Thread by @mdouganlpool

Back to work = time to scrutinise the UK’s proposals (published 21 July 2021) for rewriting the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Here is a short(ish) thread with some thoughts:

1) Let’s start with the UK’s diagnosis of the problems created by the Protocol. According to HMG, this terrible deal was inflicted upon poor Prime Minister Johnson as he valiantly battled on all fronts against domestic traitors and foreign adversaries.

2) What a disgraceful denial of responsibility: it was the Johnson Government that proposed a trade border down the Irish Sea, not as some temporary backstop but as a permanent regime, in order to pursue the Hard Right dream of a Hard Brexit for the rest of the UK.

3) More than that: the Protocol was the only major change Johnson made to the Withdrawal Agreement previously signed by the May Government. It was absolutely central to the “great new Brexit deal” that won him a general election and that he passed through Parliament in triumph.

4) Now, though, HMG is eager to list the adverse economic impacts of its own Protocol. We are shocked to find this deal has led to extra paperwork, altered supply chains, new restrictions. And we are horrified to learn that NI is buying less from GB & trading more with Ireland.

5) Except, of course, we're not shocked at all. Every single one of those impacts was foreseen by commentators (including yours truly) at the time the draft Protocol was published. And every single one is a direct consequence of the precise terms approved by Johnson & Parliament.

6) If anything, the actions of HMG have only made the Protocol’s impacts worse than they might otherwise have been, eg deliberately lying to traders about the true nature of the preparations they had to make; actively fostering unionist discontent and mistrust of the EU etc.

7) Indeed, this paper continues in same vein. Gleeful reminders of EU’s vaccine blunder–but no mention of HMG’s prolonged plans to legislate in direct contravention of agreement, refusal to produce adequate implementation plans, unilateral breach of its treaty obligations...

8) So much for the diagnosis. What about UK proposal to rewrite Protocol? The flaw are obvious. Borders exist to protect the public interest. Neither is threatened by compliant traders, rather by unscrupulous ones. So any system that hinges on “honesty” is inherently flawed.

9) To be fair, UK also promises greater enforcement. But EU has already entrusted protection of its public interest, at its borders, to UK. Latter is now proposing a far, far greater degree of dependence & vulnerability. Yet HMG has hardly proven itself deserving of such trust.

10) So no surprise UK proposals fell on stony ground. Of course, EU is right to stress principle that UK should respect legal obligations it voluntarily entered into only short time ago. After all, it's a fundamental pillar upon which the entire international order is built.

11) But UK motives deserve greater cynicism. These proposals stink of Johnson’s tedious “cake and eat it” arrogance. HMG wants its purist idea of sovereignty + its Hard Brexit – but doesn’t want to deal with adverse consequences of those selfish choices for the island of Ireland.

12) As we all know: the border where EU law & UK jurisdiction now meet must go somewhere. If not between IRL & NI, then between GB & NI. But seems the Brexitists still simply refuse to believe or accept that that is the direct and unavoidable price to be paid for their extremism.

13) This UK paper reinforces already strong suspicions that the Johnson Regime negotiated and signed its own Withdrawal Agreement in bad faith – only so they could claim to “get Brexit done” but with no sincere intention of honouring their word and fulfilling their duties.

14) In any case, this UK paper certainly fuels belief that NI & its peace process are now being instrumentalised by Johnson Regime: either as a proxy in its wider strategy of stoking confrontation with the EU; or as leverage to secure concessions and advantages in other fields.

15) What about HMG’s reserve threat to invoke Art 16 safeguard clause? Persistent refusal to implement Protocol in good faith undermines any UK claim to clean hands. And since problems identified by HMG are largely direct & foreseeable consequence of Protocol’s core provisions...

16) ... it seems difficult for Johnson to argue that those problems justify action amounting to an indefinite alteration or suspension of those very same provisions. Otherwise, Art 16 is converted into a unilateral power for the UK to amend / abolish core parts of the Protocol.