Thread by @NashSGC

It’s important to give people the benefit of the doubt, but one has to wonder how David Jones could be taken in by an assurance like this.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1407062560625545216

The most cursory glance at the Protocol wld have shown that what was being proposed was permanent; a frontstop, not a backstop, as many said the time.

And even if the Protocol could have been superseded by a UK/EU trade agreement, what type of arrangements did Mr. Jones think would be agreed that could solve the conundrum of the border?

Didn't he understand that only the closest possible relationship with the EU cld remove the need for all checks, both GB/NI & UK/IE?

Didn't he understand that borders are only removed when there are shared rules, shared sovereignty, shared systems, and trust underpinned by mutually recognized independent arbiters who can apply the rules when needed?

Mr. Jones must have understood this. He must have understood it because this is why he opposed the backstop. He opposed it because he feared that it could only be avoided if the UK and EU agreed an extremely close relationship in an FTA that included lots of alignment.

Jones & the ERG didn’t want this. They toppled a PM to make sure it didn’t happen. So what magic trick did they think Boris Johnson wld pull off to avoid ending up exactly where May did, choosing between a v close EU relationship & a border, in the sea or on the island of Ire?

Who knows, but if (if) Jones and the ERG honestly thought that the magic lay in a trade deal that would replace the Protocol, they were clearly way out of their depth, and did not understand what was going on.

Alternatively, they knew that a trade deal cld not replace the Protocol & have always understood that they will have to scrap the Protocol by other means if they are to get the Brexit that they want, a Brexit that frees all of the UK from all EU rules.

The pathway to achieving this goal is the consent vote in 2024, & if the ERG have a strategy, it is to ensure that consent for the Protocol is withheld at that point.

Were that to happen, the EU & UK wld have to renegotiate the Protocol. Everything the ERG do/say in relation to the Protocol now, shld be viewed as part of their efforts to roll the pitch before that consent vote.

And what will they do after a consent vote, shld that result in a re-negotiation? They will tell UK govt. to call, what they believe is, the EU’s bluff. Tell them, “if there has to be a border, put it on the island of Ireland. We (UK) won’t do that, but if you want to, go ahead”.

The ERG has advocated this approach before, but no government has taken it yet. They are no doubt holding onto this for a later date.

The Protocol is unusual. It's the only part of the UK/EU deals that requires continuous cooperation. Yet, it also provides the ideal stage upon which to play out all the arguments unleashed by Brexit, arguments over sovereignty, unionism, identity, regulation, market access etc.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks, arguments and disputes about the Protocol will not go away, not least because, for some politicians, continuing those arguments is a central part of their political strategy.