Deaglán de Bréadún - Need for creative thinking on NI Protocol – Irish News

PEACE can never be taken for granted, especially in the north of this island.

Anyone over a certain age will vividly recall how quickly the street protests with non-violent intent by the civil rights movement gave way to widespread shootings, bombings and almost 30 years of blood-drenched conflict.

There's no room for complacency. We have to make doubly sure that the younger generation of today never experience the likes of Bloody Sunday, Bloody Friday or any of the other horrors inflicted by different sides in the Troubles.

That's a major reason why the difficulties with the Northern Ireland Protocol must be resolved. It won't be easy. Flexibility, creativity and some form of compromise are required. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement set a good example in this regard.

Loyalist leaders such as the late David Ervine supported the 1998 agreement despite a last-minute effort by the Reverend Ian Paisley MP to persuade them otherwise. I wonder how David would approach the current furore over customs checks and the Irish Sea border. No doubt he would be looking for a solution that was both pragmatic and principled.

There were protocol-related riots and other forms of unrest involving loyalist elements last March and April in Derry, Belfast and Carrickfergus, in which 88 police officers were injured. Who can forget that burning bus? To borrow a phrase from Gerry Adams: “They haven't gone away, you know.”

I have previously suggested the arrangement between the European Union and countries such as the Ukraine as a possible way forward. This provides for an arbitration panel to resolve disputes, with the European Court of Justice only becoming involved to interpret matters of EU law. The ECJ has become a red line for the British side but if that line is thinned to a significant extent, surely a compromise might be possible?

I have since explored the details of the Association Agreement which came into force in 2017 and provides for a “deep and comprehensive free trade area” between the EU and Ukraine.

That's not unlike the situation where Northern Ireland remains in the EU single market for goods. There is very detailed provision for in-depth consultation and arbitration between Brussels and the authorities in Kiev when difficulties arise, e.g., in relation to “customs and trade facilitation”. The ECJ only comes into play to issue a ruling “where a dispute raises a question of interpretation of a provision of EU law”.

It comes across as a last resort but that wouldn't be enough to satisfy some unionists and Brexiteers. In that context it is very interesting to read what former EU official Michel Barnier has been reported as saying in the course of his current campaign to become President of France. Until last March he was a central figure on the EU side in negotiations with the United Kingdom during the lead-up to Brexit and in subsequent trade talks. He was so highly regarded in the Republic of Ireland that his first name was Gaelicised in popular culture from Michel to “Micheál”, as in Micheál Martin.

He is currently seeking a nomination from the liberal-conservative party Les Républicains (The Republicans) in next April's presidential election. Last month he was reported as saying at a rally that, in order to increase immigration controls, France must regain its “legal sovereignty in order to no longer be subject to the judgments” of the European Court of Justice.

A spokesperson later denied Barnier had taken this position. However, the Politico website quotes him as saying, in the audio of his remarks, that France's legal sovereignty needed to be regained as it was being “permanently threatened by a ruling or a condemnation at the level of the European Court of Justice” or other judicial institutions.

Another website, independent.co.uk, reports that Barnier later tweeted that he did not want France to completely break free from the European courts, but to create a “constitutional shield” so that the country would have more power over immigration issues.

One might well draw the conclusion that EU representatives are not as dogmatic as their critics would have us believe and that there could be room for flexibility on the power and authority of the ECJ. Given the departure of the UK, the current problems with Poland and the risks to peace in Northern Ireland, there is a real need for creative and imaginative thinking in the Brussels camp and indeed on all sides.