Interesting thread end point end point. I hope, and I could be wrong, that the UK government knows that to actually trigger protocol safeguard mechanisms would be incredibly counter-productive in showing a total lack of good faith. I suspect this is more an idle threat.
Obviously the UK government is under pressure from the DUP to renounce the protocol. But that's been true for 15 months. They are under pressure from EU and US not to do so. And that pressure has been more important to date, and probably wil continue to be so.
Then the UK government is under pressure trying to protect the PM who denies an Irish Sea border, while trying to make things better which Michael Gove and team knows means ignoring what the PM says. All together very tricky.
I think it is the tensions in the UK position on Northern Ireland that lead to an overly aggressive letter, to try to placate the DUP and PM while basically inviting the EU to do something to make things a bit better. Using the Commission's mistake as the excuse.
Also remember that the UK business community is suffering right now from the trade barriers internal and external with the EU. Setting off a new bout of uncertainty as to trading relations is going to increase economic losses. Those EU checks can still get worse.
The UK letter does give the EU a problem to solve, brought on by their own carelessness last week. But the long term problems of the Northern Ireland protocol remain on the UK side, and the letter should be seen in that context. Minor attempted blacklamail, major plea for help.
Overly aggressive UK letter on Northern Ireland gives EU an easy comeback.
The latest @pmdfoster thread suggests a gulf of opinions on Northern Ireland between EU and UK. But bluntly a UK government unwilling to admit what it has signed up for and with the US looking on with interest is not in a strong position.
There is the world of difference between the UK government saying "we screwed up, we didn't realise what we signed up to" and "we don't care what we signed up for, you fix it" on Northern Ireland. And guess what, the EU did the first, the UK the second. Doesn't fit who has power.
So let's say the EU doesn't do what the UK demands in Northern Ireland. What then? The UK is on its own. Exactly the reason the threats to tear up the protocol previously failed.
The UK government were given a golden opportunity to make some beneficial minor fixes to the Northern Ireland protocol by the EU's mistake last week. Instead the DUP demanded fundamental change and the government followed. Returning the UK to a weak position.
Approaching five years of successive UK governments not understanding the fundamentals of the issues of Brexit with regard to Northern Ireland. Instead looks like we're going around again. Night all...

• • •

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

Keep Current with David Henig

David Henig 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 @DavidHenigUK

5 Feb
Long thread. My view - the UK has since 2016 underestimated what goods border checks mean, and still does. That makes it very difficult for the EU to respond effectively to suggestions the operations of the protocol must be seriously changed. Especially after a month.
If the UK government went to the EU and said "here are three things that if you do we will resolve internal UK issues like unionist opposition to the protocol" then that is interesting. "Here are 20 things and we still don't guarantee we won't be back for more" is almost useless.
Let us be blunt the EU fear the UK wish to erode the Northern Ireland protocol to nothingness with a series of demands that never end. So yes this is about disruption, but it is also about trust. And that needs the UK side to change - such as the PM to admit there are checks.
Read 5 tweets
5 Feb
Interesting thread, expect to see the rate of vaccinations to rise in France in the coming months, as I suspect also to be the case in many other developed countries. Adds to previous suggestions that covid shows modern globalisation is stronger than national exceptionalism.
Not that relatively equal nation states can't get advantages in a globalised world, but the speed of information and goods transmission means they are likely to be short lived. Suggests to me the long term fundamentals are more important than short term actions.
A Brexit angle on covid and globalisation? One fundamental is changed, the level of our trade integration with the EU. But not others, such as our general demand for regulation or strength in services.
Read 4 tweets
5 Feb
New @instituteforgov report on managing UK-EU relationship. I would start in a different place, and I think get to a different result - our priorities should be resolving trading issues and influencing future regulations, plus general political relations. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/…
I think we get distracted by the elaborate committee structures set up by UK-EU treaties. The EU aim to do this with everyone. The only way we're special is we have two treaties so two sets of committees. That's actually quite revealing in its way. Image
So how do the committes help us if we have day-to-day business issues, as we do and will, or want to try to influence EU regulation? They don't, necessarily. This is going to have to be the same stuff as we do with every country in the world. Only more so, more at stake.
Read 10 tweets
4 Feb
Might start a Brexit dictionary. In this case "absurd" means perfectly normal outside of a single market. bbc.com/news/amp/enter…
Just wait until UK Ministers discover that every country has non tariff barriers to trade and the only group of countries to remove them almost completely are the EU plus EEA countries.
Read 7 tweets
4 Feb
Integrated supply chains like this affect all sectors of the economy, and are in turn affected by greater barriers. ft.com/content/9fb6b5… Image
Someone made the very good point to me earlier this week that even small companies can have their own global supply chains - technology raised that possibility. But now many UK companies are disadvantaged.

My paper published earlier this week. ecipe.org/publications/g…
So why don't we bring the entire supply chain back to the UK like in the 1970s? Because that will not produce the same quality of goods at the same price. And we'll be hopelessly uncompetitive compared to those drawing on a range of inputs. Image
Read 5 tweets
4 Feb
Dial down the politics and uncertainty and Northern Ireland has a potentially strong offer to business. Unfettered goods access to EU, mostly unfettered to GB, plus large numbers of population eligible for dual passports so can work across UK and EU.
In general the UK will do better with the EU once it stops treating those who want to negotiate better outcomes as opponents, and moves away from tried and failed techniques of bluster followed by retreat.
What is the UK gaining from this refusal to fully recognise the EU Ambassador? A good headline at the expense of an ability to influence our major trading partner and a global regulator?
Read 4 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!