Lord Frost tells the Policy Exchange event this morning that the UK government will set out its approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol "in the next week or two" and "before the summer recess"
A lot of emphasis from Lord Frost and Brandon Lewis on the impacts of the Protocol: societal impacts and trade diversion.

They say that their "understanding" of the Protocol, at the time when it was signed, was that it was going to work differently.
It sounds to me like a government lawyer, somewhere in the deep corridors of Whitehall, has been instructed to prepare an Article 16 case.
Lord Frost says that dynamic alignment to EU SPS law, as a solution to the NI Protocol problems, is "simply a non-starter".

Also says that they suggested an alternative "based on equivalence" and haven't yet been able to discuss it in depth with the Commission.
To be fair to Lord Frost, he also emphasises the need to find a "consensual" way forward.

And, importantly, said that it wasn't the intention of HMG for Ireland to pay the price with new checks btw Ireland and the rest of EU. A pity that wasn't said in his Irish Times article.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Anton Spisak

Anton Spisak Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AntonSpisak

9 Jul
Article 16 of NI Protocol is unique. It is unusual to have a general "safeguard" provision like this - a provision which allows either side to unilaterally suspend parts of a treaty without a dispute.

Here's a bit of niche EU legal history to ask where A16 comes from. A thread:
This provision is actually taken directly from the 1992 EEA Agreement. Look at the text of A112 of the EEA Agmt and you'll see that it is identical to A16 of the Protocol.

Surprising? Not really. In essence, both are about EU law and conditions under which it can be disapplied. ImageImage
Its function in the EEA Agmt is to provide a de-facto "emergency break" on the application of single market rules in the event of exceptional circumstances. Originally, it was included to give EEA states some extra time to transpose relevant EU laws into their legal orders.
Read 12 tweets
28 Jun
Whether true or not, there’s an important question over the legitimacy of using WhatsApp and other messaging apps for the conduct of official government business. From my own experience, messaging apps are used routinely for that and there need to be clear rules over their use.
In my view, the basic rules for using messaging apps for the conduct of official business should be:

- Use of apps only from Govt phones;
- Monitored and recorded in the same was as Govt email;
- Subject to FOI requests in the same way as other Govt comms channels.
Ministers and civil servants using apps on their private phones for making government decisions and/of coordinating government business – in such a way that cannot be subject to public scrutiny – should be prohibited by law.

It’s simply harmful for democracy.
Read 5 tweets
9 Jun
I’ve written in @prospect_uk with a little radical idea for how to make the Northern Ireland Protocol work.

It’s radical because it requires both sides to compromise. But for a small price, it could deescalate tensions & make the protocol more stable. /1
prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/how-t…
The debate about sausages/chilled meat/pet passports/etc distracts from a more fundamental question that needs addressing:

Whether all goods produced in Great Britain but intended for sale *only* in Northern Ireland need checks upon arrival to NI. /2
I suggest not. There’s little risk of this kind of goods posing a threat to the integrity of the EU single market. And it is these goods which undermine the UK internal market, feed into the Unionist concerns, & lead to potentially unpredictable consequences on the ground. /3
Read 18 tweets
3 Jun
My piece in @Independent on the big question that much of Whitehall is desperately trying to figure out: now that Brexit is over, what do we do with the “sovereignty dividend”?

(Read beyond the headline, which isn’t mine)
I argue that the UK urgently needs a post-Brexit regulatory strategy and suggest three starting principles:

1. Minimise pointless divergence whenever it is not in the UK’s interests
2. Seek divergence from the EU only in areas with meaningful opportunities
Read 4 tweets
2 Jun
For the last few months I have been searching for the post-Brexit regulatory opportunities and today I have published a new @InstituteGC paper, together with David Britto, on what those opportunities may be.

institute.global/policy/after-b…

(A thread)
During the Brexit negotiations, we were told, Britain's mastery of its own affairs – aka "regulatory sovereignty" – is what Brexit is all about.

Here is @DavidGHFrost making a case for it last year, in Brussels, before the EU trade talks began. no10media.blog.gov.uk/2020/02/17/dav…… /2
The UK defended this view in the talks but ended up paying a big price: a thin trade deal with the EU with next to no regulatory provisions, and a border for goods moving from Great Britain and N Ireland. It feels reasonable to ask what the "sovereignty dividend" actually is. /3
Read 23 tweets
21 May
How many of UK MPs who passed Johnson's oven-ready deal on 22 October 2019 actually read the government's own impact assessment of the deal?

Unlike the "we didn't know this, we couldn't expect that" rhetoric, it spells out the consequence of NI Protocol in crystal-clear terms.
An important reminder by the Johnson govt about the reality of regulatory sovereignty:

"All of the associated costs are uncertain and dependent on future decisions on domestic regulatory policy and the EU’s future acquis."
"The Protocol will require additional checks covering all products subject to SPS provisions (including all products of animal origin, and regulated plants and plant products) to ensure compliance with the Single Market’s SPS regulations."
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(