After months of negotiating, Rishi Sunak has today unveiled his changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol. They focus on three key areas – trade, regulatory divergence and the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At a press conference today, Sunak outlined these under the so-called ‘Windsor Framework’ agreed with the European Commission.
The first area of dispute has been trade – and it is here that Rishi Sunak has secured his most consumer-friendly ‘wins’. There has effectively been a customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland since 2020. Presently all goods are treated as though they are going into the European Union, despite Northern Ireland not being a member. This means that lorries have had to carry up to 500 different certificates for each consignment.
Sunak intends to address this via a ‘trusted trader scheme’ to avoid all checks when moving goods from England, Wales and Scotland to Northern Ireland. There will be a ‘green lane’ for goods going from the mainland to the province and a ‘red lane’ for others going to the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere in the EU. These latter goods will face full EU customs clearance in Northern Irish ports. The introduction of a ‘green lane’ aims to alleviate the problems which Northern Irish shoppers have seen in supermarkets. Sunak claims that it removes ‘any sense of a border’ in the Irish Sea.
The second area of dispute has been Northern Ireland’s power to set its own laws. Currently, it must follow EU single market rules in areas like state aid, VAT and alcohol duties. This means it doesn’t benefit from UK government schemes like VAT relief on energy-saving materials like solar panels. Under Sunak’s deal these EU regulations will now no longer apply; with Northern Ireland following UK, rather than EU, state aid rules. Westminster also takes back control of VAT; pets will be allowed to be taken from Britain to Northern Ireland more easily, and the supply of medicines will be made easier.
The third, and most contentious, area of dispute is the ongoing jurisdiction of the ECJ. Sunak’s deal changes this so that Northern Ireland will have a Norway-style arrangement: in the single market but not the EU. Brussels will give notice of future EU regulations here; the UK government could lodge an objection which might lead to the EU voluntarily disapplying the regulation in Northern Ireland.
The real innovation though is the ‘Stormont Brake’ which will allow the Northern Ireland assembly to stop new EU single market rules applying in the province. It aims to incentivise unionists to resume power-sharing at Stormont. The Brake applies to new or amended EU goods rules that significantly impact businesses and citizens – a trigger which will operate in line with Northern Ireland’s normal cross-community safeguards.
It is based on the Northern Irish peace process device of a petition of concern. Some 30 MLAs (out of the 90 in the assembly) would have to be in favour of it, from at least two parties. Three unionist parties are currently represented at Stormont: the Democratic Unionists have 25 seats, followed by the Ulster Unionists on nine and the Traditional Ulster Voice with one. If these 30 MLAs can show the new law has a significant impact specific to everyday life that will likely persist then the Brake is applied.
Westminster will then have to sign-off the petition for it to be valid. The effect of the new law will be suspended and instead assessed by the UK-EU Joint Committee. If the UK government agrees then it is vetoed at the Joined Committee and permanently disapplied in Northern Ireland. Any disputes not subject to ECJ oversight and will instead go to independent arbitration.
Sunak therefore argues that this removes the ultimate authority of the ECJ in areas in which it would affect day-to-day lives, with EU laws applying only where ‘strictly necessary’ to provide privileged access to the whole of the EU market. A new legal framework of democratic consent and control will cement this, underpinned via amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Will that be enough to alleviate unionist concerns?
Comments