If Lord Frost were seeking to put a marker down on how he would engage with the EU, it wasn’t necessary. His robust style is well appreciated in Brussels after a tumultuous year of trade and security talks, including the first attempt to break international law by violating the terms of the withdrawal agreement through the infamous internal market bill. There is then some confusion in Brussels and Dublin at Wednesday’s announcement about trade at the border between Northern Ireland, which in effect remains in the single market for goods, with the rest of the UK firmly outside. The government announced that rather than impose a range of red-tape and checks due to come into force on 1 April under the withdrawal agreement, they would unilaterally extend until October grace periods on paperwork relating to parcels from Britain and goods heading to the shelves of Northern Ireland’s supermarkets. That might be a perfectly sensible thing to do. UK officials said it was simply a reflection businesses and border systems in Northern Ireland were not yet ready for the consequences of the full-fat Brexit, and in light of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, it was necessary to take some pragmatic steps to ease people’s understandable frustration. Loyalist paramilitary groups have let it be known they have withdrawn their support for the Good Friday agreement in protest at Northern Ireland’s Irish Sea trade border with the rest of the UK, which has caused genuine issues already.
Yet, what is confusing to many EU officials, is that this move was done unilaterally – and now. At the very last meeting of the joint EU-UK committee looking at all these issues, the British side had come away confident that agreement on an extension of grace periods would be found. The EU, led by the European commission’s vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, had made a few demands. They wanted to know more about the UK’s long-term plan with respect to supermarkets and their suppliers and were seeking additional investment in digital solutions for traders. Arlene Foster, the first minister of Northern Ireland, had been fiery in the meeting, memorably saying of the checks that had been done at the border, “not a sausage” of a problem had been uncovered in terms of risks to health and safety. The ruling DUP’s position is that the whole idea of checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK remains a constitutional outrage and is a nonsense given the lack of divergence between UK and EU standards. But sources who attended the meeting felt nevertheless there was an unsaid quid pro quo: if the UK could firm up how it planned to ensure EU border requirements were met while keeping a Tescos in Enniskillen as well stocked with British products as one in Enfield, then further time could be found before the full gamut of checks would be imposed at the border. Why, then, EU officials ask, move ahead with what the commission believes is a second attempt to break international law, echoing the most contentious clauses of the internal market bill tabled last year? One of the consequences is that the European parliament has engaged in some sabre rattling over whether it will ratify the trade and security deal which is only provisionally in force and would fall away without MEPs backing. The EU has also threatened legal action through the European court of justice. Being taken to court for failing to live up to the obligations of an international treaty is not necessarily the greatest advert for global Britain as it seeks trade deals around the world, including with the US, where the president, Joe Biden, has in the past made public his interest in what happens in Northern Ireland. The UK insists the EU is overreacting. The move they made is technical, not political. But the EU is not convinced. As ever, it looks to the internal politics of Westminster for answers and it has been a tricky patch for the former UK negotiating team. Frost’s former deputy Oliver Lewis resigned after being accused by the prime minister of briefing against Gove. Frost himself was supposed to be given the job of national security adviser this year but was handed a new role of Brexit and international policy representative without any real levers to pull. He reportedly threatened to resign unless he was given genuine powers, after which he was elevated to the cabinet. Frost then may not have had to convince the EU of his pugnacious character, but perhaps he did need to remind the prime minister of his value to him? If so, we shall have to see at what cost. But as the trade and security talks showed, he is happy to push matters to the edge.