Saturday 4 March 2023

The Windsor Framework comes under scrutiny

The Windsor Framework (WF) has been a notable success for the government in that it has wrongfooted its opponents, never a bad thing for any administration. Some will oppose the framework no matter what, while others are so fed up with the whole thing that they will clutch at any straw if it seems Brexit may finally be ‘done’. I fear they are all likely to be disappointed, a not uncommon outcome for many things Brexit some might add.

First, let’s see what three former Brexit secretaries, Davis, Barclay, and Raab, say in The Daily Mail:

“The Windsor Framework will deliver smooth-flowing trade by removing any sense of a border in the Irish Sea” - something which is flat wrong. They have clearly not been involved and haven’t read the details.

The briefest flick through the published documents shows this is patently not true. There will be border posts and checks and for traders sending goods, especially mixed loads, through the green GB-NI channel it will definitely feel like a border. The notion the WF removes “any sense” of a border is just silly.  Next, they say:

"Most important, however, will be the restoration of sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister’s deal will include a ‘Stormont Brake’, meaning that Northern Ireland will not only be able to have a say on new and changed EU laws – they will be able to block them."

No, unionists will - under extreme circumstances -  be able to ask the UK government to block them if any amendments to existing EU laws have a “significant impact specific to everyday life that is likely to persist"

UK in a Changing Europe has a balanced piece from lawyer Alexander Horne, welcoming the agreement while admitting it doesn’t resolve all the problems.  Broadly, pro-EU voices welcome the WF as a step forward.

But now let’s see how the unionists see it. 

David Campbell, chairman of the Loyalist Communities Council, which includes the UVF, UDA, and Red Hand Commando told The Belfast Newsletter, “I think there is a growing consensus within unionism that the Framework significantly helps trade flows between GB and NI but does not appear to deal with the sovereignty and consent issues which go to the heart of unionist rejection of the Protocol."

The LCC is going to take legal advice. One group that has already done so is the Centre for the Union. They have published what they say is 'independent' legal advice on the 'Windsor Framework' from a former Northern Ireland Attorney General, John Larkin KC.  The foreword by Ian Paisley MP, who serves as chairman of the group, has previously condemned the WF as not 'cutting the mustard.'.

This opinion is slightly surprising because it dwells far more on Article VI of the 1800 Acts of Union which was overridden by the NI protocol as confirmed in the recent Supreme Court ruling. The CftU says the WF does not restore the Acts, which is true. This doesn’t meet the first of the DUP’s seven tests.  But it doesn’t meet tests 3 and 5 either, yet this is barely mentioned. 

They suggest an amendment, changing Article 6 (2) of the Protocol to read, "This Agreement is subject to the Acts of Union 1800 and has effect only to the extent that it, or any provision within it, is compatible with the Acts of Union 1800” - which would totally upend everything and hasn't a cat in hell's chance.

They conclude: "There is no credible legal argument by which to suggest the new arrangements restore the Acts of Union. They emphatically do not. It would be an act of fundamental intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise." That'll be a no then.

One small point comes in paragraph 37 which totally misunderstands 'market surveillance'.  The CftU welcomes a reference to paragraphs 52-55 of the command paper setting out the concept of an ‘all-Island economy’ which they say is a "fixation " leading to "a requirement for enhanced market-surveillance on the land border, using intelligence and data sharing. This, to all intents and purposes, is the SmartBorder2.0 advocated initially."

Paragraph 55 of the UK command paper talks of "enhanced market surveillance North-South" which is certainly not SmartBorder 2.0 with cameras and drones and the like and it isn't a land border at all. It is monitoring the market, to see what products are finding their way through, by consulting with traders and consumers, and by spot checks and inspections in stores and factories. 

Sam Macbride, reporter on the Belfast Telegraph says only two tests out of the DUP’s seven are met.  You have to sympathise with unionists. Alex Kane, a newspaper columnist, and BBC commentator admits he voted for Brexit but now regrets it:

The Daily Mail, a paper I hardly ever agree with, has an article (behind a paywall oddly but you can read it for free with my link) by Stephen Glover: Sorry to be a party pooper but, on closer reading, Rishi's deal is far less revolutionary than we're being told.

Glover says, "in exchange for better relations with the European Union, and for the quiet life most of us crave, Rishi Sunak has set Northern Ireland on a path that will hasten its eventual departure from the UK. Such an outcome isn’t only a tragedy for the Unionists, who regard themselves as British. It will also be a tragedy for our country."

He talks of checks on 'goods' being reduced from 10% to 5% by 2025. I haven’t read that, I see 12% on meat and 5% on dairy products provided traders use the green channel, are registered as trusted, input 21 fields of data on every item in a consignment on a government IT system, and get an official certificate. The WF makes the sea border a permanent thing.

The Mail may one day regret campaigning for Brexit as much as the DUP and Mr. Kane.

We still don't know what the DUP will do, but if they oppose it what happens? Is Sunak prepared to force it through? He could do it with or without Labour support. He doesn't need anyone to help him sign an international agreement.  The question is what happens if he tries?

The Newsletter claim that another Belfast publication last weekend carried reports of senior UVF figures warning that loyalists would “wreck the place” and “the streets will be in flames” if any Brexit deal between the UK and EU did not meet their demands.  It is a high-stakes risk for Sunak.

My guess is that he won't force it through, but we'll see.

Johnson

The Select committee looking into claims that Johnson misled parliament published an interim report yesterday with more clear evidence that the former PM did indeed tell fibs in the House of Commons at the end of 2021 about what he knew of the parties in Downing Street during the lockdown.

True to form Johnson immediately went on to the TV and said the committee had found no evidence against him!

The committee says it would have been "obvious" to Johnson that he and others were breaking the guidance at the time.

A liar to the last. He can't help himself.
Posted by at