Thread by @tconnellyRTE

Here's a quick thread on the NI Protocol, reflecting current European Commission thinking:

2/ An EU official today sketched out a choreography which seems encouraging, ie, the UK replies to the EU's legal action by May 15, at which point it will be clear what "flexibilities" within the Protocol are achieveable and what aren't

3/ Once all those cards are on the table technical talks, leading to political talks, could evolve into some kind of joint document by early June, and that if there was broad agreement on the way foward, the legal action drops off

4/ However, the official made it clear that these solutions, if they're found, would be "piecemeal" and if the UK wanted sweeping easements to the Protocol, ie, removing 80pc of the checks and controls, the UK should align with EU food safety rules

5/ Sounds like a hardline approach, but there was the offer that this could be done temporarily, at least until the UK concludes free trade deals of its own. The EU has long believed the UK doesn't want to hinder a US FTA, so it refuses to align

6/ UK officials have long stressed that dynamic alignment of any kind is out of the question

7/ The EU argument is that following last Dec's agreement on the Protocol, the UK agreed to align with EU SPS rules for the duration of two grace periods, one of which London has unilaterally extended, so why not continue such temporary alignment for a couple of years?

8/ The senior official also had some uncompromising words on the idea that the EU would agree to take a more risk-based approach to applying the Protocol, ie does a particular food product from GB-NI really pose an existential risk to the single mkt or consumer health?

9/ The official said: “The fundamental point is that [EU] SPS legislation in itself is about evaluating how much risk you're prepared to accept, and that in setting its SPS rules the EU has made a choice as regards the kinds of risks it sees exists... and how to manage them,”

10/ “The Protocol... enshrines that legislation in its annexes and requires that the UK implement them.”

11/ So, the EU is sticking to its line that the burdens of the Protocol are a direct consequence of the UK's decision to have a distant trading relationship with the EU, and that if it wants to ease the Protocol, then it has the option of a "structural" change - ie, alignment...

12/ Or they stick to piecemeal changes here and there...and in the meantime the EU will expect the UK to fully implement what it has signed up to.

13/ It sounds like a hardball preamble to a more intense phase of technical, then politcal talks

14/ For its part, a UK source suggests London will continue to press for equivalence, rather than alignment with a focus on helping businesses adapt by increasing vet capacity to certify exports as well as providing financial support worth £ms thru the SME Brexit Support Fund

15/ Source suggests London will continue to engage with industry, including through the Brexit Business Task Force, to understand any challenges they face.

16/ One interesting point. UK saying it will not accept dynamic alignment "in perpetuity". EU suggestion today appears to be something temporary, if longer than the current grace periods...ie, until the UK concludes FTA's elsewhere, which cd take several years.