Saturday Brexit reading roundup... starting with why the government's behaviour may be to seek an early acrimonious break-up of talks blamed on the EU. Plausible enough, though as before I suspect there are different strands of thought in government...
The usual excellent @tconnellyRTE Saturday round-up focuses on the increasing number of fraught conversations around the Northern Ireland protocol. I can vouch for business and EU being hugely concerned about UK government signalling...
@tconnellyRTE Matthew Parris meanwhile takes aim at David Frost's recent speech in Brussels, and in particular the nationalist tone brooking little compromise. Clearly I agree regulatory sovereignty cannot be absolute, but not that a negotiator shouldn't express their political philosophy. 
@tconnellyRTE Finally for now two articles on what was probably the most significant development of the week, that the UK will not sign up for Europe's Unified Patent Court because it includes a (relatively minor) role for the ECJ, and despite previous support. worldipreview.com/news/uk-won-t-…
@tconnellyRTE There is more here in this 2017 article on the UPC and ECJ involvement - essentially it seems the UK is making membership of any organisation which may refer to the ECJ (even if that has no direct effect of UK courts) a red line. A fundamentalist position. ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-up…
@tconnellyRTE And as we see here, the hostility to any form ECJ involvement probably also means no or very limited role in Horizon science funding and likely most other agencies. A rock hard Brexit caused it seems by ideological hostility to an institution. timeshighereducation.com/news/hostility…
@tconnellyRTE If we ever have a political opposition in Westminster they could surely score easy points on the actual impacts of decisions flowing from hostility to the ECJ, as well as the deeper isolationist philosophy behind them. But even some Conservative MPs will start to worry... /end
