Ursula von der Leyen has got the better of the UK

The Windsor Framework, the Stormont Brake – it sounds like a list of books by Robert Ludlum, though even that great storyteller begins to look pedestrian beside the fictions being spun by the Government, in its desperate attempt to represent capitulation as “victory”. Before anyone looks at the fine print on this latest “agreement”, one simple litmus test tells the true story: if the UK had just secured a superb deal that successfully clawed back British sovereignty, why was Ursula von der Leyen smirking like a cat that had been at the cream?

It was the EU Commission president’s repeated rehearsal of the phrase “Windsor Framework” that alerted observers to the confection of yet another pretentious, jargon addition to the acquis communautaire. There have been so many of these absurdly-named initiatives, all designed to promote and retain the accumulation of power by the Commission and its satellite institutions. This is a classic product of that tried and tested collaboration between Brussels apparatchiks and the British deep state in Westminster and Whitehall.

This time, however, there was one particularly repulsive feature to this latest betrayal of UK sovereignty: the shameless manipulation of the King and the appropriation of the name of the royal family and its eponymous home, in a transparent attempt to hoodwink Unionists in Northern Ireland. As a constitutional monarch, King Charles has adhered strictly to the advice tendered by his Government. On this occasion, that very scrupulous conduct was what compromised him.

The Tories’ transparent calculation was that, since the Unionists in Northern Ireland are ultra-royalist, they could be overawed by the sovereign’s public association with this snake-oil contract, reinforced by the dynastic name of Windsor being included in its title. This ploy treated the Unionist population as morons. As Kate Hoey said, it was “patronising”. The Palace insists the Von der Leyen tea party was Downing Street’s initiative; Number 10 claims the request came from the Brussels side. In either event, the King was treated as a pawn, rendered vulnerable by his lack of experience.

When the deal was presented to the House of Commons, it was greeted with the kind of forced, orchestrated acclaim that hails Kim Jong-un when he opens a food store in Pyongyang carefully stocked with comestibles for the occasion. At times, the cheers of Tory MPs held an undertone of the braying of cattle aboard a vehicle bound for the abattoir, which in any case is their electoral destination in 18 months’ time.

The Prime Minister rhapsodised about the massive benefits that would rain upon Northern Ireland as a consequence of the Windsor Framework. Sausages could freely cross the Irish Sea, the province would be carpeted with seed potatoes, Tiddles could travel unimpeded in his cat basket…

It was left to Ursula von der Leyen, the genial victor in this unequal contest between EU apparatchiks and globalist Tory surrender monkeys, to spell out the chill reality – just once, before resuming her Universal Aunt persona. At the press conference to proclaim the agreement, a reporter from RTE blurted out the question that is never raised in polite circles (“Don’t mention the War!”): the question of the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

First, the Prime Minister treated him to a torrent of evasion. Then came a cold douche of reality from Ursula von der Leyen: the European Court is “the sole and ultimate arbiter of EU law”. That is the harsh reality behind the cosmetic concessions of the Windsor Framework. Northern Ireland, as integral a part of the United Kingdom as Wiltshire, is under the jurisdiction of EU law.

This issue is not about sausages or pet travel, or even VAT and excise. The material improvements introduced by the Framework can be compared to the difference between occupied France and Vichy: both had lost sovereignty. This betrayal is about sovereignty – the precious prize the British people reclaimed in 2016. That is exactly how the EU sees it too.

The concessions granted under the framework were easily made because all those burdens imposed on the UK, including the insane situation where one large lorry might require 500 documents for transit, were deliberately designed as harassment, not just to disrupt the UK but to ensure, when the worm turned, that they could generously be lifted, since they were never necessary in the first place.

Brussels deliberately constructed outworks of vexatious regulations, precisely so that they could be abandoned under eventual British pressure, leaving Brussels still in control of the high ground and the real levers of power, including the continuing jurisdiction of the ECJ. It is crucial for Brussels to retain a foothold within the UK until the advent of a Rejoiner government, which is now only 18 months away.

By the same token, it was equally critical for the UK government to eliminate that presence, to remove all the power points through which Single Market rapprochement could be activated. The Government has failed to do that, so an incoming Labour administration will only have to insert the plugs, to initiate the long march back to serfdom.

Brexit is a delusion, so long as one part of the United Kingdom is under EU law. “Only” three per cent of EU laws apply in Northern Ireland, boast the Tories. If it were only 0.1 per cent it would still represent impaired sovereignty. The endless talk of “compromise” and “concessions” betrays the mentality of our political class. From day one, in Brexit negotiations with Brussels, they behaved like prisoners before a parole board rather than leaders of a proud nation that had just voted to reclaim its sovereignty.

Now, in similar mode, they are behaving as if we lease Northern Ireland from the EU and must keep our landlord happy. The European Union has no business meddling in Northern Ireland: it has no legitimate locus there. Its hypocritical cant about “protecting” the Good Friday Agreement ran especially hollow when the Commission president had to preface her remarks with a condemnation of the shooting of a Northern Ireland police officer, allegedly by IRA terrorists.

Now we have the universal panacea, unveiled at Windsor: the Stormont Brake. The Brussels apparatchiks and complicit Whitehall Remainers must have had a good giggle while they were dreaming up this latest in a line of “backstops” and similar Brussels BS. If 30 or more members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, from at least two parties, object to any significant new EU rules being imposed on the province (seven years after the Brexit vote, part of the United Kingdom is preparing to receive new edicts from Brussels), they can trigger the Stormont Brake.

This nuclear option means the new EU law can only be applied to Northern Ireland if both the UK and EU agree to it at their joint Committee. And precisely what guarantee is there that a UK government of Rejoiner Labour, with no parliamentary seats to worry about in Northern Ireland, or gutless Tories, would not agree to it, in which case the Stormont Brake would look distinctly unreliable?

Indeed, it is even more restrictive than that. The EU has stressed the Brake could only be used as an emergency measure of last resort and, ideally, they would expect it never to be used (like Article 16 of the Protocol). The UK government similarly insists the Brake cannot be used for “trivial” reasons (a subjective yardstick) and MLAs would be required to show the new rule would have a “significant impact specific to everyday life” in Northern Ireland.

MLAs would have to go through other hoops too. They would have to initiate a consultative process, discussing the potential impacts and their responses. And, of course, the Brake presupposes a fully functioning Assembly sitting at Stormont. However, the British government boasts of having an “unequivocal veto”. So, what happens if Britain, responding to the triggering of the Stormont Brake, imposes its unequivocal veto, but Brussels disagrees? We were told the answer on Monday: the European Court of Justice is “the sole and ultimate arbiter of EU law”.

This was Britain’s last chance, prior to the advent of a Europhile Labour government, to secure genuine sovereignty. It failed, as the quest for referendum-mandated sovereignty has failed for seven years, due to supine Tory governments, starting with Theresa May. Once it became apparent that the EU was negotiating in bad faith, our best option was a No Deal Brexit, but a Remainer parliament blocked that.

Boris Johnson boasted of having “got Brexit done”, a claim as inaccurate as most of his assertions. He conceded the Northern Ireland Protocol, in order to extricate mainland Britain from the toils of Brussels. Did he have a valid excuse? Did he fear that, even with an 80-seat overall majority, the sole alternative – No Deal – could not be got through Parliament?

People have forgotten how to think. On sovereignty, the devil is not, as it is fashionable to say, in the detail: it is glaringly evident. The ECJ rules part of the United Kingdom, therefore we are not sovereign. At any time – via No Deal Brexit, Article 16 of the Protocol or by passing an appropriate statute – we could have cut the Gordian knot tying us to Brussels and pulled out the last tendrils of EU power in our country.

But our globalised political class could only wring its hands and invoke its terror of a “trade war” with the EU. If Brussels wants to indulge in a trade war with the UK, which has an overall trade deficit of £85bn with the EU, it must be in a totally kamikaze mood. The real deficit is one of courage among our political leaders, too afraid of groupthink censure to trigger any of the mechanisms for regaining sovereignty. We should hang our heads in shame at our leaders’ timidity, while we are witnessing in Ukraine appalling sacrifices being endured in defence of sovereignty.

Seed potatoes, pet travel: those are the battle honours on the Tory flag. Rishi and his merry men may as well enjoy their contrived celebrations: there will be no more good times for them after this.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life