Donaldson defends NI access to both markets as unionist leaders set out their 2024 agenda in New Year messages
The leaders have been setting out their positions ahead of the New Year as the impasse over the Irish Sea border continues.
Sir Jeffrey told DUP members: “2024 is likely to be another hectic year. This is the year we want to see our negotiations successfully concluded and the UK Government implement actions that will see Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom restored and the harm caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol erased so that we can move forward together. "This means safeguarding our place in the U.K. internal market both now and for the future, whilst retaining our access to the EU single market. “These objectives are not mutually exclusive, nor do they lead to the creation of an all-island economy.
"Our clear mission remains to uphold the integrity of the Union, within which we can make Northern Ireland prosper and succeed. The Government knows what needs to be done to right the wrongs of what was imposed upon Northern Ireland without consent.”
Donaldson defends NI access to both markets as unionist leaders set out their 2024 agenda in New Year messages
The leaders have been setting out their positions ahead of the New Year as the impasse over the Irish Sea border continues.
Sir Jeffrey told DUP members: “2024 is likely to be another hectic year. This is the year we want to see our negotiations successfully concluded and the UK Government implement actions that will see Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom restored and the harm caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol erased so that we can move forward together. "This means safeguarding our place in the U.K. internal market both now and for the future, whilst retaining our access to the EU single market. “These objectives are not mutually exclusive, nor do they lead to the creation of an all-island economy.
"Our clear mission remains to uphold the integrity of the Union, within which we can make Northern Ireland prosper and succeed. The Government knows what needs to be done to right the wrongs of what was imposed upon Northern Ireland without consent.”
@Essexphil This seems to be a very weird argument. Boris claimed that NI would get the best of both worlds as a result of the protocol. Something that I am sure that the NI business community agree with. There surely has to be benefits from having unfettered access to both markets.
As you know this came about as a result of the Good Friday Agreement not allowing a land border in Ireland. The result was a border around mainland GB, and NI remained in the SM/CU. Hence the best of both worlds.
At the time that Theresa May came up with the backstop, hard line Brexiteers came up with the virtual border in Ireland, and trusted trader scheme as an alternative. Although in the end they had to admit that the technology to implement this was not yet available.
If you accept that there has to be a border between the UK/EU, then the only alternative to the current arrangements, would seem to be some sort of technological border in Ireland, without any border infrastructure. Maybe some checks at Irish ports, on goods that originated in the UK, would have to take place. This could only happen when the technology became available.
So it seems to me that there are two alternatives. The current arrangements, and NI gets the best of both worlds. Or a virtual border in Ireland, when the technology is available, and NI doesnt. Are there any other options? Would the second option cause more problems than the current arrangements, as well as affecting their economy?
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
I dont love the EU, I just dont think that leaving was a wise move, but as the majority voted in favour, then there was no choice. I have not heard anyone dispute the fact that NI has the best of both worlds. Even the DUP accept this.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
You wouldnt have to a brain surgeon to predict that leaving NI in the EU SM/CU, would create some problems in regard to trade. You can also argue that as time goes on, and the UK gets on with the planned divergence, that more friction will be created. Both The Protocol, and the Windsor Framework have included a border. You would think it it was possible to come up with a plan that didnt include a border, they would have done so by now.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I dont think anyone is arguing it is not real. The DUP are insisting that it is removed.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
The DUP are arguing that there should be no trade border between GB, and NI, and at the same time maintaining the access to the SM, that they currently have. What I am saying is that I dont think that it is possible for them to have their cake and eat it. Firstly I dont think it is currently possible to remove the trade border. Secondly if it does become possible at some point, then that is likely to end the SM/CU access that they currently have.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
I have no knowledge of Greenland. Nor do I think it is relevant. I have not heard a single politician argue that there is no need for a trade border between the UK, and EU. All the arguments have been about the location of the border.
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
I dont love the EU, I just dont think that leaving was a wise move, but as the majority voted in favour, then there was no choice. I have not heard anyone dispute the fact that NI has the best of both worlds. Even the DUP accept this.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
You wouldnt have to a brain surgeon to predict that leaving NI in the EU SM/CU, would create some problems in regard to trade. You can also argue that as time goes on, and the UK gets on with the planned divergence, that more friction will be created. Both The Protocol, and the Windsor Framework have included a border. You would think it it was possible to come up with a plan that didnt include a border, they would have done so by now.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I dont think anyone is arguing it is not real. The DUP are insisting that it is removed.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
The DUP are arguing that there should be no trade border between GB, and NI, and at the same time maintaining the access to the SM, that they currently have. What I am saying is that I dont think that it is possible for them to have their cake and eat it. Firstly I dont think it is currently possible to remove the trade border. Secondly if it does become possible at some point, then that is likely to end the SM/CU access that they currently have.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
I have no knowledge of Greenland. Nor do I think it is relevant. I have not heard a single politician argue that there is no need for a trade border between the UK, and EU. All the arguments have been about the location of the border.
The impact of Brexit on the Irish border and its adjacent polities involves changes in trade, customs, immigration checks, local economies, services, recognition of qualifications, medical cooperation, and other matters, now that it is the only land border between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
After the UK Parliament voted to leave the European Union, all parties said that they want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, due particularly to the border's historically sensitive nature. Border issues were one of three areas of focused negotiation in the Withdrawal Agreement. Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union on 31 January 2020, this border is also the frontier between the EU and an external country. The Northern Ireland Protocol of the Brexit withdrawal agreement commits the UK and the EU to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea border between the two islands. This requires the continued application of the Common Travel Area as well as free trade of goods (including electricity) between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The latter requires the UK to follow EU law in Northern Ireland with respect to these areas, with jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the interpretation of the law.
What is the Northern Ireland backstop? The Northern Ireland backstop was an arrangement for the Irish border that was part of Theresa May’s Brexit deal. It would have come into effect if no other solutions to maintain the current open border were agreed once the UK had left the EU. It was intended to protect the Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement and keep an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit.
Both the UK and EU agreed on the need for a backstop to ensure no hard border – physical checks and infrastructure – returns to Ireland. However, when Boris Johnson became prime minister in July 2019 he managed to obviate the need for a backstop by agreeing a permanent new relationship between Northern Ireland and the EU. This new relationship means Northern Ireland is treated differently to the rest of Great Britain and following EU rules in some areas.
Why might the border have hardened as a result of Brexit? The UK’s decision to leave the EU single market and customs union means that it will become a ‘third country’ to the EU. If the UK and EU had failed to find a new arrangement, the Irish land border would have become a customs and regulatory border involving the standard checks it has at its border with any third country.
How did the border feature in the withdrawal negotiations? The EU guidelines for the first phase of negotiations on UK withdrawal identified the "unique circumstances on the island of Ireland". The guidelines also stated that avoiding a hard border was one of three key issues that needed to achieve ‘sufficient progress’ in phase one of negotiations – along with the financial settlement and citizens’ rights – to allow talks to begin on the framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU.
The UK initially argued that the border could only be fully solved through the future UK–EU relationship. However, the EU, particularly the Irish government, wanted legally binding commitments to avoiding a hard border included in the Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU.
In the run up to the critical December 2017 European Council, the question of the Irish border became critical to the prospect of successfully achieving ‘sufficient progress’. The two sides were forced to reach an agreement and bridge the gap between their positions.
What was agreed in the December 2017 Joint Report? In December 2017, the two parties agreed in the Joint Report that to avoid a hard border, there are three possible solutions:
To achieve this objective through the overall UK–EU relationship agreed after the UK leaves the EU. This is the UK’s preferred option. Should this not be possible, the UK will propose specific solutions to allow for a special post-Brexit arrangement for Northern Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions being reached before the transition period is scheduled to end in December 2020, the UK will maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, should support North–South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement. This arrangement would remain in place until alternative solutions, most likely relying on advances in technology, could be introduced. Through this agreement, the UK effectively conceded that a legally watertight solution to the border question had to be included in the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than postponed to the future relationship negotiations. This form of words allowed both sides to recommend that the requisite ‘sufficient progress’ had been made for further talks to take place, on the framework for the future UK–EU relationship. The European Council, including the Taoiseach (the Irish prime minister) duly signed this off in December 2017.
What happened after the Joint Report? While the two sides agreed on the wording of the Joint Report, there was a lack of agreement on what the proposed solutions meant in practice. The focus of discussions on the border shifted to the third proposal, which became known as 'the backstop'.
In February 2018, the European Commission published a draft withdrawal agreement which, to deliver the backstop, proposed keeping Northern Ireland within the EU customs territory and ‘common regulatory area’ covering goods and sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. This approach, a ‘Northern Ireland specific’ backstop, would require customs and regulatory checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland if it ever came into force.
Then Prime Minister Theresa May said “no UK prime minister could ever agree to” this proposal because it would threaten the “constitutional integrity of the UK”. The UK’s preferred approach was for any backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, not just Northern Ireland, to prevent the need for checks to take place on goods moving from one part of the UK to another.
In summer 2018, the UK government published proposals for a temporary UK-wide customs union with the EU and, as part of its suggestions for the future relationship, a ‘common rulebook’ on goods regulations. Effectively the UK argued that the backstop was unnecessary as the future relationship would ensure there was no need for a hard border. However, the EU rejected the time-limited proposal and the idea of a UK-wide backstop, as it would prejudge the outcome of detailed future relationship negotiations.
Over summer 2018 discussions continued on the backstop, with Michel Barnier, the EU's Chief Negotiator for Brexit, attempting to 'de-dramatise' the issue by making clear that the EU’s proposal would require "only technical controls on goods". The EU also sought to limit the categories of goods facing checks, building on existing animal health checks that take place between the two islands, rather than creating lots of new checks.
But there was no concrete progress in mid-2018. The EU’s priorities were reasserted at the Salzburg summit in September 2018, when European Council President Donald Tusk said “there will be no Withdrawal Agreement without a solid, operational and legally binding Irish backstop”.
The two sides reached agreement on a draft Withdrawal Agreement in November 2018, which included a protocol on Northern Ireland setting out the backstop. The EU made a significant concession in granting a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’, avoiding the need for customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the requirement for regulatory alignment is limited to Northern Ireland.
Why were there concerns about the backstop? The backstop proved one of the most contentious issues in parliamentary debates on the draft Withdrawal Agreement. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) opposed it because it would have introduced differences in regulation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which it saw as a threat to Northern Ireland’s place in the Union.
A majority of people in Northern Ireland supported the backstop, however, as it gave them privileged access to both the UK and EU markets. In January 2019, the UK government published proposals on how the UK, including the Northern Ireland executive, could influence both the decision to use the backstop and its governance if it came into effect, as well as a commitment that the rest of the UK would unilaterally align with the single market regulations being applied in Northern Ireland.
Other Brexiteers are opposed to the backstop because it would mean the UK remaining in a customs territory with the EU, removing the UK’s ability to vary its tariffs, a key component of trade deals.
There were also concerns that the UK would not be able to leave the backstop. It was intended to apply “unless and until” alternative arrangements, which both sides agree on, can replace it.
What happened when Boris Johnson became prime minister? Theresa May resigned in summer 2019 after parliament continued to reject her deal, with the backstop cited as the key issue. Boris Johnson became prime minister pledging to scrap the backstop altogether.
Johnson wrote to the EU declaring the backstop was "anti-democratic", "inconsistent with the UK’s final destination" and risked "weakening the delicate balance of the Good Friday Agreement". The UK government put forward a formal proposal to the EU, which included Northern Ireland following EU rules in agrifood and creating a customs border between Northern Ireland and the EU/Republic of Ireland.
Following negotiations, the two sides agreed the new Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which involves Northern Ireland following EU rules for goods and customs but included a consent mechanism. The deal looked similar to the one first proposed by the EU in February 2018, which was rejected by the UK, but now including an exit mechanism.
Timeline of negotiations on the Irish backstop March 2017: Prime Minister Theresa May triggers Article 50, beginning the countdown to Brexit April 2017: European Council issues its first guidelines for Brexit negotiations, which establish the "aim of avoiding a hard border" June – December 2017: Phase one negotiations, including discussions on the Irish border December 2017: Joint UK–EU Report published on phase one of negotiations, establishing idea of a backstop that will be used "in the absence of agreed solutions" to avoid a hard border and that must be included in the Withdrawal Agreement February 2018: EU publishes draft Withdrawal Agreement, suggesting that if no other solutions are found, Northern Ireland would remain "part of the customs territory" of the EU February 2018: Theresa May says "no UK prime minister could ever agree" to the EU’s proposals June 2018: UK publishes proposal for "temporary customs arrangement" to apply to the whole UK in the event of no other solution being found, avoiding the need for customs checks between UK and EU July 2018: UK publishes 'Chequers' white paper, which proposes ‘common rulebook’ on goods to avoid regulatory checks at borders September 2018: Salzburg summit – EU confirms that "while there are positive elements in the Chequers proposal, the suggested framework for economic co-operation will not work" and that "a solid, operational and legally binding Irish backstop" is still necessary September 2018: Theresa May says the UK will "set out our alternative" solution to the backstop October 2018: European Council fails to deliver Withdrawal Agreement November 2018: Special Council agrees draft Withdrawal Agreement December 2018: The UK government delays ‘meaningful vote’ on Withdrawal Agreement January 2019: The UK government publishes ‘reassurances’ on the backstop and exchanges letter with EU Council and Commission presidents, setting out joint ambition to avoid backstop through future relationship January 2019: Parliament rejects the government’s deal in a second 'meaningful vote' January 2019: Parliament approves the 'Brady amendment', seeking changes to the backstop February 2019: Further negotiations between Stephen Barclay, then secretary of state for exiting the EU; Geoffrey Cox, then attorney general; and the EU March 2019: The UK government and the EU publish 'joint instrument' on the backstop; Cox publishes legal advice August 2019: Boris Johnson’s government writes to the EU outlining concerns with the backstop September 2019: The UK puts forward a proposal for replacing the backstop October 2019: The UK and EU agree a new Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
Yes around 57,000. They are an OCT. Have one export. So this is untrue, or at least irrelevant.
Greenland: life outside the EU is fine but it comes with problems
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
I was not arguing about advantages, or disadvantages. Although I have not heard anyone arguing purely from a trade point of view, that NI has not got the best of both worlds. I can see that the idea of a trade border between NI, and the rest of the UK, was never likely to appeal to Unionists. Although I am not sure that the existence of a trade border has an adverse effect on the everyday life of the average Unionist. Boris certainly lied to the DUP over it. Although they couldnt have fallen for it, if they had applied a little common sense. I have said a number of times before that WTO rules dictate that there must be a border between different customs territories. There is not an example anywhere in the world, where this rule isnt applied. I have not heard anyone argue that there is no need for a border between the UK, and the EU. Nobody. So there was always going to be a border. Under normal circumstances this trade border would have been on the Island of Ireland. This would have been ideal, and the UK would have remained intact. Although this arrangement would have left NI out of the SM/CU, and without the best of both worlds. It is not me that is arguing about the best of both worlds, I have not heard anyone arguing that purely from a trade point of view, this is not the case. Subsequent to the GFA, this was not possible. No hard land border, or border infrastructure, was possible. The only possible alternative was a border around mainland GB. So once you accept that this is the only alternative, it creates a couple of problems. Firstly, NI is separated from the rest of the UK. Secondly, NI is on the wrong side of the border. So creating this border is pointless unless NI is left in the SM/CU. The current situation is therefore a result of circumstances, rather than a master plan. Theresa May famously said that no British PM would put a border between GB, and NI. Her plan was the backstop, until an alternative solution could be found, but no border. My argument about the DUP having their cake, and eating it, is based on their demands.
"This means safeguarding our place in the U.K. internal market both now and for the future, whilst retaining our access to the EU single market.
As I have said earlier, I have not heard a single politician, or anyone else, argue that there is no need for a border between the UK, and the EU. I dont think for one minute that the EU would agree to this anyway. So the border will remain. In my view the only possible solution would be some sort of virtual border in Ireland, without any border infrastructure. If this was possible then NI, would obviously no longer be left in the SM/CU. So I dont think it is possible for the DUP to be achieve both demands. If the border could be removed they would be out of the SM/CU. If they were out of the SM/CU it would have an adverse effect on their economy. I think that the Windsor Framework has addressed most of the silly rules that were being applied, and has therefore improved the situation. I can see why Unionists can in principle object to a trade border, but I wonder if they may regret removing it, if it becomes possible, if it led to losing access to the SM/CU.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
OPINION: Geoff Martin - Friendless DUP has made us all a hostage to its fortunes
With the greatest respect, @Haysie your love of the EU makes you believe there is some sort of "free lunch" in relation to NI and the Single Market. You see the advantages. But not the disadvantages.
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
The party argues the arrangements undermine Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom.
But the UK government says the Windsor Framework - its deal on Northern Ireland with the European Union - is here to stay.
What is the DUP's stance on Brexit?
The DUP campaigned in the 2016 referendum for the UK to leave the European Union.
A year later it held the balance of power at Westminster after a snap general election saw then-prime minister, Theresa May, leading a minority government.
The party opposed her ill-fated deal on how the UK would leave the EU and senior figures aligned themselves with more hard-line Brexiteers in the Conservative Party.
The DUP welcomed Boris Johnson succeeding Mrs May as prime minister after her plans ended in parliamentary deadlock.
Mr Johnson had expressed opposition to part of her deal known as the backstop - an insurance policy where the UK would retain EU trade rules to avoid Irish border checks if alternatives could not be agreed.
When he became prime minister, Boris Johnson sought support for his own plan which the DUP again opposed.
It involved the Northern Ireland Protocol, which kept the region inside the EU single market for goods - resulting in new checks and paperwork for products arriving from Great Britain.
After winning an overall majority in the 2019 election, Mr Johnson got his deal through parliament.
How did the DUP react to the Northern Ireland Protocol?
The DUP opposed the protocol but initially appeared to downplay the Irish Sea trade border when it came into effect in January 2021.
Baroness Foster, still party leader at the time, said the UK-EU trade deal was a "gateway of opportunity for the whole of the UK".
But as issues with the protocol became more apparent, there was growing discontent among unionists.
It contributed to a leadership crisis in the DUP which saw Baroness Foster ousted in an internal revolt and her successor Edwin Poots toppled after just three weeks in the job.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson was installed as DUP leader and the party continued developing a tougher line against the protocol.
In July 2021, he set out the party's "seven tests" by which to judge any changes the UK and EU would make to the arrangements.
With no progress in sight, the DUP in February last year collapsed Stormont's power-sharing executive in protest.
The UK and EU agreed the Windsor Framework deal in March in a bid to address problems with the protocol, but the DUP has said it does not go far enough.
What are the DUP's seven tests?
The seven tests were set out during a debate in House of Commons.
The say post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland must "avoid any diversion of trade" and "not constitute a border in the Irish Sea", with no checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The party also said people in Northern Ireland need to have "a say in the making of the laws that govern them".
The DUP believes the protocol undermines the principle enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement that Northern Ireland's constitutional status can only be changed with explicit democratic consent.
It said any arrangement should "preserve the letter and spirit of Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee".
Where does the DUP stand on the Windsor Framework?
The DUP said the Windsor Framework represented "significant progress" in a number of areas but there remained "key issues of concern".
It has continued talks with the UK government to seek further legal assurances of Northern Ireland's place within the UK internal market.
The party said it would study the deal against its seven tests before reaching a "collective" conclusion on whether to end its boycott of Stormont.
But some senior figures, such as MPs Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley and former deputy leader Lord Dodds, have expressed reservations.
Former DUP leader Edwin Poots said in September the party would need to see something "seismic" from Downing Street to resume power-sharing.
Mr Wilson described so-called red and green trade lanes taking effect under the framework this month as confirmation that "Northern Ireland has got a border in the Irish Sea".
You talk as though the GTO Rules are all-encompassing. When they are not.
The GTO Rules only provide rules in relation to separate sovereign nations trading. They are not relevant when we are talking about a part-nation.
Northern Ireland is not a separate nation. It is like England, or Wales, or Greenland. Merely part of a larger country in the defined sense for trading.
That is why Greenland genuinely has the best of both Worlds. And NI does not.
Greenland is not in the EU. It is not in the Single Market. It is the only territory to leave the EU before the UK. It did so very deliberately. As it wanted to be able to prevent other nations from fishing in "its" waters.
The EU is the World's largest Protectionist bloc. Yet it chooses to allow Greenland to pretend it is both part of Denmark, and also not part of Denmark, as it chooses. While giving it massive amounts of EU aid. And giving it a free pass for its exports.
It is not alone in doing that. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were both able to choose to be outside/inside the EU when it suited previously.
There is no legal reason why Northern Ireland could not be regarded in a similar way. All it would take is for the EU to treat NI like lots of other places.
Comments
The leaders have been setting out their positions ahead of the New Year as the impasse over the Irish Sea border continues.
Sir Jeffrey told DUP members: “2024 is likely to be another hectic year. This is the year we want to see our negotiations successfully concluded and the UK Government implement actions that will see Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom restored and the harm caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol erased so that we can move forward together.
"This means safeguarding our place in the U.K. internal market both now and for the future, whilst retaining our access to the EU single market. “These objectives are not mutually exclusive, nor do they lead to the creation of an all-island economy.
"Our clear mission remains to uphold the integrity of the Union, within which we can make Northern Ireland prosper and succeed. The Government knows what needs to be done to right the wrongs of what was imposed upon Northern Ireland without consent.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/donaldson-defends-ni-access-to-both-markets-as-unionist-leaders-set-out-their-2024-agenda-in-new-year-messages/ar-AA1mdIEI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=15eee6ed481046ff968a439760c9ff2c&ei=95
This seems to be a very weird argument.
Boris claimed that NI would get the best of both worlds as a result of the protocol.
Something that I am sure that the NI business community agree with.
There surely has to be benefits from having unfettered access to both markets.
As you know this came about as a result of the Good Friday Agreement not allowing a land border in Ireland.
The result was a border around mainland GB, and NI remained in the SM/CU.
Hence the best of both worlds.
At the time that Theresa May came up with the backstop, hard line Brexiteers came up with the virtual border in Ireland, and trusted trader scheme as an alternative.
Although in the end they had to admit that the technology to implement this was not yet available.
If you accept that there has to be a border between the UK/EU, then the only alternative to the current arrangements, would seem to be some sort of technological border in Ireland, without any border infrastructure.
Maybe some checks at Irish ports, on goods that originated in the UK, would have to take place.
This could only happen when the technology became available.
So it seems to me that there are two alternatives.
The current arrangements, and NI gets the best of both worlds.
Or a virtual border in Ireland, when the technology is available, and NI doesnt.
Are there any other options?
Would the second option cause more problems than the current arrangements, as well as affecting their economy?
There is certainly a clear argument that there are advantages in relation to purchases made by NI businesses from Ireland via the Windsor framework. But that does not extend fully to sales made via GB.
There is a trade border between NI and Ireland. It's just that the UK Govt has tried to blur this, and lessen its impact. Doesn't mean it isn't real.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-67701816
I don't believe it is a "weird" argument at all. On the contrary, for once, the DUP seem to be adopting a very welcome move towards an acceptable middle ground. One where NI is equally able to trade with GB and Ireland.
Before you say this is a pipe dream, look at Greenland. Population-wise, a small part of Denmark. That is not part of the EU. And yet there are no meaningful barriers whatsoever in relation to trade to and from the EU
Nor do I think it is relevant.
I have not heard a single politician argue that there is no need for a trade border between the UK, and EU.
All the arguments have been about the location of the border.
After the UK Parliament voted to leave the European Union, all parties said that they want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, due particularly to the border's historically sensitive nature. Border issues were one of three areas of focused negotiation in the Withdrawal Agreement. Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union on 31 January 2020, this border is also the frontier between the EU and an external country. The Northern Ireland Protocol of the Brexit withdrawal agreement commits the UK and the EU to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea border between the two islands. This requires the continued application of the Common Travel Area as well as free trade of goods (including electricity) between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The latter requires the UK to follow EU law in Northern Ireland with respect to these areas, with jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the interpretation of the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_and_the_Irish_border
The Northern Ireland backstop was an arrangement for the Irish border that was part of Theresa May’s Brexit deal. It would have come into effect if no other solutions to maintain the current open border were agreed once the UK had left the EU. It was intended to protect the Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement and keep an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit.
Both the UK and EU agreed on the need for a backstop to ensure no hard border – physical checks and infrastructure – returns to Ireland. However, when Boris Johnson became prime minister in July 2019 he managed to obviate the need for a backstop by agreeing a permanent new relationship between Northern Ireland and the EU. This new relationship means Northern Ireland is treated differently to the rest of Great Britain and following EU rules in some areas.
Why might the border have hardened as a result of Brexit?
The UK’s decision to leave the EU single market and customs union means that it will become a ‘third country’ to the EU. If the UK and EU had failed to find a new arrangement, the Irish land border would have become a customs and regulatory border involving the standard checks it has at its border with any third country.
How did the border feature in the withdrawal negotiations?
The EU guidelines for the first phase of negotiations on UK withdrawal identified the "unique circumstances on the island of Ireland". The guidelines also stated that avoiding a hard border was one of three key issues that needed to achieve ‘sufficient progress’ in phase one of negotiations – along with the financial settlement and citizens’ rights – to allow talks to begin on the framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU.
The UK initially argued that the border could only be fully solved through the future UK–EU relationship. However, the EU, particularly the Irish government, wanted legally binding commitments to avoiding a hard border included in the Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU.
In the run up to the critical December 2017 European Council, the question of the Irish border became critical to the prospect of successfully achieving ‘sufficient progress’. The two sides were forced to reach an agreement and bridge the gap between their positions.
What was agreed in the December 2017 Joint Report?
In December 2017, the two parties agreed in the Joint Report that to avoid a hard border, there are three possible solutions:
To achieve this objective through the overall UK–EU relationship agreed after the UK leaves the EU. This is the UK’s preferred option.
Should this not be possible, the UK will propose specific solutions to allow for a special post-Brexit arrangement for Northern Ireland.
In the absence of agreed solutions being reached before the transition period is scheduled to end in December 2020, the UK will maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, should support North–South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement. This arrangement would remain in place until alternative solutions, most likely relying on advances in technology, could be introduced.
Through this agreement, the UK effectively conceded that a legally watertight solution to the border question had to be included in the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than postponed to the future relationship negotiations. This form of words allowed both sides to recommend that the requisite ‘sufficient progress’ had been made for further talks to take place, on the framework for the future UK–EU relationship. The European Council, including the Taoiseach (the Irish prime minister) duly signed this off in December 2017.
What happened after the Joint Report?
While the two sides agreed on the wording of the Joint Report, there was a lack of agreement on what the proposed solutions meant in practice. The focus of discussions on the border shifted to the third proposal, which became known as 'the backstop'.
In February 2018, the European Commission published a draft withdrawal agreement which, to deliver the backstop, proposed keeping Northern Ireland within the EU customs territory and ‘common regulatory area’ covering goods and sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. This approach, a ‘Northern Ireland specific’ backstop, would require customs and regulatory checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland if it ever came into force.
Then Prime Minister Theresa May said “no UK prime minister could ever agree to” this proposal because it would threaten the “constitutional integrity of the UK”. The UK’s preferred approach was for any backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, not just Northern Ireland, to prevent the need for checks to take place on goods moving from one part of the UK to another.
In summer 2018, the UK government published proposals for a temporary UK-wide customs union with the EU and, as part of its suggestions for the future relationship, a ‘common rulebook’ on goods regulations. Effectively the UK argued that the backstop was unnecessary as the future relationship would ensure there was no need for a hard border. However, the EU rejected the time-limited proposal and the idea of a UK-wide backstop, as it would prejudge the outcome of detailed future relationship negotiations.
Over summer 2018 discussions continued on the backstop, with Michel Barnier, the EU's Chief Negotiator for Brexit, attempting to 'de-dramatise' the issue by making clear that the EU’s proposal would require "only technical controls on goods". The EU also sought to limit the categories of goods facing checks, building on existing animal health checks that take place between the two islands, rather than creating lots of new checks.
But there was no concrete progress in mid-2018. The EU’s priorities were reasserted at the Salzburg summit in September 2018, when European Council President Donald Tusk said “there will be no Withdrawal Agreement without a solid, operational and legally binding Irish backstop”.
The two sides reached agreement on a draft Withdrawal Agreement in November 2018, which included a protocol on Northern Ireland setting out the backstop. The EU made a significant concession in granting a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’, avoiding the need for customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the requirement for regulatory alignment is limited to Northern Ireland.
Why were there concerns about the backstop?
The backstop proved one of the most contentious issues in parliamentary debates on the draft Withdrawal Agreement. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) opposed it because it would have introduced differences in regulation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which it saw as a threat to Northern Ireland’s place in the Union.
A majority of people in Northern Ireland supported the backstop, however, as it gave them privileged access to both the UK and EU markets. In January 2019, the UK government published proposals on how the UK, including the Northern Ireland executive, could influence both the decision to use the backstop and its governance if it came into effect, as well as a commitment that the rest of the UK would unilaterally align with the single market regulations being applied in Northern Ireland.
Other Brexiteers are opposed to the backstop because it would mean the UK remaining in a customs territory with the EU, removing the UK’s ability to vary its tariffs, a key component of trade deals.
There were also concerns that the UK would not be able to leave the backstop. It was intended to apply “unless and until” alternative arrangements, which both sides agree on, can replace it.
What happened when Boris Johnson became prime minister?
Theresa May resigned in summer 2019 after parliament continued to reject her deal, with the backstop cited as the key issue. Boris Johnson became prime minister pledging to scrap the backstop altogether.
Johnson wrote to the EU declaring the backstop was "anti-democratic", "inconsistent with the UK’s final destination" and risked "weakening the delicate balance of the Good Friday Agreement". The UK government put forward a formal proposal to the EU, which included Northern Ireland following EU rules in agrifood and creating a customs border between Northern Ireland and the EU/Republic of Ireland.
Following negotiations, the two sides agreed the new Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which involves Northern Ireland following EU rules for goods and customs but included a consent mechanism. The deal looked similar to the one first proposed by the EU in February 2018, which was rejected by the UK, but now including an exit mechanism.
Timeline of negotiations on the Irish backstop
March 2017: Prime Minister Theresa May triggers Article 50, beginning the countdown to Brexit
April 2017: European Council issues its first guidelines for Brexit negotiations, which establish the "aim of avoiding a hard border"
June – December 2017: Phase one negotiations, including discussions on the Irish border
December 2017: Joint UK–EU Report published on phase one of negotiations, establishing idea of a backstop that will be used "in the absence of agreed solutions" to avoid a hard border and that must be included in the Withdrawal Agreement
February 2018: EU publishes draft Withdrawal Agreement, suggesting that if no other solutions are found, Northern Ireland would remain "part of the customs territory" of the EU
February 2018: Theresa May says "no UK prime minister could ever agree" to the EU’s proposals
June 2018: UK publishes proposal for "temporary customs arrangement" to apply to the whole UK in the event of no other solution being found, avoiding the need for customs checks between UK and EU
July 2018: UK publishes 'Chequers' white paper, which proposes ‘common rulebook’ on goods to avoid regulatory checks at borders
September 2018: Salzburg summit – EU confirms that "while there are positive elements in the Chequers proposal, the suggested framework for economic co-operation will not work" and that "a solid, operational and legally binding Irish backstop" is still necessary
September 2018: Theresa May says the UK will "set out our alternative" solution to the backstop
October 2018: European Council fails to deliver Withdrawal Agreement
November 2018: Special Council agrees draft Withdrawal Agreement
December 2018: The UK government delays ‘meaningful vote’ on Withdrawal Agreement
January 2019: The UK government publishes ‘reassurances’ on the backstop and exchanges letter with EU Council and Commission presidents, setting out joint ambition to avoid backstop through future relationship
January 2019: Parliament rejects the government’s deal in a second 'meaningful vote'
January 2019: Parliament approves the 'Brady amendment', seeking changes to the backstop
February 2019: Further negotiations between Stephen Barclay, then secretary of state for exiting the EU; Geoffrey Cox, then attorney general; and the EU
March 2019: The UK government and the EU publish 'joint instrument' on the backstop; Cox publishes legal advice
August 2019: Boris Johnson’s government writes to the EU outlining concerns with the backstop
September 2019: The UK puts forward a proposal for replacing the backstop
October 2019: The UK and EU agree a new Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/irish-backstop
They are an OCT.
Have one export.
So this is untrue, or at least irrelevant.
Greenland: life outside the EU is fine but it comes with problems
Learning Greenland's lessons for Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37246181
Greenland and the European Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Union
International Partnerships
https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/countries/greenland_en
Greenland: A post-Danish sovereign nation state in the making
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010836713514151
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/top-brexiteer-sets-out-10-new-year-brexit-resolutions-to-capitalise-on-freedom-from-eu/ar-AA1mgptO?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c01b921f11d94cf78ccf4e09482cb82b&ei=38
It stands alone. Its demands are irreconcilable.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/opinion-geoff-martin-friendless-dup-has-made-us-all-a-hostage-to-its-fortunes/ar-AA1mh00d?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5113771e03954019ba6e3ad1635da76a&ei=96
The party argues the arrangements undermine Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom.
But the UK government says the Windsor Framework - its deal on Northern Ireland with the European Union - is here to stay.
What is the DUP's stance on Brexit?
The DUP campaigned in the 2016 referendum for the UK to leave the European Union.
A year later it held the balance of power at Westminster after a snap general election saw then-prime minister, Theresa May, leading a minority government.
The party opposed her ill-fated deal on how the UK would leave the EU and senior figures aligned themselves with more hard-line Brexiteers in the Conservative Party.
The DUP welcomed Boris Johnson succeeding Mrs May as prime minister after her plans ended in parliamentary deadlock.
Mr Johnson had expressed opposition to part of her deal known as the backstop - an insurance policy where the UK would retain EU trade rules to avoid Irish border checks if alternatives could not be agreed.
When he became prime minister, Boris Johnson sought support for his own plan which the DUP again opposed.
It involved the Northern Ireland Protocol, which kept the region inside the EU single market for goods - resulting in new checks and paperwork for products arriving from Great Britain.
After winning an overall majority in the 2019 election, Mr Johnson got his deal through parliament.
How did the DUP react to the Northern Ireland Protocol?
The DUP opposed the protocol but initially appeared to downplay the Irish Sea trade border when it came into effect in January 2021.
Baroness Foster, still party leader at the time, said the UK-EU trade deal was a "gateway of opportunity for the whole of the UK".
But as issues with the protocol became more apparent, there was growing discontent among unionists.
It contributed to a leadership crisis in the DUP which saw Baroness Foster ousted in an internal revolt and her successor Edwin Poots toppled after just three weeks in the job.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson was installed as DUP leader and the party continued developing a tougher line against the protocol.
In July 2021, he set out the party's "seven tests" by which to judge any changes the UK and EU would make to the arrangements.
With no progress in sight, the DUP in February last year collapsed Stormont's power-sharing executive in protest.
The UK and EU agreed the Windsor Framework deal in March in a bid to address problems with the protocol, but the DUP has said it does not go far enough.
What are the DUP's seven tests?
The seven tests were set out during a debate in House of Commons.
The say post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland must "avoid any diversion of trade" and "not constitute a border in the Irish Sea", with no checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The party also said people in Northern Ireland need to have "a say in the making of the laws that govern them".
The DUP believes the protocol undermines the principle enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement that Northern Ireland's constitutional status can only be changed with explicit democratic consent.
It said any arrangement should "preserve the letter and spirit of Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee".
Where does the DUP stand on the Windsor Framework?
The DUP said the Windsor Framework represented "significant progress" in a number of areas but there remained "key issues of concern".
It has continued talks with the UK government to seek further legal assurances of Northern Ireland's place within the UK internal market.
The party said it would study the deal against its seven tests before reaching a "collective" conclusion on whether to end its boycott of Stormont.
But some senior figures, such as MPs Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley and former deputy leader Lord Dodds, have expressed reservations.
Former DUP leader Edwin Poots said in September the party would need to see something "seismic" from Downing Street to resume power-sharing.
Mr Wilson described so-called red and green trade lanes taking effect under the framework this month as confirmation that "Northern Ireland has got a border in the Irish Sea".
Did anyone need confirmation?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67076620
The GTO Rules only provide rules in relation to separate sovereign nations trading. They are not relevant when we are talking about a part-nation.
Northern Ireland is not a separate nation. It is like England, or Wales, or Greenland. Merely part of a larger country in the defined sense for trading.
That is why Greenland genuinely has the best of both Worlds. And NI does not.
Greenland is not in the EU. It is not in the Single Market. It is the only territory to leave the EU before the UK. It did so very deliberately. As it wanted to be able to prevent other nations from fishing in "its" waters.
The EU is the World's largest Protectionist bloc. Yet it chooses to allow Greenland to pretend it is both part of Denmark, and also not part of Denmark, as it chooses. While giving it massive amounts of EU aid. And giving it a free pass for its exports.
It is not alone in doing that. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were both able to choose to be outside/inside the EU when it suited previously.
There is no legal reason why Northern Ireland could not be regarded in a similar way. All it would take is for the EU to treat NI like lots of other places.