Cynical brinkmanship over protocol serves only to weaken the bedrock of democracy

The DUP is gratified by this law-of-the-jungle posturing, but no one else is impressed. It’s clear Northern Ireland is being used as a pawn in a cynical game of brinkmanship.

We’ve been here before with this “we’re top dog and ready to bite” rhetoric, in which some Brexiteer or other, at Boris Johnson’s bidding, threatens that unless the EU is flex-ible and makes concessions, all deals are off. So far, so familiar.

But the timing is appalling. The world is a different place compared with the last time Britain threatened to break international law “in a very specific and limited way”, to quote Northern Secretary Brandon Lewis in 2020. 

Millions of Ukrainian refuges are flooding into Europe as a result of Russia’s war, gas and oil supplies are compromised, inflation is spiralling and the EU is bone-weary of the UK’s posturing. It has much greater problems on its doorstep.

Once again, Britain is operating on the peak pressure principle. This is a pattern – sometimes, in an act of megaphone diplomacy, the bombast is loudest just before a deal is struck. But it’s a risky strategy. Boys who cry wolf end up being eaten eventually.

Simon Coveney didn’t call Britain a rogue state contender this week – the minister for foreign affairs is far too statesmanlike – but the term hovered in the air, unspoken, as he described an absence of partnership and cooperation.

The Johnsonians have escalated their huffing and puffing, warning of their readiness to rip up elements of the protocol that impose a sea border, although it’s an international treaty, legally binding, and they signed off on it.

If common sense isn’t restored and the EU finds itself obliged to protect its borders, it will mean a trade war between London and Brussels. It’s also likely to mean customs posts and checks imposed on the island of Ireland – a hard border. That’s contrary to the Good Friday Agreement, and the US is watching closely.

Britain’s ongoing power play has little to do with Northern Ireland and everything to do with its vision of itself. The rhetoric plays well with a certain sector of British society, and Northern Ireland and the protocol are collateral damage.

The majority in the North, especially business people, want the protocol, which confers special trading status; people are keen for it to work. But while it benefits Northern Ireland economically, it separates the region from Britain politically. The DUP can’t stomach that. But the DUP is not Northern Ireland. Protocol wars are being waged in opposition to the clearly expressed will of the populace at the polls – an election result now disregarded by the Conservative Party. Ireland is Britain’s best friend in the EU, and Britain is well aware of that. However, Mr Coveney’s tone suggests Ireland’s efforts to find a workaround are going nowhere. 

Meanwhile, a no-nonsense letter to Britain’s foreign secretary Liz Truss from American politicians signals there will be no US-UK trade if the Good Friday Agreement is compromised. It further states that the Biden administration is on the verge of appointing a special envoy to Northern Ireland. The joint letter from Congressman Bill Keating and Congressman Brendan Boyle says the worst outcome from Brexit would be “violence and upheaval” in the North and urges Ms Truss and her fellows to act “in good faith, within the parameters of international law”.

This is a significant intervention. So much for the diplomatic offensive from Conor Burns, Mr Johnson’s envoy on the protocol, doing the rounds in Washington to advance Britain’s position.

And so to rage, frustration and incomprehension – no, not within the Department of Foreign Affairs or the EU’s Brexit negotiators, but within hardline unionism – converging on the protocol as its  capegoat for a general sense of life not going its way.

Sixty per cent of MLAs elected last week favour the protocol. The British government is talking about cross-community consent for it, as though such is absent, when the protocol is supported by everyone but the DUP and one TUV MLA. The UUP favours it, while keen for some technical tweaks to ease difficulties.

In any event, cross-community consent is not essential for an international treaty. There wasn’t cross-community support for Brexit, for example. It’s always desirable in a crucible such as Northern Ireland, of course, and efforts should be made to resolve issues, but they can’t be used as a veto.

Jeffrey Donaldson’s stance is that it’s either power-sharing or the protocol, but both can’t co-exist. The Tories are humouring him (for now) because it suits them to have a fig leaf for their interminable wrestling matches with the EU – wrangles intended for domestic consumption and to burnish Mr Johnson’s political capital as a strong leader. But the Conservative and Unionist Party, to give the Tories their full title, lacks any sense of obligation to unionism, however much the latter would like to believe it.

There is no real hope of Stormont being back in operation this side of the marching season, which means autumn at the earliest. A second election in the North this November or thereabouts is the most probable scenario.

Possible outcomes from the shenanigans and chicanery are many and varied, but let’s choose just one: power-sharing must be amended so it can no longer be obstructed by one of the two largest blocs. Democracy is being weakened by these dog-eat-dog politics.