Have written my column today on Britain's new foreign policy strategy, which is much more developed (and convincing) then many realise. But there's a big 'but'. (1/?) thetimes.co.uk/article/4fd9b7…
Our new approach is exactly the opposite of the EU's. It's to create and support the coalitions that are going to do the most on any issue. It's to be practical, flexible, fast and fluid. 
In doing so, it's a philosophical - even theological - rebuke to the EU, both in terms of diplomacy and economics/regulation.
But as I say, the problem with dancing with multiple partners is that they do compare notes. The new strategy only works if all our new partners trust that we're a reliable actor.
And this is the NI problem. The Protocol is indeed awful and dysfunctional. The EU is indeed acting like an inflexible, bureaucratic superstate (which is kind of why we left...). It is indeed inflaming sectarian tensions in the area.
But the counterpoint is that we signed the bloody thing. No one forced us to. And if we rip it up, what does that mean for our status as a trustworthy actor on all the other stuff?
Full thing here - please give it a read thetimes.co.uk/article/4fd9b7…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
