The Windsor Framework (WF), whatever one’s view of its desirability, demonstrates behaviours conducive to progress and exposes the dangers of dogma which hinder it. An eye on the big picture is paramount and the myopia of extremists cannot be a distraction.
BIG PICTURE
Perhaps the big picture behind Brexit, once the UK people demanded it, is that the most positive future for the EU and UK relationship is one of mutual cooperation and support, reflected indeed in agreed principles, and perhaps the Ukraine war has opened blinded eyes to that. However, when the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), was being settled in 2019/2020, despite principles having been established, the entrenchment of extreme ideologies and dogma obscured sensible outcomes which would work. Extreme Brexiteers needed as clean a break from EU influence as could be maximised, however clumsy the terms; extreme Remainers, while having to declare acceptance of a democratic vote, wanted to retain as much European intimacy as possible and so Brexit in name only, and some would visit Brussels to share common cause; some angry EU politicians and officials in the Commission saw the UK’s attitude and decision as a threat to their religious calling, Federal Europe, and some were quoted as saying the UK needed to be punished. The complications and vociferousness generated by these groups were permitted much influence and so the big picture got obscured.
The NIP was a highly imperfect product, creating a border within the UK, perceived by some perhaps correctly to make Northern Ireland a second-class member of the union which is the UK. Any chance of workability depended on a very light touch in its application which was not adopted by the EU as it exercised its rights. It has been admitted by all parties that the NIP is unworkable. Any agreement which in practice does not reasonably satisfy the basic needs of all parties eventually falls apart, whether a contract between individuals, businesses or nations. The NIP reminds us of that lesson whenever different parties are seeking to come together and resolve their competing desires.
How often in Brexit negotiations or disputes over political proposals or legislation or when principles are expounded do we hear the phrase “the devil is in the detail”. That has an element of truth. But we should beware especially of extremists or those who wish to derail harmonious solutions when they spout this expression, as it is used as an excuse for difficult minutiae to divert from the big picture, with a view to “throwing the baby out with the bath water”.
When the NIP was adopted, extreme dogma had the UK and EU as adversaries not allies who needed to live together harmoniously. That realisation of the big picture and its primacy perhaps led to the WF.
GIVE AND TAKE, COMPROMISE – THE BEATING HEART OF FREE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES
It was the sacrosanct nature of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) which perhaps makes reaching agreement on the WF to satisfy all parties so difficult. The GFA itself was a major achievement in compromise to satisfy extremist antagonistic positions. That to alter it is deemed impossible for fear extremists on both Unionist and Republican sides might start killing people again is arguably itself unacceptable, but for now its inviolate nature prevails: it is 25 years old but the world keeps moving and one day it will have to change.
The WF is a compromise and will not please everybody, and will certainly not satisfy certain extreme protagonists such as some Brexiteers or Democratic Unionist party members.
The holy open border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic necessitates some application of controls somewhere to enable enforcement of some EU standards for goods bound for the EU. Goods bound from the rest of the UK just to Northern Ireland should be free of EU regulations. The Includes a series of sensible compromises, not perfect answers, which put very simply involve the EU, a very risk averse body, accepting a level of risk of dishonest abuse of free trade within the UK, and on the other hand the UK accepting in NI only a possible – but likely not significant in practice – interference by the EU and the European Court of Justice in NI affairs.
Compromises are possible now perhaps because of personalities and the overriding realisation and acknowledgement that the NIP was not working to meet the needs of all stakeholders. Also perhaps because, the EU, having in retaliation to UK recalcitrance against the NIP, broken its promise to allow the UK to be an associate of the Horizon science group, has realised that absence of UK science from that group damages the EU as much as the UK: reinstatement of that Horizon commitment will benefit all parties. But perhaps most important is that the EU and UK, in response to the existential threat to European order and democracy posed by Putin’s imperial war against Ukraine, recognise by necessity that the big picture issue of cooperation, security and survival dwarfs the petty squabbling over NIP matters which are inconsequential by comparison.
In any relationship which matters, whether personal, business or national, or where any concept of mutual help and cooperation is important, compromise and give and take is vital, as shown by the WF.
The DUP’s “red lines” will need to go pinker if they are to accept the WF. But red lines are possibly a foolish concept when it comes to normal relationships as they shut out possibilities. So too extreme Tory Brexiteers must flex their red lines. The EU must remain open to do so too. The DUP and all politicians have a wider duty also to the whole of the UK and its best interests and resolution of NIP differences is in those interests. The WF needs to be given a chance to work in practice. Realities sometimes forge pragmatism, and with pragmatism it has a chance of working. If it does not satisfy people reasonably over time, like all relationships, there may have to be changes and further compromises in the future.
However, in the most extreme circumstances, compromise may not always be possible; for example compromise with Putin over Ukraine may be such a circumstance.
MOST PEOPLE MOSTLY TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING
In a free democracy, freedom of thought, speech ,action and of the individual to decide their own fate are also at its heart. For those to flourish, not only are compromises necessary, but it is assumed that the vast majority of people try to behave reasonably sociably, respecting others’ freedoms, and observing rules, applying fairness with common sense. In addition, even if some things may be unpalatable to a person, they often accept that it is necessary to stomach them in the interests of community and the country as a whole. In practice, if that breaks down, a major reset is needed.
Perhaps this assumption also lays behind a willingness of the parties to adopt the WF. It will most likely work well if this principle holds true.
THE WF POINTS TO AN APPROACH TO RESOLVING CRIPPLING UK INTERNAL DISPUTES
In the UK today, the nation is shooting itself in the foot by impeding its own recovery through a series of drawn-out disputes, largely around increases in pay and changes to working conditions. The NHS nurses and doctors’ strikes, the rail drivers strikes, the teachers’ strikes, the border force strikes and other public service disputes involve Unions demanding levels of inflation-beating pay rises, to be funded by taxpayers themselves burdened by inflation, which are extreme. Government begins its stance at a pole apart, resting to some extent on independent recommendations. NHS nurses have halved their initial demand – so why was the original so high? Wars of attrition are rife. Ongoing working relations may be seriously damaged if not irreparably. No doubt the population generally will suffer damage, and the economic recovery held back.
It is surely a given that no person can be sheltered from some reduction in living standards due to inflation and global disruption. Equally the poorest paid need a level of assistance. Extremists promote stories of poverty woe, but these are not new. Serious poverty for those who cannot help themselves must always be a priority to be alleviated. Much misinformation is being promoted to argue for causes, which undermines the strength of the case for high pay awards. For example, media hype about shortages etc. as if life threatening, when merely inconvenient, exemplifies the presentation and accuracy of generalisations drawn from individual woe.
The principle of having an eye on the big picture – national security, Ukraine, independence of energy supplies for example – should help put the national tendency to complain, to expect others to solve individual problems and the State to be the bail-out charity, in perspective. Most UK issues are very first not third world problems. Accepting that promoting divisiveness is against the UK interest and mutual help and cooperation is a stronger medicine should focus minds on the art of compromise and give and take. Sticking to the principle of doing the right thing is essential. Finally, rejecting the communication of hatred, insult and disrespect, usually exaggerated so as to be untrue, and recalling and respecting the freedoms of others will serve public debate and social cohesion. It is incumbent on all parties where there is division to promote common ground, be inventive and move rapidly to solutions. The WF may be imperfect, but it is a basis to get on with things, which is much needed across the UK in so many fields.
