‘Unionists are being misled over Protocol’ says Lord Empey – on third anniversary of the deal that ‘sacrificed’ Northern Ireland
and live on Freeview channel 276
He said “with all the attention being paid to many u-turns by Conservative Party, it is easy to forget that Monday marks the third anniversary of the Irish Sea Border”.
It was on October 17, 2019, that Boris Johnson and then-EU negotiator Jean-Claude Juncker announced a deal on the Irish border.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdLooking back at that period, Lord Empey said last night: “In [Johnson’s] document of seven pages, published two weeks before the deal was struck, the then-Prime Minister set out his plan for goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be checked and subject to EU rules. Paragraph nine spelt out his main proposal:
‘…..traders moving goods from GB to NI would need to notify the relevant authorities before entering Northern Ireland, in order to provide necessary information to undertake appropriate checks, and, where appropriate, prevent the entry of products prohibited or restricted by EU rules’.
“In black and white, a border in the Irish Sea proposed to the EU by Boris Johnson on October 2, 2019.”
Lord Empey also recalled that, at the time, then DUP-chief Arlene Foster said the proposals appeared “serious and sensible”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe peer also warned that recent signs, including NIO minister Steve Baker’s “extraordinary ‘apology’ to Ireland” seem to indicate “that this Government has no intention of scrapping the Protocol – once again, unionists are being misled”.
He went on to say: “What we need now is a way out of this debacle. Boris said he had an ‘oven ready deal’ to get Brexit done. Well, it was Northern Ireland in the oven and still is! We were the sacrifice so he could get his deal over the line.
“The only way to solve this problem is by negotiation between London and Brussels, but this time, it is essential local political leaders at Stormont are directly involved.
"It makes no sense that negotiations take place without the engagement of those most directly affected.”
More from this reporter: