What’s at stake as UK and EU reach deal over Northern Ireland protocol

The stakes are high. Some in Brussels spoke of a threat to the integrity of the EU’s single economic market; some in London and Belfast warned of a threat to the coherence of the United Kingdom; and there were concerns about the fragility of peace in a region where decades of sectarian violence left several thousand dead.

The initial result was an agreement known as the Northern Ireland protocol, but there was unhappiness with it from almost the moment it took effect in 2021, and the renegotiated deal attempts to resolve at least some of those concerns.

President Joe Biden had made clear that he wanted a new agreement before celebrations in April for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which helped end decades of bloodshed in Northern Ireland known as “the Troubles.”

Here’s what to know.

What is the Northern Ireland protocol?

While the accord sounds like the title of a spy thriller, it’s actually a dry legal text that won’t be found on most people’s vacation reading lists.

The frontier between Northern Ireland and Ireland is contested, and parts of it were fortified during the decades of violence known as “the Troubles.” But customs checks on the island ended after both Britain and Ireland joined the forerunner of the EU, and other signs of division that remained along the open border have faded since the Good Friday peace deal of 1998.

No one wants checkpoints back, but when Britain left the EU, Johnson insisted on leaving its customs union and its single market, which allows goods to flow freely across European borders.

The original protocol set out a plan to deal with this situation. It did so by effectively leaving Northern Ireland half inside the European system (and its giant market), and half inside the British one. It sounded neat — until everyone tried to make it work.

The withdrawal agreement came into effect at the start of 2021, but there were complaints from all sides — Britain, the EU, Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Why didn’t Britain like the original protocol?

The plan meant more checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from mainland Britain, effectively creating a border down the Irish Sea and dividing the United Kingdom. Some British companies stopped supplying stores in Northern Ireland, blaming the added paperwork.

That enraged some lawmakers in Johnson’s Conservative Party and inflamed sentiment in Northern Ireland, where some objected to anything that would effectively set the region apart from the rest of the United Kingdom (for the sake of comparison, they might argue, it would be as if new trade rules required border checks for goods sent to California from the rest of the United States).

Some Brexit supporters also saw the protocol as a means for the EU to retain power over a part of the United Kingdom — a suspicion reflected in Britain’s desire to remove any role in the region for the European Court of Justice, the bloc’s top court.

To many of Northern Ireland’s pro-British unionists, many of whom are Protestant, it feels as if their identity is under threat.

As a result, Sunak had to tread carefully. His grip on his party is shaky, with pro-Brexit hard-liners within his Conservative Party skeptical about whether he had won enough concessions, a sentiment shared by members of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.

Some, in fact, wanted him to stick with a proposed law, which has already passed several stages of parliamentary approval, that would give his government the right to overrule parts of the protocol unilaterally.

That left Sunak with little room to maneuver: He had to be mindful of setting off a rebellion from his own lawmakers, or resignations from members of his Cabinet, while also being cognizant that angering the EU could possibly lead to a trade war.

Analysts say that Sunak, as prime minister, would not have to bring the agreement to a vote because what is being negotiated are changes to the operation of a treaty rather than its substance.

However, there have been many calls for lawmakers to have their say, and Sunak is likely to offer a vote at some point soon to underscore the political legitimacy of his new deal.

Why was the EU taking a hard line?

The bloc initially dug in its heels, not only because Johnson accepted the protocol, but also because he negotiated it and pushed it through the British Parliament.

With Johnson now out of power, the EU has seemed more willing to engage with Sunak, who has tried hard to build bridges.

Officials in Brussels accepted that the protocol has its flaws, but there was only so far they were willing to go, because EU leaders believed that the bloc’s existential interests are at risk. If Brussels can’t control what enters its single market, they argue, it could threaten the building blocks of European integration.

Was anyone in Northern Ireland satisfied with the protocol?

Yes. After the most recent elections for the regional government in Northern Ireland, in May, the majority of lawmakers now represent parties that largely want to keep the protocol, albeit with some improvements. That’s because the protocol was designed to prevent the reintroduction of checks on goods at the politically sensitive land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

A return of border checks would likely destabilize the peace process, which is underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement and has, among other things, allowed the border to remain open even after Brexit. It would particularly upset Sinn Fein, the biggest party after the recent election.

As a party that campaigns for Irish unity, it is hostile to any structures that appear to divide the island.

Some companies in Northern Ireland also benefited from the original protocol, because it allowed them sell their goods across Europe’s huge internal market as well as exporting to mainland Britain.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Stephen Castle and Megan Specia

c.2023 The New York Times Company