Getting the week off to a terrible start is this new theory of international relations, as apologists for breaking international law continue to debase themselves.
Is the UK not going to sign any more treaties and just rely on "spirit and intent" from others?
Malthouse, his ministerial colleagues, and MPs would do well to read the rather precise demolition of their plan to override the Withdrawal Agreement by former AG Geoffrey Cox in the Times. This paragraph will do if short of time. thetimes.co.uk/article/geoffr…
But, but, but those nasty EU types? Cox covers briskly and correctly. If the EU did threaten us (and it seems the government have exaggerated for effect) we have the powers we need without threatening international law.
Particularly for those claiming the EU is acting in bad faith, remember that no Free Trade Agreement will eliminate checks on goods travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain under the Northern Ireland Protocol. They would merely be reduced.
What is particularly difficult now for the EU and all those negotiating with the UK - the government is justifying the right to break any negotiated treaty if they discover it doesn't do what they promised. How do you respond to that?
Incidentally all this talk of the Internal Market Bill breaking international law is distracting from other provisions regarded by both Scotland and Wales governments as a direct attack on devolution, likely strengthening the case of those arguing for independence.
Thus the Internal Market Bill may turn out to be a seminal piece of legislation in UK history, for the future of the country and what it stands for. One would like to hope that would mean it would receive particularly detailed attention in Parliament...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I see we're predicted to be back in the realms today of hurrying through Parliament another Brexit change without debate just to show we haven't really learnt anything, but from the tail end of yesterday's thread here's some of what I'm expecting on Northern Ireland, plus...
There are briefings that either / both - new EU law will no longer automatically be applied in Northern Ireland (it never was) / the UK will agree not to diverge from relevant EU law to avoid UK divergence (wouldn't necessarily remove SPS checks but will keep UK alignment).
As with the Windsor Framework and before, expect an enormous amount of spin that will mostly be reported without challenge, and a handful of us unfortunate enough to read it all (@Usherwood and @JP_Biz are usually good bets in that department).
And the morning news is a deal over Northern Ireland and Brexit. But... this statement isn't true under the Windsor Framework. Even if the UK government decide to align food and drink regulations with the EU. So is this really all settled? theguardian.com/politics/2024/…
Now under the Windsor Framework entry checks to Northern Ireland were reduced. But these are not eliminated by UK alignment. Possibly the DUP has finally decided to agree that these are not so different to those of pre-2016. But equally, be wary of false promises unravelling.
Obviously good news for Northern Ireland if Stormont returns. As long as that can be sustained. That's going to quite possibly mean a lot more days like yesterday, because the issues around Brexit aren't going away given Northern Ireland is the entry point to the single market.
UK trade news! Canada have proved persistently tough negotiating partners for the UK, and this comes as little surprise. The existing replica of the EU agreement is presumed to hold for now, but must also raise a question on CPTPP ratification.
Worth noting that UK refusal to change food standards has been an issue for Canada, while UK access to dairy is an inevitable issue the other way. But still a blow to the government's trade story.
At this stage we have no update on Canada's approach to making tea...
Good piece on Northern Ireland. Clearly the DUP take some blame for refusing to return to Stormont. But their position is pretty predictable, and the UK government has consistently failed in efforts to change that, digging the hole deeper as they go. politico.eu/article/no-gov…
Doesn't seem like the government ever had a Plan B for the entirely predictable (and widely predicted) situation in which the DUP rejected the Windsor Framework. They were so confident that they had negotiated brilliantly (heard someone involved bragging exactly this).
Can't help thinking I've heard this before (and yesterday's version was there wouldn't be any agreement for a long time), but let's see if the DUP are prepared to suddenly fold on their stated reasons for not being in Stormont...
To be clear because I've read this twice already today, a UK-EU SPS agreement would almost certainly NOT remove all barriers to trade in food and drink products.
It could ease some of them. But that difference between the single market and lesser arrangements will remain.
Thing is, loose talk in the UK on EU deals has consequences, because when the Commission read that the UK is going to remove all food and drink barriers while staying out of the single market they think "unacceptable cherry picking / they haven't learnt anything".
There's a realistic UK-EU SPS deal to be had based on substantive but not dynamic regulatory alignment in which trade barriers are lowered but not removed but even this will be a tough negotiation requiring a lot of mutual understanding and could easily fail.
Two major challenges for Europe including the UK in 2024, and two huge distractions. The issues that should but probably won't be discussed in elections...
First challenge, geopolitics, where does Europe stand, who are our friends? What do we think of countries that bomb their neighbours, of others that support or facilitate that, what any more are our values? Very hard right now to see any coherent vision.
Second challenge, sustainable growth. Particularly given ageing populations there seem few obvious solutions to return to pre-2008 levels still less 1950 to 1970 style. But we need strong economies to pay for our expectations, and prevent populist solutions we know are damaging.