Breaching NI Protocol would be act of folly
P J Knowles’ letter (May 17) is simply employing the Government’s perceived ‘failure’ to adhere to the Northern Ireland Protocol as a thinly disguised smokescreen to indulge in yet another protracted diatribe against Brexit.
Rather than a precise, reasoned analysis of the underlying problems created by the Protocol, it is nothing more than a dilatory abstraction perpetuating the usual Remainiac canards.
He disingenuously suggests that if the Protocol was so problematic why did the Government sign up to it? Arguably, because it was the solution to the reviled ‘backstop’ that would have effectively kept the UK within the EU’s customs union thus proscribing an independent economic policy.
This would have effectively countermanded the will of the majority of voters who opted to leave the EU, the consequence of which could have led to a constitutional crisis. Furthermore, courtesy of the Benn Surrender Act, the UK was legally denied the option of ‘no deal.’ With its hands firmly tied, the Government was thus forced into this execrable compromise with all its inherent faults and problems that are now manifesting themselves.
Mr Knowles questions the Government’s ‘good faith’ highlighting the possible consequences of reneging on its ‘international obligations.’ He should be reminded of the EU’s action in 2020 when it triggered Article 16 in an egregious attempt to ban the export of vaccines across the border. Currently, four out of five trucks entering NI from the UK are subject to intense EU customs inspection, yet the value of trade is less than
0.5% of overall EU trade.
Similarly, own-label goods exclusively destined for outlets in NI are subject to the same rigorous and superfluous checks. Imports from the EU into NI have risen by 50% since Brexit with the predictable consequence on trade between the UK and the Province. Good faith is binding upon all parties but the EU appears to have a different interpretation of the wording of the Protocol not dissimilar to that of Humpty Dumpty, ‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
As far as the UK’s international obligations are concerned, the triggering of Article 16 would not be a breach of the Protocol as Mr Knowles claims, since it specifically facilitates either party’s unilateral withdrawal. Any threat to the Government’s ability to exercise its sovereign right to govern the nation in its entirety is justification for withdrawal. That is why it should act accordingly and it has the legal, economic and moral imperative to do so. Folly be damned!
James Mason Minehead, Somerset