The Tribune

THE Northern Ireland Protocol agreed between Britain and the European Union as part of the arrangements for the former’s withdrawal from the bloc has been controversial and a source of tension since it came into force at the beginning of last year.

It has been hitting the headlines most recently for two reasons. The British government has announced plans to override the Brexit deal insofar as it applies to the province of Northern Ireland and US House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has waded in by saying a transatlantic free trade deal will be off the table if the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 is jeopardised by the UK even partially changing the NI Protocol - and her remarks have been given publicity in the world’s media. What is more, if any such change is made unilaterally, the EU has threatened to revoke the whole Brexit trade deal agreed with Britain.

It is safe to say that, only in the most exceptional circumstances, would a nation like Britain consider breaching its international obligations by seeking to change an agreement entered in to as recently as 2020. But the reality of the current situation in Northern Ireland has to be recognised. In the view of many people, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has no option but to force through change because the Protocol has caused problems that had not been foreseen and are threatening the stability of the UK -- of which NI is, of course, a part – so that change is now needed in order to keep the peace.

After the Brexit vote in 2016, it became clear that special arrangements were needed for NI because it would be the only part of the UK that had a land border with an EU country – the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Before Brexit, it was easy to transport goods across this open border within the island of Ireland. There were no customs checks since both sides had the same EU rules.

In view of NI’s troubled political history, both the UK and EU considered it essential to keep the border open since it was a key element of the historic Good Friday Agreement -- the peace deal that brought the “Troubles” to an end by providing for a power-sharing executive in a new NI Assembly in Belfast. Both sides made protection of this peace deal an absolute priority. So they signed the Protocol in conjunction with the Brexit withdrawal agreement which is now part of international law.

Under this, a new procedure was introduced. Instead of checking goods coming from NI at this border, it was agreed that inspections and document checks would be conducted between NI and Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), with these being carried out, in practice, at NI ports. It was also agreed that NI would continue to follow EU rules on product standards and this meant, in effect, the province staying in the EU Single Market. UK negotiators at the time realized this was far from perfect. But, if Boris Johnson had not agreed to this trade border – even though it left Britain as possibly the only country in the world with an internal one of this sort - there might not have been a Brexit agreement at all.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the mainly protestant unionists in NI, who maintain an uncompromising defence of their status as part of the UK, are opposed to this arrangement because they see it as placing a border across the Irish Sea between mainland Britain and NI and thus undermining their place within the UK.

They resent being cut off from the rest of the UK in this way. In addition, reportedly there are operational problems in separating goods destined to remain in the province and those due to be moved on to the ROI, even though the Protocol has not yet been fully implemented.

One result is that NI’s largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionists (DUP), is refusing to take part in the power-sharing government unless its concerns are resolved. This is crucial because, even though in recent elections the DUP came second to the mainly Catholic nationalist party, Sinn Fein, who want reunification of the province with the ROI, a new power-sharing NI government cannot be formed without DUP support. The unionists are saying firmly that they will not share power with Sinn Fein under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement unless the NI Protocol is abolished – or adapted in some way.

That, in a nutshell, is the dilemma facing the British government. The facts make it clear that Nancy Pelosi’s intervention – and her claim that changes to the Protocol would undermine the power-sharing agreement -- are at the very least misguided. Her stance betrays a deep misunderstanding of the situation. It is not a change in the Protocol that could threaten the Good Friday Agreement but, rather, the continued existence of the Protocol itself that is already undermining it. This is because of the DUP’s opposition to the Protocol and its refusal to cooperate in implementing the peace agreement -- and she does not seem to understand that. She has been branded by Lord Frost, who negotiated the Brexit deal, “ignorant” of the realities in NI, and should not anyway be threatening to shelve a US/UK bilateral trade deal by linking it to the Irish issue. For their part, the unionists also say her interference in what are internal UK matters is uninformed, unhelpful and inappropriate. Meanwhile, it is hard to believe that the EU would really want to start a mutually destructive trade war over the issue given the current economic difficulties of many of its member states – not least Germany after its loss of Russian gas imports or Sweden and Finland after having just signed security assistance pacts with the UK.

The key to the long-term future of Northern Ireland is to secure a lasting end to sectarian violence through power-sharing. This is judged to be essential to keep the peace and it was achieved through the Good Friday Agreement. So Britain will surely have to get rid of the Protocol in its existing form – or alter it in some way acceptable to unionists -- in order to rescue the now moribund peace deal. The irony is that an arrangement justified as safeguarding that deal has ended up jeopardising it.

West’s faith in resurgent NATO

Three weeks ago, I wrote about NATO’s strong and unified role in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression in contrast to that of an ineffectual European Union which has no army -- defence is a matter for its individual member states. Now, the newly re-elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, pictured, in describing priorities for France’s presidency of the EU has suggested a new security framework for the bloc amidst escalating tensions on its borders. In explaining his vision, Macron raised the idea of a European army to enable the EU to have “the means to decide its own future” – an old issue that was discussed officially in the EU as long ago as 1998.

This initiative doubtless comes partly in response to the unexpected recent resurgence of NATO which, to many in the West, had become a relic of the Cold War after originally having been created in 1949 as a defensive alliance to deter the former Soviet Union from further aggression following the end of the Second World War.

But, despite being a founder member of the organisation, France was never a great supporter of NATO because it meant playing second fiddle to Anglo-American influence. In 1966, President de Gaulle pulled out of its integrated military command and France did not return until 2009. Macron now apparently wants to give fresh impetus to the EU by creating so-called outer rings of co-operation in certain areas like defence and has suggested this could include the UK.

To many, this looks to be pie in the sky coming, as it does, at a time when the 30-member NATO is proving itself highly effective in a coordinated response to Russia. It will shortly be strengthened by new members Sweden and Finland - subject to overcoming Turkey’s objections – who have looked to the organisation to boost their defensive capacity and protect their security rather than to the EU which lacks the capacity to assist. Under the leadership of the US with its huge $40bn aid package recently approved by Congress - and, buoyed up by the forthright and productive role played by Britain - NATO has seized the initiative in the Ukraine crisis during the last few months while the EU as a global force has become sidelined. It seems NATO has been quickly transformed, with its members -- including a hitherto reluctant Germany – now paying more on defence as they were pushed to do in recent years by former President Trump. The result so far is that the organisation has helped to give the beleaguered Ukrainians the edge militarily over the invading Russians.

In these circumstances, the general view among policy-makers in Europe seems to be that there is no need to duplicate NATO by creating a European army. So, at least for the foreseeable future, Macron will have to continue to accept US leadership in European defence matters. To many observers, these latest developments emphasize the lack of cooperation within the EU as it nevertheless continues its quest for ever closer political union. At present, on the big issues it seems to be as divided as it has been hitherto; for example, over the pandemic when individual countries made up their own rules about closing borders rather than accepting diktats from Brussels -- or the continuing conflict with member states like Poland and Hungary over issues of centralisation and control and the primacy of EU law.

Vital role of a free press

Earlier this month, I spotted in the Mail Online a report about the celebration of the 125th anniversary of the founding of the Daily Mail. Launched on May 4, 1896, by Alfred Harmsworth and his brother Harold, who later became the first Viscount Rothermere, it has been owned by the same family ever since.

Packed with human interest journalism to inform and entertain readers, it was apparently an instant hit and quickly began selling a million copies a day. It was also successful from the start because the Harmsworth brothers believed that the newspaper was there to serve its readers, not the other way round. The Daily Mail is now the biggest-selling newspaper in the UK and Mail Online is read by millions across the globe.

After having been postponed twice because of the pandemic, a sumptuous celebratory event was held recently at Claridge’s hotel in London attended by the Prime Minister and numerous other dignitaries. In reading an account of this, what struck me most was the content of a powerful and historic address to celebrate the anniversary delivered by the current proprietor who is the fourth Viscount Rothermere.

He hailed the Mail’s tradition of holding the powerful to account in a free, democratic society and exposing “corrupt, pompous, incompetent and immoral” politicians from all parties without fear or favour. As he said, “we are beholden to no one but our readers who love and respect our journalism. That is why we are a genuinely free Press. And, however much those in power try, they can never – to their fury and frustration – control us.” How important that is in a free country including The Bahamas where the declared guiding maxim of The Tribune itself is “Being Bound to Swear to The Dogmas of No Master”.

Lord Rothermere went on to defend the values of a free society and family life and warned of the “increasingly shrill world of fake news and malign Twitter echo chambers” and the need to “call out charlatans and hypocrites and those who hate this country, its culture and its past” – so that “we must not be afraid to stand up for decency and the traditional values that have stood the test of time”.

There are, of course, those who think that far too often some elements of the UK press can distort the truth and ruthlessly and shamelessly dramatize events to create false interest in order to sell newspapers. But Lord Rothermere’s passionate and articulate defence of democratic values and his emphasis on tradition and decency will doubtless be music to the ears of many – for his is surely a voice to be heeded.