Dr North and Irish reunification

I used to regularly read Dr Richard North's EU Referendum blog (HERE) until I realised that although he writes as if he sits somewhere above the ECJ and our own Supreme Court, he was in fact just as likely to be wrong as anybody else. I do however, occasionally click on his site and scroll back through his posts. I noticed he wrote about 'losing the union' - the United Kingdom that is - last Saturday.

In the post, he says:

"It really would be quite ironic if one of the outcomes of Brexit was to break the links between Northern Ireland and GB and to increase the dependence of the Province on its southern neighbour and the rest of the EU."

North goes on to say that it 'could' in the fullness of time, "lead to the reunification of the island." I am amazed at the word 'could' - what's that doing in there?  He then says:

"Then, there is even a possibility of Scotland strengthening its economic ties with Ireland, and distancing itself from England which, with what some see as the inevitable independence of Scotland, could give rise to a hard border between the north of England and the Scots."

This nearly came about in 2014 and Brexit is a gift that keeps on giving as far as the SNP are concerned. Scottish independence is now a near certainty in the next few years, before 2030 I would say. But without a trace of self awareness, North adds:

"Unthinkable though this might have been even a few years ago, the unthinkable is now dropping into the realm of being distinctly feasible, leaving open the question of whether an independent Scotland would then, on its own behalf, join the EU as a fully-fledged member."

Unthinkable?   John Major and Tony Blair and plenty of others raised the NI border issue more than once before the referendum and in 2018 Martin Selmayr, Juncker's chief of staff, was attacked for suggesting (allegedly) that the price of Brexit was Irish unity - something he denied saying, but it was in all the papers at the time. Brexiteers chose to ignore the Irish border - as North did - along with all the other problems which are now coming out.

In Flexcit, Dr North's compendium of Brexit, the Irish border is barely mentioned and the Good Friday Agreement not at all. These are a couple of references to the border:

"For the Northern Ireland land border with Ireland, there are fears of the re-establishment of border posts border, with huge queues as trucks wait to cross." - page 77

"Given the high volume of traffic carrying animals or plants, or goods of animal or plant origin, including foodstuffs, this could have considerable implications for the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and for cross Channel traffic." - page 80

Note the "considerable implications" - you would be forgiven for thinking this was a bit of an understatement. The Irish border has been the single biggest stumbling block so far in the negotiations and threatens to become a permanent running sore in UK-EU negotiations. 

Last week, Stephen Kelly, CEO of Manufacturing NI, giving evidence to the Lords Committee on EU goods said that the UK could make the border a "nightmare" for the EU based, it appeared, on the erroneous idea that the EU would not be supervising border operations. Unfortunately, they will, it's an express part of the NI protocol. The implication though is clear.

I noticed that fourteen civil society groups in Northern Ireland have written to president elect Joe Biden's transition team setting out their fears that the UK is trying to water down the Human Rights Act that underpins the GFA and also, through the UKIM Bill, attempting to circumvent the provisions of the NI protocol itself. It is a warning shot to Johnson that the Irish for once have the upper hand.

Also, in the same blog post Dr North says:

"The one thing that is unlikely, however, is that we ever rejoin the EU – for the one simple reason that I can't ever see it wanting us back. But a new treaty – much overdue – may create an "associate" category, rationalising the Efta/EEA arrangements, and the likes of Ukraine and Turkey."

This is a far cry from his position in Flexcit (page14) where he called for any agreement with the EU to be "accompanied by measures which resolve the democratic deficit which allowed politicians to give away the nation's powers. It must also ensure that any future government is not able to repeat the process."

Now it appears he has relaxed that and simply thinks they wouldn't have us back - something I believe he is profoundly wrong about. As for Britain becoming an "associate" along the lines of the EFTA/EEA or Ukraine/Turkey, he is guilty of the same sort of wishful thinking he accuses others of.  He cannot get away from the problem that IN is IN and OUT is OUT. The sixth biggest economy in the world (soon to be seventh) cannot sit alongside the EU as a rule taker. It just would not make any sense and neither the Tory or Labour party would ever advocate it and I don't believe the people would ever support it.

Why not sit at the boardroom table instead of grumbling about decisions from the shop floor?

Richard North is updating the book he wrote with Christopher Booker about the EU: The Great Deception (described by one reviewer as not so much wrong as ludicrous) but given his track record of failing to identify the single biggest obstacle to Brexit, I don't think I'll be ordering a copy.