Skip to main content
Log in

Parsing the backstop: Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement in the Brexit debates

  • Original Article
  • Published:
British Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the challenges Brexit poses to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in Northern Ireland (NI) by considering how political leaders frame the problem of reconciling Brexit with the GFA. Analyzing the Hansard record of four key debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018 in the House of Commons (the first Withdrawal Agreement), we conclude that the Brexit debate reveals a distinct new threat to the peace accord: its nestedness in British politics. The primary objection MPs raised was that the withdrawal deal would undermine UK sovereignty. In fact, opposition to the multiple sovereignties that the GFA enshrined appeared to be one of the principal reasons for the withdrawal act’s defeat. Second, MPs objected to the way the backstop’s multiple exercise of sovereignty and multilateralism would impact the union between NI and Great Britain, if not its impact on NI itself. Indeed, they tended to decouple discussion of the backstop from previous violence or the peace process. Third, debate was heavily skewed in favor of Unionism, rather than the balanced and plural mechanisms typical of British policy. Fourth, MPs were not coherent in how they understood the GFA. We find that the British Parliament has departed markedly from its established pattern of bilateralism, bipartisanship and deference to government in dealing with Northern Ireland. The consequence is that the British parliament, rather than armed actors in the province, may well undo one of the most successful peace agreements and for reasons that have little to do with NI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We refer to the agreement as the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ although we recognize that different groups use different nomenclature and interpret the label differently. We do not intend to advance one group’s claims over another.

  2. There is a vast literature on the political and legal aspects of the GFA. See, inter alia, Horowitz (2002), McGarry (2001), McGarry and O’Leary (2004), Taylor (2009), Tonge (2006), Wilford (2001), Wilford and Wilson (2006).

  3. In fact, many MPs, most notably Boris Johnson, flip-flopped on the bill over the course of these debates.

  4. Though John Major’s government was dependent on Ulster Unionist Party support in its last years, it was neither bound to enforce a peace agreement nor faced with politically contentious issue such as Brexit.

  5. While MPs said many things outside of Parliament, we rely upon Hansard as the official record of their positions.

  6. By March 12, the majority of Conservatives voted in favor of the bill although 75 Conservatives joined the opposition parties in defeating it by 391 to 242.

  7. The Attorney General determined that the backstop would last indefinitely unless the EU and UK agreed on terms for its termination.

  8. Note that on January 9, 2019, PM Theresa May announced that the British government would introduce domestic legislation to require approval of the NI Assembly for future changes in regulation to which NI would be subject.

  9. Michael Gove, Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, made a similar comment in Jan and Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley, Jan 15, 2019) used reference to the support of the business community in NI for the withdrawal deal to deny the validity of their claim.

  10. Some mentions in the key word searches used both names for the agreement and thus, are double-counted. Others mentioned it without context or substance.

  11. As the PM did, Barclay connected the fate of NI with the fate of Scotland, both of which voted to remain and have sizeable constituencies who seek to change their constitutional status. The GFA, however, guarantees NI this option and there is no provision in any statute pertaining to Scotland’s consent. The SNP have pledged to introduce a symbolic motion for a new referendum on Scottish independence in the Scottish parliament should Brexit happen.

  12. This is an argument helped by the assertion of secretary-general of the European Commission, Martin Selmayr, that losing Northern Ireland is ‘the price of Brexit,’ a comment raised approximately six times by MPs in January.

References

  • Arthur, P. 1999. Anglo-irish relations and constitutional policy. In Politics in northern Ireland, ed. P. Mitchell, and R. Wilford. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, P. 2000. Special Relationships: Britain, Ireland and the Northern Ireland Problem. Belfast: Blackstaff Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coakley, J. 2018. The British–Irish Relationship in the Twenty-first Century. Ethnopolitics 17 (3): 306–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coakley, J., and L. O’Dowd (eds.). 2007. Crossing the Border: New Relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. 2001. British Government Policy in Northern Ireland 1969–2000. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mars, S., C. Murray, A. O’Donoghue, and B. Warwick. 2018. Bordering Two Unions: Northern Ireland and Brexit. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, P. 1995. ‘A House Divided Cannot Stand:’ Britain, Bipartisanship and Northern Ireland. Contemporary Record 9 (1): 147–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, P. 2001. British Policy towards Northern Ireland 1969–2000: Continuity, Tactical Adjustment and Consistent ‘Inconsistencies. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3 (3): 340–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frum, D. 2019. Belfast Shows the Price of Brexit. The Atlantic 7 March. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/brexit-could-reawaken-northern-irelands-troubles/584338/.

  • Gorvett, J. 2019. Northern Irish Politics Are Broken. Foreign Policy 27 August. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/27/northern-irish-politics-are-broken/.

  • Gove, M. 2000. The Price of Peace: An Analysis of British Policy in Northern Ireland. London: Center for Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B. and I. McAllister. 2013. Conflict to Peace: Politics and Society in Northern Ireland Over Half a Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, K. 2006. Reitreating National Identities: The European Union Conception of Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland. Cooperation and Conflict 41 (3): 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. 2001. The Northern Ireland Agreement: Clear, Consociational, and Risky. In Northern Ireland and the Divided World: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective, ed. J. McGarry, 89–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. 2002. Explaining the Northern Ireland Agreement: the Sources of an Unlikely Constitutional Consensus. British Journal of Political Science 32: 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, R. 2018. Beyond the Border: The Good Friday Agreement and Irish Unity after Brexit. Newbridge, Ireland: Merrion Press/Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intertrade Ireland https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/irish-border-trade-at-alltime-high-37736726.html.

  • McCabe, C. 2019. How Brexit Threatens Peace in Northern Ireland. The Atlantic. 8 February. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/02/brexit-threatens-peace-northern-ireland-remain-eu/582970/.

  • McGarry, J. (ed.). 2001. Northern Ireland and the Divided World: Post-Agreement Northern Ireland in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, J., and B. O’Leary. 2004. The Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGrattan, C., and E. Meehan (eds.). 2012. Everyday Life after the Irish Conflict: the Impact of Devolution and Cross-border Cooperation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, J. 2018. Between Conflict and Peace: An Analysis of the Complex Consequences of the Good Friday Agreement. Parliamentary Affairs 71 (2): 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, P. 2003. Britain’s Long War: British Strategy in the Northern Ireland Conflict, 1969–98. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Flynn, I. 2009. Progressive Integration (and Accommodation Too). In Consociational Theory: McGarry and O’Leary and the Northern Ireland Conflict, ed. R. Taylor. NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. 1997. The Conservative Stewardship of Northern Ireland 1979-97: Soundbottomed Contradictions or Slow Learning? Political Studies 45 (4): 663–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. 1999. The Nature of the British-Irish Agreement. New Left Review 233 (Jan/Feb): 66–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. 2001. The Agreement: Results and Prospects. In Aspects of the Belfast Agreement, ed. Rick Wilford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phinnemore, D., and K. Hayward. 2017. UK Withdrawal (‘Brexit’) and the Good Friday Agreement. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serhan, Y. 2018. The Good Friday Agreement in the Age of Brexit. The Atlantic 10th April 10. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/good-friday-agreement-20th-anniversary/557393/.

  • Stevenson, J. 2017. Does Brexit Threaten Peace in Nothern Ireland? Survival: Global Poltiics and Strategy 59 (3): 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (ed.). 2009. Consociational Theory: McGarry and O’Leary and the Northern Ireland Conflict. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. 2001. Northern Ireland: Consociation or Social Transformation? In Northern Ireland and the Divided World: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Comparative Perspective, ed. J. McGarry, 37–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, J., G. Evans, and C. Mitchell. 2008. Consociationalism and the Evolution of Political Cleavages in NI, 1989-2004. British Journal of Political Science 38: 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonge, J. 2006. Northern Ireland. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonge, J. 2017. The Impact and Consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland. Brussels: European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilford, R. 2001. Aspects of the Belfast Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilford, R., and R. Wilson. 2003. A route to stability: The review of the Belfast Agreement. Belfast: Democratic Dialogue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilford, R., and R. Wilson. 2006. The Trouble with Northern Ireland: The Belfast Agreement and Democratic Governance. Dublin: New Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. 2003. Belfast agreement power-sharing model can entrench sectarianism. Irish Times, March 5

  • Wolff, S. 2001. The Road to Peace? The Good Friday Agreement and the Conflict in Northern Ireland. Brown Journal of World Affairs 163 (4): 163–170.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly Cowell-Meyers.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cowell-Meyers, K., Gallaher, C. Parsing the backstop: Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement in the Brexit debates. Br Polit 16, 219–238 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-020-00146-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-020-00146-4

Keywords

Navigation