All that prep work for the House of Lords committee in the week was worthwhile to feature in a Tony Connelly Saturday Brexit special... which is as ever excellent on EU-UK differences over the Northern Ireland protocol 
Though it does show us quite how bad the UK's process is for scrutinising international treaties in that these issues were barely raised when MPs voted, and there will be even less scrutiny of future treaties. Which is an absurdity we will come to regret.
How does Parliament intend to scrutinise the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol? The odd select committee hardly seems equal to the task, given what @sylviademars said on Tuesday...
@sylviademars A long cutting this, but again shows why we needed greater scrutiny of the treaty before signing, and more in the future. We signed up to ECJ oversight (the ultra-Brexiteer response tends to be either denial or claiming treaties don't matter...)
@sylviademars Oh, and if it wasn't already complex enough there are major problems ahead with devolved competencies, not just in the Northern Ireland protocol, but in future trade negotiations with EU and others. Devolved competence over e.g. agriculture has not really been tested as yet...
@sylviademars NI-GB trade all sorted if there's a UK-EU deal? Well it helps. But the highlighted sentence isn't quite right due to rules of origin. There really are going to be no easy answers here. Good job MPs understood all of that implicitly when voting for it, wasn't it?
@sylviademars Lesson of the story of the Northern Ireland protocol. If you don't have proper scrutiny of treaties then you will not properly understand what they mean. Here e.g. is the Canadian process to agree the new US-Mexico-Canada deal (from Bloomberg). When will the UK learn? /end
