Sir, – Given that the UK government has admitted that it did not understand the meaning and extent of the protocol agreement it negotiated with the European Union, is it not somewhat ironic that it has published legislation intended to amend what it failed to comprehend in the first place?
– Yours, etc,
MICHAEL WILSON,
Belfast.
A lot has changed for US women since 2016. What does that mean for Kamala Harris?
Forty years of the Dart: ‘Dealing with the public is one of the hardest things anyone can do’
Mark Francis: Acoustic Oceans review – A fascinating development in the Irish artist’s decades-spanning career
Fake phone calls, meeting pretend-presidents and being ambushed by your parents on TV: The rituals of All-Ireland week
Sir , – This latest sequel in the Brexit saga, like Brexit itself, is rooted in the Euroscepticism of the European Research Group. The ERG is a very influential faction within the current Conservative Party, its support being vital for any leader or prospective Tory leader. Activities that provoke or displease the EU is grist to the mill of the ERG.
In Northern Ireland, where the importance of symbolism can never be overlooked, the election of a Sinn Féin first minister would be viewed as toxic for the DUP, and one to be avoided. Their demand for the removal of the protocol, as a precondition to taking their seats in the Assembly, presents a convenient smokescreen.
It should never be overlooked that the ERG and the DUP are closely aligned on matters of Euroscepticism and Brexit. Thankfully, however, the US administration, having invested enormous time and energy in the peace process leading to the Good Friday Agreement, continues its oversight of current matters.
– Yours, etc,
MICK O’BRIEN,
Springmount, Kilkenny.
Sir, – There is an uncanny centenary echo of Britain’s Boundary Commission betrayal of Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins in current London antics over the Northern Ireland protocol.
Lord Birkenhead, one of the British Treaty negotiators in 1921, admitted privately to his colleague Austen Chamberlain that the boundary commission was offered to the Irish delegates in a way that gave them a basis for believing that the deal would deliver to the new Irish Free State a substantial portion of Northern Ireland, including counties Fermanagh and Tyrone where there were nationalist majorities.
However, the ink was scarcely dry on the Treaty when by early 1922 the Tories were claiming – notwithstanding the scepticism of Northern premier James Craig – that the Boundary Commission meant very little in practice. Shame on them.
On that occasion division among the Irish (not least in the Civil War) and the tragic early deaths of Griffith and Collins who had negotiated the deal, meant that the Boundary Commission was a damp squib, eventually traded off by the British and Irish governments for other purposes.
On this occasion it will be a case of shame on us if the British succeed again in walking away from a treaty deal that, like the Boundary Commission provision, was perhaps not tied down quite firmly enough in the heat of negotiations.
– Yours, etc,
COLUM KENNY,
Professor Emeritus,
Dublin City University.