Letter: Both sides in the Northern Ireland Protocol dispute should be open about basic realities, and remove the hidden agenda

Northern Ireland cannot maintain an undifferentiated position with the mainland unless there is a hard border with the Republic.

It is a matter of simple logic. The Protocol and the Windsor Framework cannot solve this problem for the DUP. And if they wish to remain undifferentiated, they cannot allow the current access to the EU market continue. They must make a choice.

After Brexit, the maintenance of an open border was pushed by the Republic on the basis that there could be violence if the hard border was reimposed. Significant violence is unlikely as circumstances have changed since the Belfast Agreement, not least Sinn Fein having joined the democratic process. However, if violence did erupt, it would surely be handled by the Garda and PSNI. The Republic did an excellent job in convincing the EU that the border needed to remain open. A high point in this elaborate con-job was when Varadkar took a photograph of the Newry bombing to a meeting in Brussels. And, there has never been any debate on this issue.

Sinn Fein doesn’t want a border under the delusion that it brings an united Ireland closer although a future mechanism has already been agreed. Varadkar, who hasn’t a nationalist bone in his body, makes strong nationalist utterances from time to time hoping to keep his voters from disappearing to Sinn Fein. Fear of reinstating the border means the Republic is having its agenda set by the men of violence—not a pleasant position for a proud country.

Looking at this from the EU perspective, the border was opened when both countries joined the single market and so when the UK left it would be normal to expect the border to be reinstalled. (The border was not mentioned in the Belfast Agreement, as some seem to think, as there was no thought of the UK leaving the EU at that time). The EU made a special exception for the Republic but now that it is becoming apparent that its single market cannot be protected, there is a possibility their bureaucratic organisation will run out of patience on the border issue. Indeed why would one expect they would continue to have such a problem on behalf of one member country?

So, I say the Emperor has no clothes. I would entreat those in power to raise some of these issues openly and remove the two-sided hidden agendas.

Bill Jermyn, Toronto