Have taken time to digest internal market bill & talk to various people on both sides. The text is worse than I expected & is/will be a clear breach of Protocol. Some analysis and thoughts on what happens next (spoiler - nothing particularly good)...1/
What surprised me about the clauses in the internal market bill is that not only do they seek to set out UK's interpretation of the Protocol (which might have been defensible) but they pre-emptively set out that UK will ignore any ruling on these issues. Impossible to defend 2/
Furthermore, if the UK wanted to argue that Article 6(1) of the Protocol gave it licence to do these things, it could have earlier on. Indeed I tweeted about this sort of approach in Oct 2019 but UK accepted exit declarations legally required 3/
Similarly, those arguing Art 184 has been breached in terms of 'good faith' are often the same people that argued this article did not provide sufficient grounds for withdrawing from the original NI backstop negotiation by previous Govt. See below what AG Cox said on it 4/
One aspect forgotten in all this is what this might mean for democratic consent clauses in the Protocol. Do they still apply following a breach? If in the future there is a vote, would it apply to the legal text of the Protocol or UK law/implementation given two are different? 5/
Furthermore, if this goes all the way to the EU being able to suspend parts of the agreement, could they seek to suspend the democratic consent clauses? In theory they can suspend any provisions of the WA aside from citizens rights. It would be a huge step & likely last resort 6/
You may argue that these clauses aren't relevant given the Protocol is not being implemented, but the UK isn't yet saying it won't implement the parts of the Protocol which DUP etc hate the most - checks/admin on goods/food moving GB to NI. So for now they're still relevant 7/
Despite all this I think the EU's response will be calm. It is aware UK wants to drag it into a blame game. A rash move to take the UK to the ECJ or ask for changes to the legislation will prompt tabloid headlines No 10 will enjoy. 8/
As such I think most likely outcome is EU says a deal cannot be done under current approach but it stands ready to do a reasonable deal. This likely leads to a stalemate but with both sides stepping back from the table. Path from there to a deal is now hard to see. 9/ ENDS

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Raoul Ruparel

Raoul Ruparel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RaoulRuparel

6 Sep
At some point both sides in the Brexit negotiations have to realise threatening no deal or warning of the consequences simply doesn't work & won't result in a shift of position on the other side. At no stage in these negotiations has it done so. A thread with some examples...1/
Johnson didn't shift on a more NI only Protocol last year due to fear of no deal. He shifted because it allowed for a more distant future relationship with EU than the backstop & because he needed a deal of some form to use in an election campaign focused on delivering Brexit 2/
Similarly the EU didn't shift on democratic consent in the Protocol last autumn due to fear the UK would leave without a deal (there was still no majority in Parliament for that) but because they actually thought Johnson may be able to deliver a deal through Parliament 3/
Read 9 tweets
28 Aug
This has been the case for some time & why I think focusing June high level conference on purely process issues was a mistake. But I fear the idea UK political level detached from negotiations may be wishful thinking...1/
Yes PM may be distracted & have a lot on his plate. But I wouldn't expect there to be huge gaps between what he & Frost think. Yes he can inject some more impetus & give some flexibility but on the detail he will likely listen closely to Frost's advice. 2/
It may be a case of hoping for a similar intervention from the PM as last year with the NI Protocol. But that was very different in terms of the political situation & the concessions were a direction he was more comfortable with (a harder Brexit essentially). 3/
Read 8 tweets
18 Jun
Interplay between economic shocks of Brexit & Covid-19 has been underdiscussed IMHO. Some talk from Government about how C-19 economic impact makes Brexit irrelevant. Superficially, sounds like it might be right but is it? Yes and no, though mostly no. Thread explaining why 1/
First the Government argues many sectors will have to transform from Covid-19 impact & also from Brexit, so why do it twice rather than all in one go. Sounds logical but...2/
The sectors hit hardest by Covid-19 (travel, tourism, retail) are not the ones hit hardest by Brexit (chemicals, pharma, financial services). Having both at the same time actually unleashes two shocks which hit a wider range of sectors (plus hits manufacturing twice) 2/
Read 15 tweets
5 Jun
Unsurprisingly, little progress. Now at the stage where political intervention is needed. Barnier referencing political declaration is tiresome for a number of reasons. Not least because EU used to see it as entirely irrelevant & they are cherry picking it as well. Thread 1/
For much of past three years the EU side have seen the political declaration as a sop to the UK to try to help get the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament. They have not only briefed this but made it clear to those of us in negotiations. Position now is quite hypocritical 2/
Barnier cites para 77 of the PD. But he always only mentions the first sentence not the second sentence, as highlighted below. This is surely just as equally important. 3/
Read 8 tweets
15 May
Unsurprisingly little or no progress in the talks this week. As I said last round, both sides are being unrealistic in their positions in places. But this below from @MichelBarnier is fundamentally incorrect & very misleading. (I will come onto UK issues in the thread as well) 1/
Zero tariff/zero quota agreement is nowhere near the same as membership of the single market. As nearly all economic analysis of Brexit shows, the largest impact comes from customs admin/delays, rules of origin & non-tariff barriers. UK will face all these, members do not. 2/
Barnier also implied the UK was rejected any level playing field. I don't think this is the case, the UK is simply seeking LPF more in line with precedent. 3/
Read 9 tweets
2 May
Having been in No 10 at the time the previous Government supposedly previously agreed to an EU office in NI, I can say that it is not correct, certainly not in the way presented. A thread explaining 1/
In Feb 2019 we were doing everything to get the DUP on side in the 'meaningful votes', why would we agree to something they would so clearly oppose? It makes no sense. It was certainly never signed off at the political level in No 10 2/
The quotes in @tconnellyRTE reporting talk about an EU presence in all Devolved Administrations, which is something entirely different to the office they are now seeking in NI. For two key reasons 3/
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!