Johnson deserves a hearing in Ireland but will not get one

The Sun newspaper occupies a special place in the British political milieu. Such is its historic influence over the public that politicians treat it with deference.

As a consequence its political journalists are taken seriously. For this reason alone a story earlier this week by Tom Newton Dunn, the paper’s political editor, might merit more attention than it received.

Newton Dunn reported that among the solutions to the backstop standoff being mulled over by Boris Johnson was one which might best be described as a reverse backstop.

Very simply, what was proposed was that instead of the UK conforming with European Union rules and regulations pending the agreement of a new trade deal, Ireland should instead conform with British rules. It would require the rest of EU agreeing to some sort of special status for Ireland.

John McManus: The real reason why the state subsidises private schools

---

Should the rich get to choose how they contribute to society?

---

John McManus: Someone finally shouts stop but nobody cares

---

Should we care about Trinity College ‘hazing’ antics?

---

Best of both worlds

The net effect – ensuring no hard border in Ireland until some other solution can be found – would be the same as the current backstop proposal. It would also offer Ireland the best of both worlds: full access to the EU market and full access to the UK market.

Assuming that the mere mention of the the Sun was not enough to stop you reading this column, you have probably started at this point to assemble a list of reasons as to why this idea is a non-starter.

The list is long and ranges from the technical through the political and ultimately to the ideological. But perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is why your reflex reaction is to look for a reason why the idea wouldn’t work.

There is an interesting corollary to be found in the unionist position on the backstop

The answer to that question lies in the way the backstop has assumed an importance and a significance incommensurate with its intended purpose: a technocratic solution to the need to guarantee a frictionless border whatever happens.

It’s not a surprise really. The backstop has been a good moment for Ireland. It has vindicated our almost unquestioning embrace of the European project since we joined in 1973. The solidarity being shown by the other members states, and in particular France and Germany, is in no small manner payback for the the way we have conducted ourselves and the relationship we have built over the last 45 odd years.

It has also demonstrated to the wider world that we actually are serious-minded people despite the national humiliation that was the economic boom, crash and troika bailout. The two main parties and their leaders have shown themselves to be effective political operators and capable of acting in the national interests.

The moment is made all the sweeter by the fact that Brexit has shown up the UK – against whom we instinctively compare ourselves – to be profoundly dysfunctional.

We are enjoying Brexit – or more precisely we are enjoying the UK being spatchcocked by its its own hubris. However, our pleasure will come at a price if the UK crashes out at the end of October without a deal.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether Johnson’s reverse backstop idea – or any of his other “imaginative” solutions – would work , the wisdom of not even engaging with them is questionable.

The reverse backstop notion may rear its head in the weeks to come

We have to consider the possibility that our reluctance to back down from a rare position of strength in relation to our larger neighbour is an obstacle to averting a disaster.

Our reluctance is understandable. Anything that smacks of capitulation by Ireland to the British is not a good look politically. There would also be the minor irritation of Johnson being proved right.

It also requires us to put a great deal of trust in the British government to look out for Ireland’s interests, which would fly in the face of political reality and 700 years of history.

Unhappy satellite

Our 45-year engagement with the EU has been a far more rewarding experience. And perhaps the real difficulty with Johnson’s proposal, or any other ideas being floated by the British side, is that they move us away from where we want to be – in the EU orbit – and back towards were we were, an unhappy satellite of Britain. Maybe the harm that will be caused by a no-deal crash out is a price worth paying to cement this transition.

There is an interesting corollary to be found in the unionist position on the backstop. They don’t like it because it moves them away from where they want to be, in the UK, and towards something they are at best ambivalent about – closer integration with the Republic. And again they seem to be prepared to pay the price.

At the very least Johnson’s reverse backstop gives some sort of insight into the unionist position, which by any other yardstick makes no sense given the damage it would do to the North.

The reverse backstop notion may rear its head in the weeks to come. It and any other idea Johnson comes up with probably deserve a hearing – but won’t get one.