Britain must stand firm on the Protocol
After weeks of speculation, the Foreign Secretary confirmed in Parliament yesterday that the Government will bring forward a new law to unilaterally suspend parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Liz Truss emphasised that it was about being pragmatic and fixing practical problems. The preference remained a negotiated solution with the EU – and certainly the plan was not to scrap the Protocol in its entirety. But the Good Friday Agreement is being undermined and, in the absence of any movement from Brussels, legislation was needed to bring about revised arrangements.
Some are attempting to claim that the Government is cynically retreating from a deal that both sides entered in good faith. But the Protocol was agreed at a time when Remainers in Parliament were doing everything in their power to undermine the UK’S position, including removing the option of walking away with a no-deal Brexit. The sequencing of the talks, as well as the EU’S refusal to consider more innovative solutions to the Irish border issue, had tied the Government’s hands.
Moreover, ministers do not want to scrap the Protocol in its entirety, and appear to have won over some critics of the deal to the position that it is better to seek changes. Nobody can credibly claim that it is working perfectly, not least because the opposition of unionist parties in Northern Ireland has resulted in the collapse of power-sharing.
In the short term, the question is whether Ms Truss’s statement will be enough to encourage Brussels to change the terms of the mandate given to its negotiator, allowing for more productive talks to take place. Even now, the EU, with its fanatical commitment to protecting the “integrity” of the single market, may be incapable of shifting from its ideologically determined position. The early signs are not promising.
In which case, ministers will have to decide whether it is worth risking economic retaliation from Brussels to push ahead with its legislation. To avoid further compounding the cost of living crisis, they should be clear about what that would necessitate: radical shifts in tax and regulation to make the economy more competitive. The worst outcome would be for the Government to raise the stakes and then shy away from action for fear of the consequences. Britain has paid the price before for showing weakness in the face of EU threats.