Northern Ireland Protocol: Rishi Sunak has so far kept his Brexit talks trump card under wraps – this is what could be in the deal and why it could face trouble ahead
Enemies are circling, Brexiteers are already pronouncing it dead, and the DUP are warning it undermines the Union.
But as opponents line up to try and assassinate Rishi Sunak’s forthcoming deal with Brussels to rework Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit future, Sky News can reveal that Number 10 is yet to play its trump card.
Despite weeks of headlines and column inches about the talks, Downing Street has so far kept under wraps what some believe is perhaps the biggest negotiation win.
Far from giving ground to the EU, they think they have turned the tables and forced a concession.
In short, Westminster will set VAT rates, taxation and state aid policy in Northern Ireland, not Brussels.
Mr Sunak has made addressing the disparity over VAT a priority ever since his last budget as chancellor, when Northern Ireland could not benefit from his decision to slash the tax on solar panels and other energy efficient purchases elsewhere in the UK because it must follow EU single market rules.
More on Brexit
Related Topics:
Downing Street is unwilling to reveal any change is coming publicly, insisting that “intensive” negotiations are still under way, giving them nothing yet to announce.
However, Sky News understands that the concession by Brussels is likely to feature at the heart of the reform package.
Advertisement
Some MPs have been alerted to the likely inclusion of this change, it is welcomed privately by senior DUP figures, and it is understood to be one of the three major changes at the heart of the Sunak deal with Brussels. The DUP’s only reservation is that they want to see the legal text to check the concession is as described.
It is not clear, however, whether it will be enough.
After months of official negotiations, what some see as basic errors – and an information vacuum – may have allowed too much of a head of steam to build up behind the opposition.
As a result, it is now unclear whether the changes hammered out with Brussels since December will ever be implemented.
Mr Sunak is facing splits amongst key allies over how and whether to proceed, with warnings that he’s not strong enough to face down his party and growing anxiety in Brussels that the first prime minister they have trusted since Brexit may be about to let them down.
The next few days could end up being the most consequential of his premiership.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:07
‘Collapse of Good Friday Agreement absolute catastrophe’
What is in the forthcoming deal?
The patchwork of measures and agreements to change the Northern Ireland Protocol have been prepared in utmost secrecy.
Taken together, those involved say it required the EU to change its negotiating mandate and agree to alter the text of the Protocol – something Brussels said was not possible during the premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
Under the Sunak proposals, three key changes to that arrangement are likely to be agreed.
The first has been well trailed: businesses that have signed up to a “trusted trader scheme” will be allowed to avoid all checks when moving goods from the GB mainland to Northern Ireland.
In exchange, the EU will be able to access “real-time” UK data on trade flows across the Irish Sea. The handful of companies who are not signed up to the trusted trader scheme would have to continue labelling and filling in paperwork as at present.
The second – known as the “Stormont Lock”, first mentioned in The Sunday Times – is designed to go some way towards addressing concerns that Northern Ireland will remain subject to EU single market rules under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as the price of avoiding border checks between the North and the Republic.
It is very complicated, but essentially it will give Northern Ireland some of the rights also enjoyed by Norway – which is also out of the EU but in the single market, so it has a say on the rules being imposed by Brussels.
Under the terms of the proposed deal, the EU will have to give the UK notice of future EU regulations intended for Northern Ireland. The Joint Ministerial Committee will then be able to lodge an objection, which may then result in the EU voluntarily choosing to disapply the regulation in Northern Ireland.
Alternatively, the Speaker of the Stormont Assembly could put the issue to a vote, which could delay when the forthcoming regulation comes into force. If the EU decides to take legal action because of a failure to implement the rule, then a Northern Ireland court would have to rule on the issue first, resulting in further delays.
This movement is likely to be welcomed by some. But this is arguably the biggest area of compromise for Brexiteers and unionists, since it does not give the outright veto on future EU regulations, which is something the DUP want.
The third change is the one revealed at the start of this article: that control of the so-called level playing field of measures, like VAT rates and state subsidy policy, will revert to Westminster. For constitutionalists, this will be seen as an important change.
Almost complete for some time, according to sources, none of this package has been formally briefed to the parties or the public.
Number 10 insists that negotiations are live, but other government sources suggest there is almost no activity still going on, and the principles of the agreement are settled even if there is some haggling on wording still to do.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:32
PM ‘won’t sell anyone out’
How the deal was done
Mr Sunak came into office wanting to establish a reputation for sorting out problems, particularly the poor relations with the EU and – to a lesser extent the US – over Brexit.
The PM wanted to ensure President Biden turns up in Northern Ireland for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement this Easter, meaning he needed to do a deal to ensure the Stormont Assembly was back up and running by then.
For this to happen, the PM needed the DUP to agree to a deal on the Protocol, and then go back into powersharing with Sinn Fein in order to form a government.
So, one key objective throughout these negotiations has been for Mr Sunak to get the hardline unionists on board. It was always a tall order, but it was one he chose to attempt. But it is on precisely this issue that Number 10 took an extraordinary – and some think reckless – gamble.
Despite needing the DUP onside, they decided not to talk to them personally. They decided that they did not want them involved in any way in the negotiations or feeding in thoughts, fearing this would make the talks unmanageable, so they were shut out.
Senior DUP sources tell me there were “no backchannels” to try and scope out what they needed, which they said was a contrast even from the Theresa May era.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:32
Sunak and Starmer clash over Protocol
Instead, the UK negotiating team were told to look up the DUP’s seven tests for a Northern Ireland Protocol replacement – which feature prominently on their website and in speeches by leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson – and find a solution to each one. One insider described it as the “spreadsheet approach” to the issue.
“We assumed that if you solve the problems in the seven tests, the DUP would be on board. That was certainly the presumption all the way along,” said one government source.
Then in an extraordinary moment three weeks ago, government sources started briefing the newspapers that the deal had successfully answered every one of the DUP’s tests, but without offering an explanation of how or why.
This entire approach flabbergasted the DUP. The tests were drawn up 18 months ago, in another political environment. They range from the broad – number four is “Giving NI people a say in their laws” – to the specific, such as number five, which states “No checks on goods between GB/NI”.
They were devised after conversations with the Johnson government, and were not designed to have a binary answer. Whether the tests were met was to be judged by the DUP alone.
Yet now the government was briefing journalists that the DUP’s concerns had been soothed, and their objections dealt with, without even telling them how.
“These tests weren’t designed to be used in that way”, said one senior DUP member. “If we’d known they were going to assume this level of importance we would have rewritten them and sharpened them”, they said.
Meanwhile, the DUP baulking at the tests has caused huge anger in government. Privately, some accuse the party of game playing and moving the goal posts. The DUP retort that if the goal was to get them on side, they should have opened a dialogue with them in person.
This move worsened the politics, although both sides also acknowledge that however badly Number 10 may have handled this, there was perhaps no deal ever to be made that satisfied both the DUP and the EU.
The trouble is, Downing Street only now appears to be grappling with this outcome afresh, with Brexiteers rowing in behind the DUP to make clear they are going to oppose the deal outlined.
So what next?
It is unclear how the prime minister will proceed. He has three options: press ahead, fully renegotiate or abandon his plan.
If he presses forward in the face of DUP and ERG opposition, he could face trench warfare in the Commons, whether or not any deal is put to a vote.
Mr Sunak would try to become the first Tory PM since 2010 to take on the Eurosceptics and not lose – as David Cameron did ultimately in 2016, then Theresa May did in 2019.
Alternatively, Mr Sunak could fully resume the negotiations, which despite the rhetoric, are mostly on pause at the moment.
However, the EU is unlikely to give more, and cannot bow to the DUP demand that Northern Ireland is no longer bound by future EU rules – for fear of destabilising member states and Norway, which is also in the single market but not the EU.
Or Mr Sunak could abandon the reforms, which would make clear the limits of his power and raise questions about whether he was running a “zombie” regime locked in coalition with truculent and weary Tory MPs.
If he does not do a deal, he will also have to decide whether to press ahead with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which would give the UK government unilateral power to rip up the Northern Ireland section of the original Brexit treaty.
Sky News understands that this is facing 90 amendments in the House of Lords, meaning that it is all but impossible to get through without resorting to the Parliament Act – the legislative nuclear option to override a veto by peers.
It is understood the PM is arguing against this in sessions with MPs, suggesting that a bitter parliamentary fight over the passage of the bill would reduce leverage with the EU rather than increase it as the ERG claim.
Mr Sunak has no easy options.
Once he is done with this, the next fight will be over legislation on migration, which some Tories believe will fail unless it goes further than is permitted by the European Convention on Human Rights – something that would enrage the EU all over again. The parade of Tory MPs raising this issue today in PMQs alone made clear the scale of the fight on that.
Meanwhile, within weeks, the privileges committee inquiry into whether former PM Boris Johnson lied at the despatch box will begin, with televised hearings raking over the wounds of one of the most painful episodes of recent Tory history.
The prime minister may have calmed things down, but there are toxic challenges ahead. Can he prove he’s not running a lame duck administration, or will it get worse?
The presumption in Westminster is the next general election will take place in the back half of next year.
But it only takes 37 Tory MPs to defy the PM and vote in a confidence vote alongside the opposition to trigger an election. Could things get that heated?
The man who drove a pick-up truck into people celebrating the New Year in New Orleans is believed to have acted alone, according to the FBI – as new information was revealed about the two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) recovered near the scene.
There is also “no definitive link” between the attack and the Cybertruck explosion in Las Vegas, said FBI deputy assistant director Christopher Raia.
Shamsud-Din Jabbar’s rented truck rammed into people in New Orleans’ famous Bourbon Street, killing 14 and injuring dozens, in the early hours of New Year’s Day.
Mr Raia called the attack “premeditated” and an “evil” act of terrorism, and said Jabbar was “100% inspired by ISIS”, also known as Islamic State.
He also said the FBI was reviewing two laptops and three phones linked to Jabbar, as well as two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) recovered near the scene of the attack.
The two “functional” devices contained nails and were made of galvanized pipe with end caps, and taped inside two coolers, according to Sky News’ US partner NBC News, citing the FBI and two senior US law enforcement officials. Both devices had receivers for remote firing, they said.
It was not immediately clear if Jabbar tried to detonate the devices, or if they malfunctioned, the officials said.
And during a search of Jabbar’s home in Houston, investigators found remnants of bomb making.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:55
New Orleans attacker was lone wolf – FBI
Five videos posted in hours before attack
The 42-year-old army veteran, who was born in the US and lived in Texas, was shot dead after he crashed and opened fire on police.
The FBI said he posted five videos on his Facebook account between 1.29am and 3.02am – with the attack taking place around 3.15am.
In one, he said he planned to harm family and friends but was concerned headlines would not focus on the “war between the believers and disbelievers”.
He also joined Islamic State “before this summer” and provided a will, Mr Raia told reporters.
A black ISIS flag was attached to the back of the white Ford truck used in the attack and was pictured lying next to the vehicle.
Authorities said Jabbar drove around police barricades on to the footpath, with witnesses describing carnage as the truck sped down the street, knocking people over.
“You just heard this squeal and the rev of the engine and this huge loud impact and then the people screaming,” said one witness, Kimberly Strickland from Alabama.
Barriers protecting pedestrians had been removed for repairs before the attack, city officials said, and were due to be replaced with a new bollard design.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:35
New Orleans police chief challenged by Sky’s US correspondent James Matthews
While the works were taking place, they had been replaced with white gate barriers which were managed by the New Orleans Police Department, according to the City Of New Orleans.
Among the victims named so far are an 18-year-old aspiring nurse, a single mother with a four-year-old son, and a graduate of Princeton University.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:41
‘I love you’ – victim’s last words to brother
What we know about Shamsud-Din Jabbar
The FBI also said CCTV showed Jabbar placing the IEDs near the scene. However, none of them went off.
The investigation is expected to look at any support or inspiration he may have drawn from IS or any of its affiliate groups.
The bureau has received more than 400 tips from members of the public and more than 1,000 agents and officers have been working on the case.
Jabbar held human resources and IT roles in the army from 2007 until 2015, and was stationed in Afghanistan for a year. He was then in the reserves until 2020.
Meanwhile, the Sugar Bowl college American football game went ahead on Thursday afternoon, with a moment of silence beforehand, after being postponed on Wednesday following the attack. The city will also host the Super Bowl next month.
Did the authorities fail the victims of the New Orleans terror attack? It’s barely in question, surely.
And yet, consider the response of Superintendent Anne Kirkpatrick of New Orleans police when I asked if she’d let them down by not having an appropriate security plan.
“That’s not correct, we would disagree with that.”
“It has to be a security failure?” I suggested.
“We do know that people have lost their lives,” she responded. “But if you were experienced with terrorism, you would not be asking that question.”
With that, she was escorted away from gathered journalists by her media handlers.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:11
How much of a threat does ISIS pose?
Superintendent Kirkpatrick had been holding a short news conference at the end of Bourbon Street to herald its re-opening. It was just yards from the spot where a terrorist was able to drive through a gap in a makeshift line of obstructions and accelerate towards New Year crowds.
More on New Orleans Attack
Related Topics:
Invoking “experience with terrorism” is something to ponder. What experience told authorities they had adequate protection against a vehicle attack?
What experience told them it was appropriate to have a car’s width gap in makeshift street barricades?
What experience told them to contradict the security protocols of major cities around the world when it comes to large public gatherings?
To many, the answer shouldn’t be talk of experience – it should be, simply: “Sorry.” Notably, it has seemed to be the hardest word in a series of briefings by authorities who have bristled at the notion of security failings.
I asked Jack Bech for his view. He lost his brother Martin, or ‘Tiger’ in the Bourbon Street attack. He told Sky News he watched the final moments of his brother’s life on a FaceTime call to an emergency room as doctors tried, but failed, to save him.
It’s one heartbreaking story among dozens in this city.
On security, he said: “You can’t blame them. That dude easily could have been walking through the crowd with a jacket on and a bomb strapped to his chest.”
True. But the least that might be expected is an acknowledgement of failure to stop the man who drove his weapon into the crowd because he was able to. They certainly can’t claim success.
A measure of contrition would, perhaps, help the healing in this city. Experience should tell them that, if nothing else.
South Korean investigators have failed to detain impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol after a nearly six-hour standoff with his security service.
It is the latest confrontation of a political crisis that has paralysed South Korean politics and seen two heads of state impeached in under a month.
The country’s anti-corruption agency said it withdrew its investigators after they were blocked from entering Mr Yoon’s official residence due to concerns about the safety of its members.
The agency expressed “serious regret about the attitude of the suspect, who did not respond to a process by law”.
Mr Yoon, a former prosecutor, has defied investigators’ attempts to question him for weeks.
The last time he is known to have left the residence was on 12 December.
More on South Korea
Related Topics:
Investigators from the country’s anti-corruption agency are weighing charges of rebellion after Mr Yoon, apparently frustrated that his policies were blocked by an opposition-dominated parliament, declared martial law on 3 December and dispatched troops to surround the National Assembly.
Parliament overturned the declaration within hours in an unanimous vote and impeached Mr Yoon, accusing him of rebellion, while South Korean anti-corruption authorities and public prosecutors opened separate investigations into the events.
A Seoul court issued a warrant for Mr Yoon’s detention on Tuesday, but enforcing it is complicated as long as he remains in his official residence.
Nearly five hours after dozens of investigators and police officers were seen entering the gate of the residence in Seoul to execute the warrant, the dramatic scene appeared to have developed into a standoff.
Analysis: President Yoon standing firm against the law
It appears President Yoon is ready to keep defying anti-corruption officials.
The warrant for his arrest expires on Monday, so those determined to see him detained will have to think fast.
Yoon’s legal team insists the move is “illegal and invalid”.
They’re basing their case on a law which prevents locations potentially linked to military secrets from being searched without the consent of the person in charge – in this case Yoon.
There was speculation Yoon might try to hide in a bunker in his residence.
But whatever happens next, whatever cover he continues to find, Yoon’s political career is all but over.
And the longer the stand-off, the more damaging it is for South Korea’s democratic reputation.
The ultra conservative’s two-and-a-half years in office have been marked by scandal.
His attempt to defy arrest is a damning denouement.
If he is eventually detained, Yoon, who was impeached by parliament last month, would become the first sitting president to be arrested.
The country’s constitutional court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the impeachment vote.
That move would trigger an election for a new president.
Seok Dong-hyeon, one of several lawyers on Yoon’s legal team, confirmed the investigators arrived at the building and said the agency’s efforts to detain Yoon were “reckless” and showed an “outrageous discard for law.”
South Korea’s Defence Ministry confirmed the investigators and police officers got past a military unit guarding the residence’s grounds before arriving at the building.
The presidential security service, which controls the residence itself, refused to comment on whether its members were confronting investigators.
The liberal opposition Democratic Party called on the country’s acting leader, Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, to order the presidential security service to stand down.
Mr Yoon’s defence minister, police chief and several top military commanders have already been arrested over their roles in the period of martial law.