Talk:Northern Ireland Protocol

It was all predicted 15 months ago - BBC

If someone would like to write some text around it, there is a good citation available from the BBC: Brexit: Irish Sea border issues foreseen when deal was done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits by User:161.23.160.115

With regret, I have again had to revert the changes made by User:161.23.160.115. Wikipedia is not a forum or a political platform. We report what reliable sources say, aiming for a neutral point of view. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we deliberately lag behind the news and wait for considered view to emerge. For example, you describe the Theresa May Trilemma as an EU view: in fact that terminology was created by the UK media and widely reported, repeated and cited.

Please use this talk page to explain your concerns about the article as it stands. Proposed changes will need to be evidenced by a neutral third party source of sufficient stature. Your own opinion (or mine, equally) is entirely irrelevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@161.23.160.115: As a "for example", you cannot use Wikipedia to assert as an indisputable fact (like "the sky is blue") that "the EU has broken the 'good faith' terms of the Agreement" – because that is your opinion. The relevant policy is WP:WIKIVOICE. (For the record, my opinion is equally irrelevant). If the dispute goes to arbitration and the Arbitrator declares that this had occurred, then we would report that – but even then we would have to make clear who it was who said it and what are their credentials. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Unionist Reaction

The reference in question, a 2017 BBC news article, which stated that unionists had welcomed some changes to a draft proposal, is not an appropriate reference for the text that it is supposed to be applying to. The text in question is about the NI protocol which didn't come about until 2019/20. There was never a time when unionists welcomed the protocol. The 2017 reference refers to something else entirely and therefore it is a deceptive reference. I will therefore remove it again. 2A00:23C2:4B02:C01:DC79:4765:BA91:35EF (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

yes, I agree, thank you. The citation given is about May's deal, which predates the protocol. Looks like there has been some subtle manipulation of citations in the past? I will search the history later. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks alot. 2A00:23C2:4B02:C01:E97D:3397:C714:9DB3 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Well... I cannot tell a lie: it was I who introduced that error, with this edit on 10 September. I don't recall the news article that led me to that BBC citation from 2017 (which was about the DUP response to the revised Backstop, not to the NIP). Clearly I failed to check it properly. I can only apologise to anyone that I have misled in the past 35 days. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Deadlock in section title.

None of the other major papers are calling deadlock yet except the Independent. So I don't think we should do so either until talks are declared over. Even then, A16 has a month for further negotiations and chance to step back from the edge. In any case, it would be "Attempts to renegotiate end in deadlock" or similar, not "Deadlock and attempts to renegotiate" which doesn't make sense (cart before horse). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson sidebar: WP:BRD

Arcahaeoindris boldly added the Boris Johnson sidebar which is a directory of articles about BJ. I reverted because this article is not about him. For readers on mobile (the majority) it adds s screed of waffle for minimal benefit. So a discussion is needed to see if there is a consensus for it to be included. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello - I added it as this was part of the Brexit negotiations and policy of Johnson's premiership. Don't have strong feelings about it being in or out, but the sidebar was lacking in Johnson's Brexit policy related articles, which is why I added it. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

The UK Government published the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill today:

• https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-introduces-bill-to-fix-the-northern-ireland-protocol
• https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3182

– Kaihsu (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A few links worth parking here for now while they are easy to find:

• Walker, Peter (13 June 2022). "Majority of Northern Ireland MLAs condemn plan to alter Brexit protocol". The Guardian.
• MLAs write to Johnson opposing Protocol legislation (Text of the letter from the 52 MLAs to Prime Minister. 13 June 2022.) SDLP website
• Protocol Bill – Very Bad for Northern Ireland and Entire UK (statement by Alliance Party Deputy Leader, Stephen Farry MP, summarising the letter. 13 June 2022.)
• Actions of Boris Johnson’s Tory government 'dangerous and reckless – O'Neill (statement by Michelle O'Neill, deputy leader of Sinn Féin. 13 June 2022.)
• Sir Jeffrey - Publication of the NI Protocol Bill (statement by Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. 13 June 2022.)
• (no UUP statement on the Bill as of 21:43, 13 June. Most recent is Beattie lobbies for Protocol change in Westminster 8 June 2022.

I suspect that they will be needed later. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There's now an article for the Bill. Kaihsu (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added some of the above. Review and improvement welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Clarity

There does not seem to be any mention as to exactly when the NIP was signed (and dated) or specifically who the signatories were. Such basic information would be helpful for better understanding.

Brian James 2A02:C7D:59E5:1E00:10B5:967D:7F57:AFD7 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a protocol to the Brexit withdrawal agreement, so had the same signatories. Kaihsu (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the specific signatories as well as the date of the NIP should be incorporated within page for the NIP in any event.2A02:C7D:59E5:1E00:8C70:5FCA:421B:D5CB (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't signed separately: it is one of the annexes to the overall WA. The article already says on 17 October, Johnson and Jean-Claude Juncker announced that they had reached agreement (subject to ratification) on a new Withdrawal Agreement which replaced the backstop with a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Is that not enough?

This Commission statement has more details. I assume that there is a corresponding document buried somewhere on .gov.uk if you want to search. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I've spotted the reason for 'confusion'. The Protocol was agreed in December 2019 (a month before the WA was ratified), not 2020 as was in the article until I fixed it just now. I have also added a sentence to affirm that the protocol was ratified as part of the WA treaty, in January 2020. Does that change provide the clarity that you (and no doubt others) were looking for? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts being made in this matter, but this whole area is in the process of going 'critical' at the moment. The 'media' is 'rather variable' in the area I mention - sometimes implying the NIP was signed by Liz Truss, but on other occasions perhaps it was Boris Hohnson and indeed, you use 'agreed'. I have no doubt the NIP was 'agreed', but it would be helpful if the 'media' could readily see the specific signatories (as well as their corresponmding titles at the time) and the date upon which they signed the NIP in anticipation of it applying as from the Withdrawal Agreement coming into force. 2A02:C7D:59E5:1E00:4DFA:F9C3:24BD:666E (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to question because for each reader who bothers to write down their question there are a hundred more who have the same question but don't feel able or bothered to ask.

The most important point to note is that the status of the protocol is like any clause of the WA in that it has no independent existence so had no separate signatures. Like the so-called 'divorce payment', existing residents' rights, or any of the other annexes. "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

I hadn't come across Truss being mentioned before in this context but, as she was Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade at the time, it is certainly possible. Have you got a source for that?

Everything that I have seen says that Johnson negotiated the principles with Junker after a weekend away with Varadkar – see 2019 renegotiation – and David Frost negotiated the details with Michel Barnier. (Cue much amusement at how the deal that they hailed as wonderful at the time is now so terrible that whoever agreed it should be hung drawn and quartered.) This BBC report (17/10/19) just credits Johnson has having (metaphorically, not literally) signed it off.

I would welcome any suggestion as to where and how we might change the article to anticipate the same or similar question from other readers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Suggest Protecting This Article

With the EU's lawsuit today, things could get nasty.

I suggest propecting this article.

2601:8A:C180:70:58FF:D843:8989:98CB (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

PROTECTION REQUESTED: --- See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase 2601:8A:C180:70:58FF:D843:8989:98CB (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Such a request would have to include evidence of frequent disruptive editing which, so far at least, doesn't exist. If that changes then the request will be made. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Assembly election

[First three posts originally written at user talk:John Maynard Friedman and moved here at my request because other editors may wish to contribute to the discussion on how best to integrate band develop this thread.]

Last night you [JMF] updated my changes to Assembly election section of the Northern Ireland Protocol article, for the better in my opinion. However there is only one line dedicated to the DUP's refusal to nominate a DFM, and not mention of Paul Given's resignation 2 months before the election or the refusal to vote for a speaker after the election. In my opinion there should be an entire section detailing the Stormont shutdown. Do you agree? ApatheticName (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@ApatheticName:, even as it is I felt that we would risk drifting off-topic, but maybe that is because the section is headed "2022 Assembly election". So what about turning it on its head, following the model of the NIP Bill article with a section called "Reaction"? Do you want to have a go? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait, we already have Northern Ireland Protocol#Political reaction to implementation so maybe the problem you perceive only arises because the section on the Assembly elections should be move to become a subsection of this section, rather than stand alone? I can't get a proper overview on mobile, can you do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@ApatheticName: This discussion should really take place at talk: Northern Ireland Protocol. Would you cut'n'paste it over there please, as other editors may want to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) ApatheticName (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been bold and moved the sections on Legal challenge, 2022 NIA elections and the Bill up into ==Reactions==. Further improvement welcome. @ApatheticName:, would you like to add a sentence or two on Given's resignation to the ===Unionist reaction=== subsection? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Link to Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border

There is a link in the lede to Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border - it had been piped to Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border|UK-Ireland border. I removed the piping - any disputes about the article should resolved at the article's page, not at each link. An editor, John Maynard Friedman reverted, writing in the edit summary "rv good faith but see WP:IRE-IRL" There are two changes - the editor has replaced "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland" and has reordered the naming, from placing Ireland first to placing UK first. The first change ("Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland") would seem to run afoul of the MOS that the editor linked to, specifically: "* Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland")." And there is no justification given for reordering the names of the countries from how they appear in the main article. Jd2718 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it to the talk page. This one really is a judgement call, with no obviously right answer. It is also a political minefield!

1. The border is an international border between sovereign states: (a) Ireland and (b) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So "UK–Ireland border" (and "Ireland–UK border") is accurate in this respect and I think complies with WP:IRE-IRL.
   1. Note that the name of the state is "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland" (which is only a disambiguating description – unlike République française not France or Repubblica Italiana, not Italy).
   2. In your edit that removed the pipe, you called it "WP:POINTy piping": maybe you are right but I took it as good faith reflection of this perspective.
2. The border is also one that separates two polities on the island so it is the Republic of Ireland–Northern Ireland border. This also complies with WP:IRE-IRL.
3. The Protocol itself is formally "Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland".
4. Some writers duck the issue by referring to "the Irish border" (see Brexit and the Irish border, for example).
5. There are pages of debate at talk:Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border about the title, which I have no intention of rerunning here. But a quick review of those discussions should tell us that if there were an easy solution, it would already have been found.
   1. Could we just avoid the issue by writing The border has had a special status since the thirty-year internecine conflict in Northern Ireland was ended by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, since the border in question has already been defined in the first sentence of the article. No, I guess not, since in 1998 it was an internal EU border.

I won't object if you counter-revert but I won't be surprised if gets "corrected" again. Meanwhile it is worth leaving a record of the discussion here for future reference. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi both, jumping in quickly in the hope we find a middle ground. I think that to @Jd2718's point the link is not where the change should be made. To @John Maynard Friedman's point, I think we should try to find the correct name even if it means challenging previous debates and consensus - in this case the "Ireland/United Kingdom" or "Ireland/Northern Ireland" border seems to be a better name (the UK, Ireland and the EU all use this format by the way) and the Wikipedia:IRE-IRL specifies "An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic" - which seems to be the case here. I'd say the best way forward would be to avoid any edits on the links but instead try to update the source article. @John Maynard Friedman I'll see what I can do on the main article. Please folks let's just not engage in an edit war here :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention of edit warring, indeed I have already assented to a counter-revert. My intention was only to explain why I don't believe that whoever did that pipe was being POINTy, that it was credibly a good faith edit. I also agree that the real problem is the name of the underlying article. Good luck with securing agreement to a name change, you'll need it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted my reversion in the light of the discussion above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the discussion here (I include both you and AlanTheScientist). I am not sure there is a right answer, but I'm glad a record of this discussion will remain, for others to consider in the future. As far as edit warring, I do not have the energy or time. And finally, I did not identify the original edit, and assumed it was made a long time ago, and never noticed until now. I apologize for calling it point-y, by your words here it is clear that you had no such intent. Jd2718 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Prospective change of name (to Windsor Framework)?

I see that the EU and UK have decided to have a change of name is needed to mark a new beginning:

(5) The Union and the United Kingdom have made a Joint Declaration in the Joint Committee to the effect that, wherever relevant in their dealings under the Withdrawal Agreement, they will, consistent with the requirements of legal certainty, refer to the Protocol as amended as to the “Windsor Framework”, and that they may in the same way refer to the Protocol as amended in their domestic legislation.

I can understand the politics of that move, but the historical narrative needs to be preserved. So if anyone is thinking of doing a simple move, this is to put down a marker to say it would be controversial and would require debate. It may be easier to start a new article? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to wrap up, the question does not arise since an article – Windsor Framework – has been created and stands on its own merits. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Notice of request in progress, to revert the changed name of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill article

See Talk:Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022–23#Requested move 6 March 2023. Please contribute your views there. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)