It occurs to me that we may all have been premature in declaring the Conservative Party wars over the EU to be finished.
While there is a strong part of the Conservatives that actively want the UK to attack the EU, supported by the media, but contrary to global realities, any move towards friendly relations will be tough. But hostility will cost because of those realities.
And Ireland is the microcosm. Where there are real issues, no easy answers, and a US and EU expecting the UK government to behave in a constructive manner meaning in practical terms checks between GB and NI.
I'm afraid that trying to reconcile hard Brexit and no barriers between GB and NI unionism through inventing new forms of borders has been, is, and will be a doomed enterprise. The report on which this article is based is no solution. irishtimes.com/opinion/david-…
I have been sympathetic to unionist concerns about Brexit and Northern Ireland throughout the process. I opposed the original Northern Ireland backstop for this reason. I thought an all-UK backstop was better. But the DUP joined Conservatives in thinking this not Brexit enough.
My sympathy is lessened by language about annexation by the EU, and also the failure to recognise that the post-Brexit settlement affects both communities, both East-West and North-South trade. It makes me think the author's hatred for the EU is dominating his approach.
Thread, particularly this. In time our two agreements with the EU will come to be seen very badly, and blame will be apportioned. Right now Brexiteers try to blame PM May for the NI Protocol. Not convincingly.
Reason for problems of both NI Protocol and EU FTA are fundamentally the same. Unrealistic negotiating position not compromised until too late, by which time it was take EU deal or not. And the PM preferred to take deal, claim victory, defer consequences.
Government is very lucky that a sympathetic press and commentariat is not yet calling out problems with the EU deal. But the management of substandard deals and public opinion, along with international relations, is going to be very difficult.
Lots of praise going round for this PM speech to the Munich security conference. A well crafted piece which returns to traditional UK foreign policy concerns. It just doesn't match well to actions not least with regard to European relations. So what gives? gov.uk/government/spe…
And that's a serious question by the way. The UK can have the kind of North Atlantic centred foreign policy the PM describes, but not while denying recognition to the EU Ambassador and pursuing a hard line on EU trade relations. Still about making the choices.
Hadn't noticed this on first read but just adds to the problem for the UK's foreign policy - very difficult to talk about the rebirth of the transatlantic alliance when we're blanking the EU. The EU and US have tensions, but at least accept each other...
My Friday provocation - which I know is not widely shared in Brexit twitter circles - is that the UK government has been structured wrongly on Brexit since 2016 and the appointment of Lord Frost compounds the error. Not about personalities but balance of roles... 1/
So in the usual UK government system departments set policy and implement it, and the centre of government (Cabinet Office, Number 10) coordinates, arbitrates, sets overall strategy, and all the other things you'd expect from a centre. Though without much resource tbf... 2/
For international policy there was always a Prime Minister's 'sherpa' who was also the head of a Cabinet Office secretariat, their role to represent the PM at various international meetings, drawing on all different departmental interests. A specific and limited role perhaps. 3/
Strangely not mentioned in this story - the fact that the US, EU and Japan agreed to sytrengthen rules to tackle Chinese subsidies in January 2020. So we appear to be urging the EU to join something they joined and we didn't over a year ago. thesun.co.uk/news/14089864/…
Does it matter that there is a media story about trade briefed by the government that is almost completely inaccurate? Because these four paragraphs are complete fantasy. The UK are trying to divide the EU and US on trade, and we were the ones putting up barriers to trade.
I had quite a shock recently when a mainstream US think-tanker described the UK in the same camp as Poland and Hungary as having been taken over in part by populist nationalism. Of course the UK government would deny this, but do they care that this is being suggested?