The issues around the NI Protocol come back to the 80:20 rule:
If you don't do it right and only spend 20% of the time negotiating, you'll spend 80% of time implementing and fixing.
Look at the language here
/1
irishtimes.com/opinion/david-…
If you don't do it right and only spend 20% of the time negotiating, you'll spend 80% of time implementing and fixing.
Look at the language here
/1
irishtimes.com/opinion/david-…
"We expected", "we assumed".
Did you not have any conversations about how it would look in practice? What facilitating trade means and what cheks can be simplified?
Why not?
/2
Did you not have any conversations about how it would look in practice? What facilitating trade means and what cheks can be simplified?
Why not?
/2
The requirement to treat the movement of goods into Northern Ireland as if they were crossing the EU external border is implied in the Protocol and results from applying customs legislation to NI and placing the border in the Irish Sea.
/3
/3
True, it's not explicitly mentioned with a full list of checks or formalities. But I really cannot imagine that during the negotiations or even the JC talks there was no discussion about what applying customs legislation to NI meant.
/4
/4
I see 2 options here:
1⃣ UK Gov knew, didn't accept and hoped it can try to renegotiate/bend afterwards
or
2⃣ UK Gov genuinely didn't know what it agreed to and didn't listen to anyone trying to explain the implications
/5
1⃣ UK Gov knew, didn't accept and hoped it can try to renegotiate/bend afterwards
or
2⃣ UK Gov genuinely didn't know what it agreed to and didn't listen to anyone trying to explain the implications
/5
My money is on 1⃣ and the fact that the criticism of the Protocol, refusal to implement, resistance and just generally playing for time were always part of the plan.
That making the Protocol unworkable might have always been the goal.
/6
That making the Protocol unworkable might have always been the goal.
/6
A way to force the EU into a solution that was not on the table during the actual Protocol negotiations.
By being obstructive, by blaming, by playing on deep divisions in NI.
/7
By being obstructive, by blaming, by playing on deep divisions in NI.
/7
Why else would Frost mention that cancer medicine cannot get licensed in NI as a result of the Protocol (emotive and cheap argument) when it's this Gov that agreed and signed the Protocol?
Not even the smallest sign of ownership. As if the Protocol happened to someone else
/8
Not even the smallest sign of ownership. As if the Protocol happened to someone else
/8
If the medicine cannot get licensed it's a direct consequence of what this Gov has negotiated and signed plus the failure to clarify how that would work in practice and to ensure that the Protocol works for the UK.
/9
/9
If it was written by smn else perhaps.
But having the minister in charge of finding the solution demonstrate such levels of deflection and inflammatory rhetoric just shows me to what extent we normalised such behaviour over the last 5 years.
/10
But having the minister in charge of finding the solution demonstrate such levels of deflection and inflammatory rhetoric just shows me to what extent we normalised such behaviour over the last 5 years.
/10
Meanwhile, the consequences of this ongoing dispute are felt by the traders, consumers and ppl of NI.
Do better!
/11
Do better!
/11
*caveat*
I do agree that the solution requires a practical and flexible approach to formalities and checks and that there is a need for both sides to compromise.
But as I've written before the UK is going about it in the worst possible way.
12/12
I do agree that the solution requires a practical and flexible approach to formalities and checks and that there is a need for both sides to compromise.
But as I've written before the UK is going about it in the worst possible way.
12/12
https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1408389307052789761
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
