The Green Ribbon

How a Labour government would deal with Northern Ireland

With a Labour government looking increasingly likely after last week's 'fiscal event', the policy announcements at this week's party conference have taken on a new significance.

Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Kyle didn't disappoint in that respect, stating that he would set out the criteria for a referendum on Irish Unity if Labour were to come to power. That drew sharp criticism from some unionists, who called for him to retain an element of ambiguity.

The Good Friday Agreement is notably vague, stating only that the Northern Ireland Secretary shall call a poll 'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.'

The Belfast Newsletter argues that 'this gives wide discretion to the incumbent secretary of state. It is essential that this discretion is kept wide. Every other aspect of the process favours separatists.'

However, ambiguity has it risks for unionists as well as nationalists. For one thing, it leaves open the possibility that the tests have already been met. The Belfast Telegraph reports that former Northern Ireland Secretary Sean Woodward 'claimed there is a nationalist majority in the Stormont Assembly, a majority of Catholics in the population and opinion polls suggesting people want to have their say.' It is arguably the most British of constitutional criteria that favour nationalists most. At the last Westminster election they won nine seats to unionism's seven. With one seat going to Alliance this was a plurality rather than an absolute majority.

Nevertheless, the current ambiguity might give an incoming Secretary of State scope to call a referendum on their first day in office, as well as to delay one indefinitely. That is surely untenable.

Some party members would like Labour to go further and campaign for Irish unity. I don't believe I am alone, even among Labour supporters of Irish unity, in thinking this would be a step too far. There is dubious benefit in a British party being drawn into boosterism on an issue the Good Friday Agreement remits to the 'people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment.' The turbulent relationship between unionism and the Conservative Party is sufficient illustration of the dangers.

The right role for Labour is to defend the Good Friday Agreement, and facilitate the dialogue it allows for.

For Northern Ireland's immediate future, Kyle's most important comment was that 'a Labour government would deliver rapid deals with the EU on the flow of goods, the sharing of data, and making it easier for agricultural products to move around the UK and the island of Ireland.' That implies a degree of UK-EU alignment that the current government would not countenance, bypassing the zero-sum impasse between unionism and nationalism over the Northern Ireland protocol, and potentially restoring devolution.

In the short term, the interesting question is whether this incentivises the Truss government to pre-empt Labour with their own solution.

Northern Ireland census shows Catholics out-number Protestants for the first time

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has today released the results of the 2021 census. As widely anticipated, it shows for the first time that Northern Ireland has more Catholics (45.7%) than Protestants (43.48%) (See update below).

This is inevitably a historic moment given that Northern Ireland was founded on the basis of a Protestant majority. The symbolism is profoundly unhelpful to a British government which is seeking to legitimise a hardline sovereigntist approach to the Northern Ireland protocol 

Nevertheless, to a great extent it only confirms what we already know from election results - that no community in Northern Ireland has an outright majority.

The traditional inference from religion to politics is a questionable exercise, but the census results are in line with political trends such as the gradual disappearance of the unionist majority, and the emergence of a growing middle ground.

Whether the result portends a stable nationalist majority is a more open question. It's worth noting that nationalists already hold more seats than unionists at Westminster, though they are level-pegging in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

While the religion issue will get the most focus, other census questions are probably of more direct political significance in this respect. For example, slightly more people still think of themselves as 'British only' (31.86%) than 'Irish only' (29.13%), with 'Northern Irish only' counting for another 19.78%. This represents a stark shift from the 2011 figures: 'British only' (40%), 'Irish only' (25%), 'Northern Irish only' (21%). My initial reaction is that this volatility suggests a political rather than a demographic shift - possibly a Brexit effect.

The median vote in Northern Ireland is likely to go the middle-ground parties fin the near term. The strength of that casting vote will be diluted by the cross-community power-sharing system which underpins the influence of the main political blocs - a guarantee is increasingly as important to unionists as it is to nationalists.

Beyond that, it may be increasingly hard to interpret Northern Irish politics in terms of those two blocs, so that the constitutional future will depend less on demographic destiny than on political argument.

 

New Foreign Office Advisor called for trade border between Ireland and the EU

When Liz Truss's press secretary was asked for a list of the new Prime Minister's advisors earlier this month, journalists were told that 'you can refer to the Guido Fawkes website.'

So we must take take Guido as authoritative when it reports tonight that 'Victoria Hewson is leaving the IEA to join the Foreign Office as a SpAd, focusing on Northern Ireland.'

Troubles legacy bill criticised at London trauma event

The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill came under strong criticism last night from a range of voices at a West London event on dealing with trauma from the conflict.

Former Irish army officer, Senator Tom Clonan, described the legislation, which received its second reading this week as ‘an act of collective self-harm.’

Among those attending the event was Andy Seaman, brother of Tony Harrison, a private in the Parachute Regiment, who was shot dead by the IRA while visiting his girlfriend in Belfast in 1991. He told the meeting that ‘the bill which they are introducing would, overnight, put an end to any inquiries, any kind of scrutiny, and any hope of justice, for families who have received no justice for decades. People who were guilty of committing the most heinous unimaginable crimes would be basically free to stroll off into the sunset.’

As part of the event, a trauma workshop was hosted by Psychotherapist Peter Finn. Asked if there was any role for an amnesty in a truth and reconciliation process, Mr Finn said that “there’s a lot to be thought about in terms of how it’s negotiated and how the families of the victims are brought into that conversation from the beginning, rather than being told at some point that this is the outcome of some conversations in which you were not involved.”

‘Personally, I would hesitate to voice an opinion about what the right thing is. I would want such an amnesty to be a product of some diligent work that’s done with integrity and rigour, and with humility and honesty, taking the initiative from the families and survivors.’

The event was presented by Troubles, Tragedy & Trauma, an organisation founded by Michael O'Hare, whose 12-year-old sister Majella was shot dead by a soldier in 1976. The group works aims to highlight legacy issues from the Northern Ireland conflict, encourage reconciliation and promote positive mental wellbeing for those affected by the Troubles.

Breakthrough on Ireland's Brexit border

The UK and the EU have today reached agreement on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to Northern Ireland. As part of the deal, the UK will withdraw planned legislation that would have over-ridden international law.

Following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the EU and the UK, the two co-chairs can now announce their agreement in principle on all issues, in particular with regard to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland...

...In view of these mutually agreed solutions, the UK will withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the UK Internal Market Bill, and not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill. (European Commission)

While this must be a very positive development, wider negotiations on a trade deal are still in the balance ahead of Boris Johnson's talks with Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen in Brussels this week.

Nevertheless, it now looks more likely that the Withdrawal Agreement will stick even in a no deal scenario. This has historic implications for Northern Ireland. 

Although there are bound to be teething problems given the lateness of the deal, in principle, the North South border will remain open, and a sea border between Britain and Northern Ireland will emerge to the extent that Britain diverges from the EU.

Northern Ireland unionists no longer have the leverage that they did in recent parliaments, but a trade deal is now very much in unionist interests. Even with a deal, we may see the Northern Ireland economy aligning much more closely with the Republic in future.

Hardline security bills pose dilemma for Labour

Several bills going through the House of Commons at the moment demonstrate the Johnson's Government's commitment to the hard edge of state power, in both its overt and covert forms.

While this legislation raises significant human rights concerns, Labour has been cautious in challenging the Government so far. This may reflect Keir Starmer's strategy of attempting to prove his patriotism to British voters before engaging in any major policy moves. 

Divisions over this approach emerged two weeks ago at the second reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which would make it more difficult to prosecute British soldiers for war crimes.

Internal market bill lives up to its billing

Reports that the UK Internal Market Bill would tear up the EU withdrawal agreement have been causing political ructions all week. Today, the full text of the bill was published, and it looks very much as advertised.

Section 45 of the bill states that ministerial regulations apply "notwithstanding  any relevant  international  or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent." The definition of “Relevant international or domestic law” is explicitly defined as including "any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol" and "any other provision of the EU withdrawal agreement."

This is a clear breach of the government's undertaking to give effect to the withdrawal agreement in domestic law. It is not, on the face of it, the action of a government that is serious about a Brexit deal.

However, some still see the bill as a bluff. The Economist's Matthew Holehouse argues that  if the Government 'wanted to break its obligations in January it could just fail to comply. No legislation broadcasting the plan three months early required. '

It's questionable whether the bill will be on the statute book in time for Brexit. Lord Rifkind told CNN today that Boris Johnson will have "serious difficulty getting this proposal through parliament" with rejection likely in the House of Lords by 'a very large majority'.  There are also doubts about how the courts would interpret the legislation. Above all, there is the fact that the UK's obligations would still remain in international law.

The Irish Government is still counselling a cool response, according to the Irish Times' Pat Leahy:

 In this view, then – which holds that the British government is not,  actually, a rogue actor on the international stage, merely threatening  to act like one – the British actions of recent days are  “sabre-rattling”, and to be understood as such. Expect much more of this  in the coming weeks, this view says; expect many more noises about how  the UK is prepared for no-deal and how the UK will hold firm, whatever the cost; and then expect to do a deal, in the end. 

Peter Foster of the Financial Times reports that the European Commission is taking a similar view after a 'very tense' call between vice-president Maroš Šefčovič and Michael Gove.  Šefčovič has called for 'an extraordinary EU-UK Joint Committee to be held as soon as possible - so that our UK partners elaborate and respond to our strong concerns regarding their announcement.' 

Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen has also commented this afternoon, tweeting: "Very concerned about announcements from the British government on its intentions to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. This would break international law and undermines trust. Pacta sunt servanda = the foundation of prosperous future relations."

It remains to be seen, however, if the EU will take any further steps in response. While trust is at a low ebb, it will not want to be seen as responsible for a breakdown in talks.  It may instead rely on time pressure to force Johnson to declare victory and move on.

If the bluff perspective is right, as it has been for most of the Brexit process, the British Government's undiplomatic behaviour will demonstrate to its domestic audience that it is fighting hard, creating space for Johnson to move onto substantive negotiations.

Government legal head quits over threat to Northern Ireland protocol - FT

The FT's Sebastian Payne is reporting that the head of the UK Government's Legal Department, Sir Jonathan Jones, has resigned over attempts to undermine the UK's obligations under the EU withdrawal agreement.

 Individuals close to Sir Jonathan said he was “very unhappy” about the decision to overwrite parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the 2019 withdrawal agreement, with new powers in the UK internal market bill (Sebastian Payne, Financial Times). 

The news comes as the Northern Ireland Secretary is due to answer an urgent question on the protocol from Labour shadow Louise Haigh at 12.30 today. (The exchange will be live on Commons TV and no doubt elsewhere.)

Legal commentator David Allen Green explained on Twitter that Sir Jonathan's post, known as Treasury Solicitor until 2015, is 'responsible for ensuring government operates within the law on a day to day basis, as well as dealing with litigation.' In February, Jones told the Institute for Government's Raphael Hogarth that 'fundamentally, international law is the law.'

After a day in which the government had played down the implications of the internal market bill, Sir Jonathan's departure would suggest that the threat to the protocol, and hence to the Brexit negotiations as a whole, is substantial.

UK Government points tactical nuke at the Irish border

Today's Financial Times reports that the British Government is planning legislation to over-ride parts of the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union, threatening the protocol that ensures there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland.

The FT's Public Policy Editor Peter Foster said in a twitter thread last night:  

Per three sources with knowledge of plans the UK Internal Market bill (due on Weds) and this autumn's Finance Bill will contain clauses that  “eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement”. The EU are unlikely to like this - which I guess is the point  

The report received a strong reaction from Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy:

This undermines our moral authority at a key moment. The Government has rightly criticised China and Russia for undermining the rules based order. This briefing sends a clear signal the UK no longer keeps its promises and diminishes us on the world stage

Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney tweeted that 'This would be a very unwise way to proceed.'

Finucane family welcomes Council of Europe decision

The Irish Government and the family of murdered solicitor Pat Finucane have welcomed a decision by the Council of Europe, calling on the British government to fulfil its human rights obligations in relation to the 1989 killing.  

 

The Council has also expressed concern about the British Government's proposals to deal with the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

 

In a statement, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said: 

Victims and survivors have had to wait for far too long for a suitable and effective system in Northern Ireland to deal with the legacy of the Troubles.

We therefore believe it is necessary and appropriate that the Committee of Ministers should put on record its deep concern about the lack of progress in putting in place the urgently needed mechanism for conducting Article-2 compliant investigations in over 1,000 outstanding cases in Northern Ireland.

Turning to the case of the late Pat Finucane, Ireland continues to support the reopening of individual measures in the Finucane case.

Geraldine Finucane said:  

I am very pleased that the Committee of Ministers has made a firm request of the UK Govt for concrete proposals in the case of my late husband. 

 It is disappointing that the UK Govt must be compelled in this way, given the ruling of the UK Supreme Court in February 2019 that past investigations into the murder were legally deficient.

 A full investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane has still not been carried out. The UK Govt has simply adopted a continuing policy of delay and obfuscation. It would appear the Committee of Ministers has now run out of patience and, like me, is demanding clear answers. 

A description of the case is available via the Council of Europe website, as is the text of the decision by its Committee of Ministers.