CALL me naive, but I’ve always been confident the British government knew what it was doing. I might have disagreed with its policies but I thought, with the wealth of talent it could call upon, Westminster knew how to secure its immediate objectives even if the consequences were not as it imagined.
But after the Salzburg Summit, I’m a lot less sure. As the woman in charge the Prime Minister bears overall responsibility for the debacle. It’s acutely obvious Theresa May had underestimated the depth of opposition to her Brexit proposals. Clearly she would have got a better reception has she turned up armed with a plan to prevent a hard border which had been road tested and approved by a wide range of Brussels experts. It would also have helped if her trade proposals had also been subjected to similar scrutiny.
As we all know or should know, while an understanding now between the UK and the EU on international trade post Brexit would be useful, agreement on the Irish Border is essential. Without the latter there will be no Withdrawal Agreement. Before Salzburg the EU’s Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier had offered new thinking on the regulatory and customs checks he says will be necessary on the transport of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Brussels was now suggesting that such inspections could take place at factories or ports in Great Britain. Some could even be conducted out at sea on ferries. That would avoid them happening either at the border between North and South or at local ports. There was also the prospect that monitoring might be carried out by UK rather than EU officials.
As it so happens, though it’s got lost in the fall out over Salzburg, in regard to regulatory checks, the UK and the EU may not be too far apart on how and where they might be carried out.
Significantly, in her post Salzburg address the Prime Minister focused her objections mainly on the proposal by the EU to introduce new customs arrangements between here and Great Britain. Theresa May said: “Creating any form of customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would not respect that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom”
In a broad sense she has some general support for her stance from the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Referring to the proposals for checks on the Irish Sea, he said: "I think that would be very difficult because in reality that would push the border from one place to another”.
If Westminster maintains its opposition to customs checks, it’s hard to see any common position on this issue between the EU and the UK. The consequence of failing to agree a backstop to avoid a hard border is that we would tumble out of the EU at the end of March next year. Chaos and catastrophe would ensue.
But hold on a minute. Did Mrs May or Mr Corbyn seek out your or my opinion before ruling out the EU’s existing proposals? Given that the population of Northern Ireland is most affected by a border in the Irish Sea, shouldn’t both these leaders ask for our views on the issue? And as the Brexit referendum itself went over the heads of elected representatives to gauge public opinion, there is a strong case for having another popular vote, this time restricted to the people of Northern Ireland.
It wouldn’t be a big step, organisationally or politically, to arrange a referendum on the EU backstop plan. If we have the right, through the ballot box, to stay in or leave the UK, then why shouldn’t we have the chance to vote to stay in or leave the EU. Such a move would be entirely consistent with the Good Friday Agreement which rules out change in the status of Northern Ireland unless it has the consent of a majority of people here.
It seems to me this is most obvious solution to the conundrum. If there is a majority to accept the Barnier plan or some version of it, then there can be no real argument against it. On the other hand if most people here set their face against an Irish Sea border plan, then it would be unacceptable to impose such a scheme.
But let’s get some things clear. Staying in the Customs Union and the Single Market doesn’t amount to secession from the UK. Most of the rules which govern our lives would still be operated by London, and by Stormont if we had an Assembly. We’d still pay tax to Westminster and receive from it the money needed to keep public services functioning.
As to the checks themselves, if the UK continues to maintain the regulatory standards set by the EU and, for the foreseeable future, sticks to the tariffs operated in support of the existing EU Customs Union, there would be only be limited inconvenience for business here.
During that time, and it will take five or more years, London should be able to conclude the free trade deal that it wants with Brussels which could mean the end of any customs and regulatory checks on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
A new referendum here on the backstop could be the key to unlocking the Brexit crisis. It should be used.
:: Jamie Delargy (delargyco@btinternet.com) is a freelance business broadcaster and commentator.
