We must abolish the Northern Ireland protocol that Balkanises the UK

It is a trait in human psychology that if something bizarre and outrageous is dressed up in imposing terminology and implemented with the solemn endorsement of the great and the good, provided it remains in place for a sufficient length of time, it will become an accepted feature of the landscape. Such was the case with many inequitable demands imposed by the European Union on its members, not least among them the requirement that any referendum which delivered the “wrong” result should be re-run.

That mentality, of imperious exaction on the part of Brussels and passive acquiescence on the part of Britain, endured throughout the Brexit negotiations and permeated the discussions, to the extent that the United Kingdom – the fifth largest world economy, a nuclear power and occupant of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council – was treated like an offender seeking early release from a parole board. The meekness of the British negotiators was aggravated by the fact that Parliament was in thrall to a fifth column of Remainers, still hopeful of frustrating a democratic referendum result.

It is only by recalling the servile attitude in those days towards the EU that any rational person could begin to comprehend the extraordinary outcome of those negotiations in the monstrous constitutional and geopolitical anomaly of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Even taking into account the distorted thinking that prevailed in those recent times, it is impossible to absolve the British government of culpability for endorsing so humiliating and problematic an imposition.

To understand the full enormity of the Protocol, it is necessary to stand back from it, as when appraising a painting, and look hard at the big picture, assessing the broad-brush features rather than the detail. Forget the small print, the six-month grace period for sausages, the provisions for transportation of plants, the regulatory regime for eggs – all the bureaucratic detail that EU apparatchiks throw out like chaff to distract attention from the innate insanity of the overall project; confront, instead, the naked outrage of this impertinent intrusion into British sovereignty.

The United Kingdom is composed of four long-standing partner nations; despite devolution of secondary powers to assemblies in the three smaller component countries, the UK remains a single sovereign state. Our sole land frontier with the European Union is the 320-mile long border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Yet there is no trace, no shadow of a border there: it is as seamless and invisible as the county line between Wiltshire and Somerset. But there is an international-style border, with harassing customs checks, at Northern Irish ports and down the Irish Sea.

That is to say, what is effectively an international frontier slices through two integral parts of the United Kingdom, disrupting trade and making foreigners of British subjects in Northern Ireland. It is as illogical and absurd as creating an international frontier between Wiltshire and Somerset. What other nation would tolerate such an imposition? Would France meekly acquiesce in a similar frontier reconfiguration hiving off Alsace and Lorraine? Would Germany accept such a fault line being intruded between its western heartland and the former DDR? The clever money is on no, not in a million years. Yet both those nations were in the forefront of the successful ploy to drive a wedge into the United Kingdom, weakening its cohesion.

What was the alleged pretext for this extravagant imposition? To protect that political fetish, the Good Friday Agreement. Across Brussels, if we were to believe the hypocritical spin, the EU nomenklatura was racked with insomnia, for fear the appearance of an inoffensive official carrying a clipboard, on the border of counties Fermanagh and Cavan, might provoke a full-scale resurgence of the Troubles, mayhem and massive bloodshed. So, it was unthinkable there should be a border on “the island of Ireland”. Apparently, the ports of Belfast and Larne, now subjected to the kind of customs delays normally associated with international borders, are not regarded by Brussels as being on the island of Ireland.

For all its pretended concern for the Good Friday Agreement, just 29 days after the Brexit trade agreement had come into effect, Brussels tried to enforce export controls on EU-manufactured Covid vaccines moving between the Republic and Northern Ireland. The ensuing outcry over this ill-judged and heavy-handed aggression forced the EU to back down within hours, but not before the rank hypocrisy of its alleged commitment to the Good Friday Agreement had been exposed for the humbug it was.

The Northern Ireland Protocol is a classic device of EU manipulation. In geopolitical terms, the frontier between the United Kingdom and the European Union runs across Ireland. That is the reality. But, for the convenience of the EU, that frontier has been rolled back to the Northern Irish and British coastlines, thus dividing the United Kingdom, with no concern for its convenience or cohesion. Yet that is the least of it.

Although the phoney frontier is based on trade, the EU has weasel geopolitical objectives too. By keeping Northern Ireland within the EU Single Market, it retains a level of control over part of the United Kingdom, post-Brexit, with EU officials permanently stationed in Northern Ireland. By maintaining the appearance of no border between north and south, it promotes, both politically and psychologically, the notion of Irish reunification. A vengeful Brussels would love to strip Britain of Northern Ireland, just as it would like to further Scottish separatism.

This raises the one question that is never realistically addressed in polite circles: what, in real terms, is the relationship between the EU and the UK? Forget all the guff about good neighbours, close partners, blah, blah – that is strictly for diplomatic encounters. The way to discover the underlying reality is to assess the facts, objectively and forensically.

The EU is led by two nations culturally averse to Britain: France, for historical reasons, reinforced by the sinking of her fleet – not for the first time – during the Second World War and the humiliation of being liberated by Allied armies including British troops; and Germany, twice defeated by Britain in massive 20th-century conflicts, which cannot truly, in its innermost heart, entertain warm feelings towards John Bull.

But that cultural tension is merely the backdrop to the recorded events of Britain’s uncomfortable membership and fiercely contested exit from the European Union. Whatever the feelings of the French or Germans may be, the new incarnation they have spawned, the Eurocrat, is remorselessly hostile to Britain. The EU is notorious for its harsh and arrogant treatment of anyone who opposes its imperial ambitions. The fishing war with France is just the tip of an iceberg.

So, assess the reality of the situation, if you will, not in the self-deluding language of diplomacy, but in the private perceptions of Realpolitik, as in the days of Disraeli and Bismarck. By every evidence of experience and political posture, how would a practitioner of Realpolitik (as post-Brexit Britain must become) categorise the conduct of any nation that behaved towards this country as the EU has done and continues to do? As a friend or as an enemy? The unblinkered answer to that question may be disturbing, but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck…

We cannot any longer allow a hostile foreign power to carve up the United Kingdom, intrude its officials into a British jurisdiction and sow division between Britain and another part of the UK. An arrangement whose alleged pretext was to shore up the Good Friday Agreement and preserve peace in Ireland is actually rekindling old animosities. This week a member of the Northern Irish Loyalist Communities Council, an umbrella organisation of loyalist paramilitaries, told the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that violence, in opposition to the protocol, would be a “last resort” but was not “off the table”.

The current situation is insupportable. Lord Frost hopes the EU will not take retaliatory measures if Britain unilaterally suspends the Protocol; of course he knows perfectly well that Brussels will retaliate but, as he rightly observed, “the protocol is undermining the Good Friday Agreement rather than supporting it”. So, by all means subject the Protocol to the death of a thousand cuts, slice and dice it, precisely as the EU would behave were the roles reversed.

As for EU retaliation, trade wars seldom benefit anyone and EU business, with an ailing Eurozone, would take a dim view of serial blunderer Ursula von der Leyen indulging in politically motivated hostilities. Last year the UK had a trade deficit with the EU of £51bn, demonstrating which side has more to lose, so good luck with that, Ursula.

Ultimately, the integrity of the United Kingdom, especially at a time when it is under threat from separatists, must take priority over all other considerations. It was irresponsible of Boris Johnson to concede such Balkanisation of the UK to our EU opponents. There may be some initial skirmishing, but we dare not postpone for long the necessary measures to abolish the extraordinary and intolerable Northern Ireland Protocol. Otherwise, the Brexit slogan “take back control of our borders” will remain a hollow mockery.