This will suit not just the UKG but the EU too. At least Frost is unlikely to moan about the direct consequences of his refusal to compromise e.g on mobility or SPS
It may have the advantage that he will tell the brutal truth to businesses. At least business eill know where they stand: in a very lonely place where they are seen as potential casualties for the greater good. Tories like Frost likely think it a benefit to get rid of the "weak"
It is the Phoenix theory: out of the ashes of sinful businesses dependent on the EU will emerge the new shining Britain. The faster they sink, the better.
And he will know how yo implement the deal. But he is an aggressive bully with a deluded folie des grandeurs. His Lordship takes himself & his grandiose vision very seriously. He will relish conflict & will love to be the tabloids darling. Mr Obscure, suddethrust into the light
By his sudden embrace of Brexit after a disappointing career in the FO (where he felt his true talent was never recognised by his peers) will also take his revenge on his former FO colleagues.
Pity those still in the FO who did his career assessments "David isn't top material but a competent second, a safe pair of hands" .
Unfortunatrly the assessment was right. Frost doesn't have the finesse, the agility & cunning of a truly good negotiator. He extracted very little of real benefit from the EU. He would have been better as a diligent second to someone like Ivan Rogers who could outplay the EU.
So now we are stuck with some kind of half-mad scorched earth policy. The more destruction, the more Brexit is indestructible & the forces break with the EU irreparable. It is a plan to oblige businesses to turn away from the biggest & freer trade zone in the world.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why is Johnson's speech at the Munich conference hailed in some quarters, even by some journalists that should know better, as "a major policy speech" with "substance"? I went to read it expecting for once to be pleasantly surprised. Alas! Thread gov.uk/government/spe…
It is full of the usual misplaced optimism not backed by any serious analysis, jingoism & digs at other EU leaders with transparent, nearly servile efforts to regain favour with the new US administration. A few examples:
The speech starts with the trademark rethorical device beloved of the UK right (whether to attack "woke' culture or pro-EU sentiments): A wildly exaggerated overblown simplistic statement that you then go on to "disprove"
I thought I would take a look at the SPS agreement recently entered into by New Zealand & the EU. Specifically to understand why entering into such an agreement would be an INTOLERABLE INFRINGEMENT of the UK sovereignty which was the reason the UK refused a similar SPS deal? 🧵
I also wanted to check whether it would be a pragmatic step for improving trade between the UK & EU in relation to all the issues on fish, oysters (bivalve molluscs), rotting pigs, seeds, we have heard about in recent days. Here it is: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…)
The agreement (SPSA) aims "to facilitate trade in live animals & animal products between the EU & NZ by establishing a mechanism for the recognition of EQUIVALENCE of sanitary measures maintained by the2 Parties consistent with the protection of public & animal health". Shocking?
And good comments on the "perceived" left-wing bias of the BBC:
"I say “perceived”, because the new director general of the BBC is a former Conservative councillor, its new chairman has donated £400,000 to the party in recent years, and opaquely-funded right-wing think-tanks have a regular spot on BBC political debate programmes.
Flexibility & pragmatism work both ways. The obdurate hostility of the UK & its refusal to soften its rigidity on the "sovereignty mantra" on a multitude of what should have been purely technical & pragmatic issues injecting dogma into them, will provoke theguardian.com/politics/2021/…
rigidity in return.The UKG's propension to negotiate technical issues in the glare of the tabloids with public letters, making them political points, rather than working quietly in committees behind the scene is entirely counterproductive. As pointed out by @MatthewOToole2 there
are obvious technical fixes like agreeing alignment on rules for food, plants & animal origin products
A great article by @NickCohen4 but also worrying. "The Tories wanted to use the fury of the Ulster Protestants Carson led as a weapon against the Liberal government." theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Perhaps the Tories want to use the furor of Unionist as a weapon again but this time against the EU & Ireland which outsmarted them at every turn of the negotiation?Perhaps Gove really wants to destroy the GFA?
You write that the Tories then "did not care that rejecting Home Rule would lead to war in Ireland". Can we assume they, ruthless as they are, would care that rejecting the NI Protocol would lead to a hard border in the island & a renewal of hostilities?
Stupid & vengeful attacks by a bitter man & a faction of old guard SNP members, damaging the cause they claim to embrace. theguardian.com/politics/2021/…
I have no doubt that Sturgeon, placed in the unviable position of a sexual scandal damaging her party & predecessor may have vacillated, hesitated & obfuscated. But ultimately she did the right thing & let justice take its course. She is the greatest asset of independence.
Without her in charge, moderates will abandon independence. Calls for an unapproved referendum are a huge mistake & Sturgeon, a canny politician with a genuine understanding of her voters, knows it. Damaging her is the greatest gift to Johnson.