US-UK trade deal in danger if Good Friday agreement jeopardised, Democrats warn
|
Version 3 of 6. Dominic Raab faces backlash over Irish border and attempts to leave EU on own terms The UK foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, is facing a growing backlash in the US Congress after senior Democrats warned they would scupper any future US-UK trade deal if the UK does anything to jeopardise the Good Friday agreement in an attempt to leave the European Union on its own terms. Raab flew to Washington to try to repair relations with pro-Irish Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the chairman of the House ways and means committee, Richard Neal. The tide of opinion in Congress is moving fast against the UK after a lobbying campaign by the Irish embassy. The ad hoc committee, a major pro-Irish lobby group to defend the Good Friday agreement, vowed to build “a green wall” to defend the agreement citing a compelling statement from former British prime ministers John Major and Tony Blair. As Raab landed in Washington, four senior congressmen in a joint statement warned the UK’s plans “could have disastrous consequences for the Good Friday agreement and the broader process to maintain peace on the island of Ireland”. They added: “Many in the Congress and the US consider the issue of the Good Friday agreement and a potential US-UK free trade agreement are inextricably linked.” They also say they support Pelosi’s statement that she will not back any free-trade agreement that undermines the broader Irish peace process. The quartet urged Raab “to abandon any or all legally questionable and unfair efforts to flout the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement”. The letter is signed by Neal, Eliot Engel, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Congress, William Keating, the chair of the House subcommittee on European affairs, and Peter King, the only Republican congressman in the quartet. All four represent seats with large Irish populations. Later on Wednesday, Raab, speaking alongside the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said the threat to the Good Friday agreement was coming from the EU’s “politicisation” of the issue. He said: “Our commitment to the Good Friday agreement, and to avoid any extra infrastructure at the border between the north and south, is absolute. To be absolutely clear, the UK action here is defensive in relation to what the EU is doing. It is precautionary – we have not done any of it yet – and is proportionate. “What we cannot have – and this is contrary to the Northern Ireland protocol and a risk to the Good Friday agreement – is the EU seeking to erect a regulatory border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.” He said he was looking forward to re-emphasising the point in his talks later with Pelosi. Pompeo said it was a matter for the UK government, but “he had great confidence that they will get this right in a way that treats everyone fairly and get a good outcome for the people of the UK that voted for this several years back”. Neal told the New York Times he had been given previous assurances by Raab about the Good Friday agreement, but said he had been blindsided about the latest proposed changes in the withdrawal agreement. Any free-trade treaty requires a two-thirds majority support in Congress so Raab can hardly afford to ignore the opinion of leading Democrats. The row is also a potential precursor of wider problems that Boris Johnson might face if Joe Biden wins the US presidency. Biden has Irish roots, opposed Brexit and despite the close UK-US ties will look askance at any British effort to weaken the EU or the Northern Ireland peace process. The British position has not been helped by the conflicting government explanations for why the protocol is being changed or the news that the external legal advice commissioned by UK law officers came exclusively from pro-leave barristers. On Iran, Pompeo reiterated his view that all UN members would be required to participate in the snapback of UN sanctions against Iran this weekend. He sidestepped whether the US would impose secondary sanctions on countries that refused to comply with the US interpretation of its power to reinstate all the UN sanctions on Iran that existed before the 2015 deal. |