexit supporter, wrote to me last week to criticise the Eu’s posturing on this issue: ‘i frequently cross the Swiss border into France, sometimes two or three times a day. By the way, 35,000 people cross back and forth from germany and France every day to work in Basel [a Swiss city]. it is a way of life.

‘Virtually none are stopped. i did this myself for nine years and was stopped twice in all that time. And this was without the technology that a Smart Border could bring, and before Schengen [the treaty introducing visa-free travel].’

This most experienced businessman added: ‘Surely the good Friday Agreement has nothing to do with whether there is a border of any sort? it may be perceived as a negative symbol to see border controls, but why does this undermine peace? it only would if you’re a troublemaker.’

And who are the troublemakers here? The European Commission’s Brexit negotiating team. it is shaming that two former British prime ministers, determined to deny the reality of the referendum result, have enlisted as M Barnier’s useful idiots.