I’m afraid I have a deep faith in the Democratic Unionist Party’s capacity to cede an issue of principle in return for more gold, baubles, Renewable Heat Incentives etc. It may well give in, after receiving some bung, in a few days. But its resistance, at the time of writing, to the idea of ‘regulatory alignment’ with the Republic, seems wholly justified. This is not a pernickety matter solely for the province — it should apply just as much to the entire United Kingdom. If we agree to align trade rules with EU ones (as opposed to each recognising the other’s rules), we are sacrificing the economic point of Brexit, which is competitive advantage. When it insisted on settling the Irish question before going on to trade talks, the European Commission presumably understood this very well. As David Davis in effect admits, if we accept alignment for the North, we are accepting the thin end of a great big EU wedge.
The Irish Constitution is composed, says its Preamble, ‘In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority, and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and states must be referred’, but I still feel that Leo Varadkar is missing a trick in the matter of Brexit and the issue of the Irish border. The new Taoiseach, aged only 38, is a gay, secular half-Hindu. He came in as a moderniser, disinclined, it would seem, to refer his own state actions to the arbitrament of the shamrock. The modern thing to do would be to say that Brexit shows Ireland a clear path for competitive divergence from the EU, opening up the country to the world and rejoining the Commonwealth. He could announce lower tax rates which would put an independent Britain (including Northern Ireland) under pressure to follow suit.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in