It comes as major UK food retailers warn they cannot guarantee food supplies into the province next year - see HERE.
Brexit has reintroduced the language of borders and the present problem about where it should be located. There must now be a permanent border given that Johnson wants GB to diverge in laws, standards and regulations. To avoid a land border, the WA set it in the only possible alternative position. Effectively, Britain will be operating the EU's external border, under EU supervision.
It probably seemed like a good idea at the time - at least to a man like Johnson for whom details are like his own many personal faults, he just doesn't notice them and doesn't think they matter anyway.
Much of the argument is caused by the ambiguity in the hastily drawn up NI protocol which in technical language describes a normal EU border but then, at UK insistence, claims "unfettered" access to the GB market to goods coming from NI. It doesn't use the word unfettered for GB > NI trade which is where the present worries are focused.
Sooner or later a court will look at what the word "fetter" means. It means to shackle or manacle or prevent. The NI protocol doesn't 'fetter' anyone, it simply makes NI > GB trade more difficult and more costly. I don't think it's a word that would stand legal scrutiny.
Nonetheless, the UK government is creating a lot of ill feeling, firstly by agreeing to the protocol in the first place but now by trying to wriggle out of complying with it. The EU have very little flexibility since they have obligations under WTO rules to apply the same entry conditions to all foreign imports and GB will be a third country as of about 50 days time. All other third countries will expect Britain to be treated exactly as they are and not given special access to the EU market.
The Joint Committee set up by the protocol have yet to agree what goods are to be subject to tariffs as goods "at risk" of being transferred through NI to Ireland itself and into the EU. This is one of the problems in getting the CDS computer system finished and operational.
The border threatens to be a constant and permanent issue between the UK and Ireland and therefore between the UK and the EU and the USA. At best it will be a constant low level irritant but it will certainly lead (as the Stormont parties letter says) to "material price increases and/ or reduced choice for consumers." It is surprising that this should seem to come as a surprise to Arlene Foster. You cannot erect trade barriers that will reduce costs and increase choice. It is a problem which will also be felt everywhere else in the UK as trade with the EU becomes more costly and bureaucratic.
But it also threatens to see NI-GB ties atrophy over time and spark off a return to the troubles. The nationalist population in Northern Ireland is increasing at a faster rate and in a few years they will represent a majority. A border poll then would almost certainly lead to a united Ireland.
I see some Brexiteers are suggesting the Good Friday Agreement is 'nothing to do with the EU' seeming to forget that without the EU it would never have been possible. It is like saying a ship has nothing to do with the sea. They misunderstand the whole point of international borders. Without common standards and laws removing a border is unthinkable and it was the removal of the land border which brought about an uneasy peace.
All that is now up in the air.
