Sir, – Regarding the Irish Border post-Brexit, there are a very limited number of scenarios that can actually occur. With regulatory and customer alignment on both sides, there will be no need for infrastructure and checks.
That requires that either Northern Ireland (with or without the rest of the UK) must remain aligned with Ireland and the EU, or that Ireland must cease alignment with the EU and align itself instead with the Northern Ireland and the UK.
Any other scenario means that regulations and tariffs will diverge over time to the extent that either checks will be need to be imposed or that the open border will become a smuggler’s delight, acting as a cat-flap between the EU and UK which neither can realistically abide for long.
Given that Ireland did not vote to leave the EU or join the UK and that Norther Ireland voted to remain, the obvious solution would be for NI to retain alignment with the EU, leaving the rest of the UK free to align or not, as it prefers.
It is readily apparent that, other than some spurious and easily disproved notions about differences between NI and the UK “threatening the union” (there are already many much more significant differences to which the union has long been impervious), that the only thing holding back such a deal are the DUP MPs whose votes the Conservatives depend on to hold their majority.
The backstop is essentially the DUP’s contribution to the deal, forcing the whole of the UK to remain aligned instead of just Northern Ireland.
As chess players well know, a poor opening will leave your hands tied come the endgame. Yet again, we can only shake our heads at the disastrous decision by Theresa May to hold an election in 2017. – Yours, etc,
JOHN THOMPSON
Phibsboro,
Dublin 7.
A chara, – How telling the only MP to speak up for Ireland in the recent bun fight in Westminster is Ian Blackford, MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (SNP). Not only does he refer to Derry as Derry, he understands the importance of the Belfast Agreement and speaks up for Ireland’s interest when no one else will. – Is mise,
ANTHONY HALL
Geeha North,
Kinvara,
Co Galway
Sir, – It is almost amusing that Sammy Wilson, the MP for East Antrim, chose to characterise the European outlook on Ireland as viewing it as “a small country which the grand designers of the European project will toss aside, damage and abandon once it has been used”, in a manner that is typical of the DUP’s rhetoric surrounding the Irish Border in recent weeks.
While one can obviously doubt the accuracy of this contention by reference to the EU’s continued defence of Irish interests thus far and to the fact that it would be suspiciously convenient for Mr Wilson and the position his party espouses if the EU did cast Ireland aside and Ireland was not part of a large and influential trading bloc, there is an even more troubling assumption in this analysis of Ireland’s interests that must be addressed.
Even if it were true that the EU could not be relied upon to consistently defend Ireland’s interests as a “small country,” the fact that the alternative to such reliance is depending on the UK to do so instead means that depending on and hoping for the EU’s support surely still remains the best option for Ireland.
If Westminster is happy to override opposing majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland within the UK, it can safely be regarded as unlikely that its approach will be influenced by the interests of a foreign country.
While Ireland hardly holds the balance of power in the EU, it has more of an input into its decisions than it has had (or ever should have) in its independent history in those made in Westminster.
Furthermore, the EU, almost to a fault, has proved considerably more predictable than the UK electorate.
Indeed, Ireland probably has at least equal influence within the EU as Northern Ireland has in the UK, all things considered.
The assumption in Mr Wilson’s pedestrian analysis of the “European project” is that Ireland’s admitted exposure to risk from some level of dependence on the EU can be avoided by relying instead on the UK is ridiculous not only because it is wrong, but because it highlights the precarious position of his own people in terms of political influence. – Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER
McMAHON,
Oriel College,
Oxford.
Sir, – Mrs May is in the unpleasant position of someone who has quit a cushy job in a huff over their perceived importance, but after an acrimonious discussion at home, has been told to go back and tell their employer they still intend to leave, but need confirmation that their salary, health and pension benefits and the use of the company car will continue indefinitely to make leaving more palatable. – Yours, etc,
FRANK NEENAN,
Carlow.
Sir, – If a week is a long time in politics, a fortnight must be an eternity.
On January 15th, Theresa May’s Brexit plan was rejected by the House of Commons by a majority of more than 200 votes.
Earlier that evening a vote was taken on an amendment to this Plan A which would have accepted the withdrawal deal if it were amended so that the UK could terminate the backstop unilaterally. This amendment was defeated by 600 votes to 24.
Two weeks later the indefatigable Mrs May has a 16-vote majority for what looks suspiciously like a combination of the two proposals which were comprehensively rejected by the House of Commons two weeks ago.
And this is the clear mandate with a stable majority which she intends to bring to Brussels.
God loves a trier. – Yours, etc,
PAT O’BRIEN,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6 .