The Tribune

TWO weeks ago in this column, I wrote about Britain and the European Union being on the brink of a fresh agreement to replace the existing Northern Ireland Protocol covering the province’s trading arrangements post-Brexit.

It is worth following this up today since a proposed agreement called the Windsor Framework has now been reached which has been described as a remarkable watershed and a big step towards a final Brexit accord. It could also be interesting to return to the issue because this new deal has potential consequences beyond the six counties of Northern Ireland (NI). It could open a new chapter in Britain’s relationship with the EU, and it may have a significant effect on the UK’s domestic politics as well.

After Britain left the EU in 2020, the status of NI became a focus of controversy. The NI Protocol was widely considered to be unsatisfactory and it was claimed that the trading arrangements under it were not working properly. Moreover, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) wanted the Protocol scrapped because it was treating NI differently from the rest of the UK and undermined the whole basis of the power-sharing institutions under the Belfast Agreement of 1998, known colloquially as the Good Friday Agreement. Because of that, the DUP refused to take part in these power-sharing arrangements in the NI Assembly - known as Stormont – which were the essence of that agreement. So the Protocol needed to be changed or scrapped entirely and replaced.

On February 27, the Windsor Framework was agreed by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen to replace the old NI Protocol. This has provided a new legal and UK constitutional framework. But the agreement still needs formal approval - in particular by the DUP but also by the PM’s own Conservative Party which includes many “eurosceptic” Brexiteers.

The general view of commentators seems to be that the Windsor Framework has been a significant achievement beyond expectations. By creating a system of separate “green” and “red” lanes it has ensured the avoidance of a hard border between the two parts of the island of Ireland. In a “green” lane for goods moving from Great Britain to NI and distributed only within the province there will be minimal checks and controls, thus delivering free-flowing trade for these goods that are staying within the UK (ie NI) by removing any sense of a border in the Irish Sea. So there will be no material limits on the UK’s ability to operate outside the EU’s single market and customs union. This will bring stability and greater prosperity to NI while reinforcing its position within the UK.

For all other goods a “red” lane will apply and NI will in effect retain the province’s special relationship with the EU single market by adhering to EU standards. This is considered to be the only way for the EU to protect its border while at the same time avoiding a hard one with the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, in practice NI will remain within the EU single market and customs union for such goods. But, reportedly, cumbersome checks that were disrupting trade and effectively creating an internal border within a sovereign country will be rolled back.

From what I have read, some of these new arrangements may be unsatisfactory for the purists among the unionists on the grounds that they are inconsistent with full sovereignty. So it remains to be seen what the formal reaction of the DUP will be. But, it is argued, the Windsor Framework provides a positive basis for moving forward and is the only way to address the complexity of the implications of Brexit for NI.

The other major area of concern is the continuing role of the European Court of Justice which, it seems, will retain jurisdiction by still being the ultimate arbiter of disputes. According to all reports, Britain was unhappy that the original Brexit deal allowed the ECJ to have jurisdiction over the application of the NI Protocol. In its view, no independent country could tolerate a part of its territory being subject to foreign laws and courts, with - in this case - EU laws superseding UK laws in British sovereign territory. Under the Windsor Framework the ECJ would retain jurisdiction in relation to the EU single market and customs union. But it includes some protection in the shape of a new mechanism called the “Stormont Brake” which will enable the NI Assembly to stop – or at least challenge - new EU single market rules from applying in the region.

Mr Sunak has said that his immediate task now is to convince all concerned to endorse the Windsor Framework agreement. If this happens and the DUP come on board, he hopes they will then re-join the power-sharing Stormont administration in time for the 25th anniversary of the region’s peace treaty in April.

In summary, the Windsor Framework consolidates NI’s position within the UK while honouring the Good Friday Agreement – and it retains the province’s special relationship with the EU single market. Because of space limitations today, I shall leave it to next week to discuss what appears to be a changed and improved relationship between the UK and the EU. I hope also to look at the effect on UK domestic politics of the PM’s success in pulling off what he himself has described as a decisive breakthrough – something which was thought to be impossible and beyond the powers of his immediate predecessors.

ARGENTINA RENEWS CLAIM TO FALKLAND ISLANDS

PERHAPS it should come as no surprise that the ongoing dispute between Britain and Argentina about the Falkland Islands has come to the fore again at this time of year, just weeks before the forty-first anniversary of Argentina’s invasion of the Islands on April 2, 1982 when, unexpectedly, it mounted a seaborne and aerial attack on the islands it calls the Malvinas.

The conflict which followed was short but brutal. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government sent a Task Force and UK troops landed on the Falklands on May 21. After fierce fighting, the Argentine forces surrendered on June 14. The cost of war was high, with 649 Argentine servicemen killed and 255 British dead, as well as the loss of five ships, while three Falkland Islanders also lost their lives.

According to UK press reports, at last week’s G20 meeting in Delhi, the Argentine foreign minister informed his British counterpart, James Cleverly, that his country was abandoning an agreement between the two countries in 2016 to co-operate on issues like energy, shipping and fishing - and on identifying the remains of Argentine soldiers killed in battle - after, in effect, agreeing to disagree about sovereignty over the islands.

In a formal note, the Argentine foreign minister said that his government “had sought to collaborate on concrete matters such as flights, scientific activity in Antarctica and conservation of fishing resources without the same willingness from the UK” and that the “British government has systematically refused to resume sovereignty negotiations”.

In response, the British foreign secretary said that “The Falklands are British. The Islanders have the right to decide their own future – they have chosen to remain a self-governing UK Overseas Territory”.

So it looks as though a diplomatic row over sovereignty is starting to bubble again. Argentina has consistently claimed sovereignty over the Islands. But, since the short 1982 war, Britain has declined to negotiate over the issue because, as it has made clear on numerous occasions, it “has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands.”

The history of all this seems not to be in doubt. Records show that Britain has been in constant and effective occupation of the islands since 1833 after originally colonizing them in 1765 while Argentina had taken them over temporarily at some point after claiming to have acquired them earlier from Spain. As a British government spokesman said recently, “the Falkland Islands were not and are not Argentinian”.

Of the two fundamental principles of international law in relation to claims of sovereignty – occupation of territory and the right to self-determination – Argentina seems to base its claim partly on proximity since at the nearest point the Falklands are some 300 miles from the Argentine mainland. Britain, on the other hand, emphasises the rights of the islands’ inhabitants to self-determination which, as a principle, is underpinned in the UN Charter - Article 1 of which states that the fundamental purpose of the UN is respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. There can be no doubt about the wishes of the Islanders themselves who are now British citizens. In a 2013 referendum, an overwhelming majority – 99.8 per cent of people in a high turnout of 92 per cent - voted to remain British, with only three voting against.

I had first-hand experience of this almost universal wish when visiting the Islands after the conflict during a stint at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London working on their reconstruction and redevelopment. Talking to a range of people, it was clear – and hardly surprising so soon after the war - that no one at that stage wanted Argentina to have any role at all in administering them, even though in the future it might make peaceful overtures in an attempt to win over hearts and minds. Even though the latest population has increased, the numbers are still very low - with the current figure about 3,750. It is therefore relatively easy to discover the wishes of the people which Britain has been determined to respect and defend.

I have no knowledge of current British policy on the issue, but Mr Cleverly’s latest statement looks to be unequivocal. Even though the Falklands conflict was more than 40 years ago, it is surely still very much in people’s minds in the UK – both among those servicemen who were wounded in the conflict and the families of those who lost their lives.

Given the high price paid by Britain in ejecting the invaders and taking the Islands back, it seems almost unthinkable that in the foreseeable future any British government would be prepared to hand them over to Argentina. The Falklands may only have a tiny population. But it is clear beyond any doubt that a massive majority does not want that to happen – under any circumstances.

NEW UK PARTNERSHIP TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE IN CARIBBEAN

HAVING recently received information about the UK’s new involvement with the Inter-American Development Bank Group, I hasten to share this news today as evidence of the country’s contribution to helping efforts to help tackle climate change in the Caribbean which, as everyone is now aware, is severely affecting the region.

The IDB is the largest development bank in Latin America and the Caribbean. The UK has joined IDB Invest, the private sector arm of the IDB Group that is focused on development through the private sector. Reportedly, this move by the UK is designed to boost its work in reducing poverty and tackling climate change across Latin America and the Caribbean through support for small and medium-sized businesses.

Britain’s Development Minister, Andrew Mitchell, was joined in London last week by the President of IDB to complete the UK’s membership of the group that provides some five billion pounds sterling of annual finance to businesses across the region. Mitchell was quoted as saying that “unleashing private sector investment across the Caribbean and Latin America is vital to delivering the UK’s International Development Strategy” and that “joining IDB Invest will help us promote private sector investment, alleviate poverty and tackle climate change in a region experiencing its most serious effects”.

Interestingly, in the last decade IDB Invest has been partnering with the City of London as the leading hub globally for green finance. Last year, British International Investment, which is the UK’s own development finance institution, made its first investment in the Caribbean for over 20 years working alongside IDB Invest and local partners with the aim of delivering thousands of jobs and supporting productive, sustainable and inclusive economic growth across the region.

In the words again of Andrew Mitchell, all this clearly demonstrates the UK’s commitment to investment in green businesses in the region. It is good news for the Caribbean – and this will surely be welcomed locally by everyone concerned.