How can the Northern Ireland Protocol dilemma be solved?

[pellinore]

The dilemma over the NIP is familiar to us in the UK: as the island of Ireland has a land border with the EU, how can the UK ensure customs checks are kept on imports and exports? After years of discussion following the 2016 referendum, PM Johnson publicly agreed it should be in the sea in his Withdrawal Agreement, but privately told the DUP and the Tory Party the UK would ignore it. This fudge now has to be resolved:

1.The border can be placed in the Irish Sea, but this leads to protests from Unionist Parties such the DUP.

2. Or it can be on the land border between Ireland and N Ireland- but this would result in a breach of Good Friday Agreement.

Option 1 could likely result in the break-up of the UK.

Option 2. would result in sanctions from the EU and condemnation by the US.

PM Sunak is going to have to make a decision very soon, as the DUP is still not allowing devolved government of N Ireland, the NIP Bill (which in effect abolishes the NIP unilaterally) is stalled in Parliament, and businesses want to know what is going to happen before they start investing in N Ireland.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has a solution.

Laura Kuenssberg: Putin set UK on search for new friends - BBC News

[Ozymandias]

Start by holding a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland and let them decide how they want to proceed with the protocol and their future.

[pellinore]

18 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Start by holding a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland and let them decide how they want to proceed with the protocol and their future.

Yeah, you can't go wrong with a referendum.

[itsnotoutthere]

32 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Yeah, you can't go wrong with a referendum.

True.

[Ozymandias]

4 hours ago, pellinore said:

Yeah, you can't go wrong with a referendum.

You can if it is not properly done. All arguments regarding the pros and cons must be honestly and openly presented to the electorate beforehand and careful thought must be put into the wording of the question being asked. Also, on an issue of such major importance for a society, the result of the referendum must be underpinned by a sizeable majority, say two-thirds, otherwise, if it is a close run thing, provision should be made for repeating the referendum after a certain time, say five years, to see if public opinion has shifted due to their lived experience of the first narrow result. 

[pellinore]

3 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

You can if it is not properly done. All arguments regarding the pros and cons must be honestly and openly presented to the electorate beforehand and careful thought must be put into the wording of the question being asked. Also, on an issue of such major importance for a society, the result of the referendum must be underpinned by a sizeable majority, say two-thirds, otherwise, if it is a close run thing, provision should be made for repeating the referendum after a certain time, say five years, to see if public opinion has shifted due to their lived experience of the first narrow result. 

Our 2016 referendum is a running sore which will never heal, and will get worse as the UK economy declines relative to the rest of the world. Remainers, the 63% who either didn't vote or voted remain, will never reconcile themselves to all the lost opportunities. Brexiters will continue to blame everyone and everything except their own willingness to believe charlatans.

The only silver lining is that the average Brexiter is over the age of 65, so time is on the side of Rejoining.

 

[Ozymandias]

50 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Our 2016 referendum is a running sore which will never heal, and will get worse as the UK economy declines relative to the rest of the world. Remainers, the 63% who either didn't vote or voted remain, will never reconcile themselves to all the lost opportunities. Brexiters will continue to blame everyone and everything except their own willingness to believe charlatans.

The only silver lining is that the average Brexiter is over the age of 65, so time is on the side of Rejoining.

I would love to see the UK back, at least, in the Customs Union, but preferably in the full union. I have a lot of family in Britain, both near relations and going back generations, and I had the pleasure of knowing numerous UK colleagues working there during my career. It was such a shame that enough people were gullibly duped by opportunistic politicians with degrees in classics, history, English language and literature, the same self-serving politicians claiming to have had enough of experts who were telling them what the consequences would be. The Brexiteers love to say that they got it wrong, that their predictions were wildly inaccurate, but the Fat Lady hasn't dung yet and there is still a long way to go. The whole thing has been a real eye-opener for me and many others who could never have believed the stupidity of it and continue to view the slow-motion Brexit spectacle as it trundles wilfully on, the Brexit government postponing the worst of it in an attempt to delay the inevitable. What was it the 'Member for the Nineteenth Century' - Rees-Mogg, the Minister of State for Brexit Opportunities -  said about implementing Brexit? 'To do so would be an act of self-harm'. 

[pellinore]

12 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

What was it the 'Member for the Nineteenth Century' - Rees-Mogg, the Minister of State for Brexit Opportunities -  said about implementing Brexit? 'To do so would be an act of self-harm'. 

That was wonderful irony. He said it in defence of not having import controls (which the EU has, to the detriment of our exporters and the delight of smugglers). Taking back control of our borders was one of the main reasons for Brexit, yet he is totally unashamed of abandoning all the slogans and rhetoric now we are out. He is of course aided by the mass of Brexit voters (who have not made millions out of Brexit as he did) who tie themselves into knots of contorted logic trying to justify their vote.