In briefing-world Brexit Northern Ireland is on the verge of collapse due to the imposition of the European Court of Justice, and the EU has just put forward remarkable proposals to sweep away nearly all checks under the protocol.
Fine. Except neither of these things is true.
Great Britain to Northern Ireland goods movements are largely continuing, though there's no doubt with greater costs and paperwork for which business has suggested fixes. Unionist anger at a protocol they opposed is real, though also inflamed by the UK government.
The EU has responded with limited proposals to meet the problems identified by Northern Ireland business, while claiming unconvincingly that these will sweep away enormous amounts of checks, and that Member States are strongly resisting any flexibility.
I might be more inclined to take the EU briefing seriously if I hadn't spent three years of my working life hearing about far reaching proposals that turned out in reality to be rather limited. It is totally in line with the usual modus operandi of the Commission.
The coming weeks of UK-EU talk over the Northern Ireland protocol will be a tedious and largely meaningless conflation of briefing and reality. The UK will at some point claim the EU proposals didn't meet the hype. The EU will claim the UK aren't engaging properly.
Meanwhile as has already happened the UK will continue to think the Commission only respond to threats, even though their proposals are a routine part of trade relations, and even after the UK decides the proposals did not in fact meet the hype.
And in the end, as has always been the case with Northern Ireland and Brexit, the UK government will have to decide between settling or going into economic conflict with EU and diplomatic battle with US. They have always previously settled, to return to the issue later.
Whether there is a Northern Ireland protocol settlement this year, or Article 16 leads us towards trade conflict, the issue will not be actually resolved, because there is a fundamental conflict between multiple players. At best its instability can be managed with care.
So Brexit is back, but it is never going to go away. You can't actually ignore 50% of our trade, our neighbouring continent, or the impact on Northern Ireland. We could however do a way better job on understanding what is actually happening.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Job done for the EU. The political commentariat think the UK won. The trade experts who greeted the proposals with a lot of saying "hmmm" and "that seems like a lot of conditions" can be safely ignored.
We are not blind to our lack of influence. Perhaps as it should be.
Remarkably some other countries achieve their aims in international negotiations without threats and tantrums. Possibly even most countries and more of their aims.
Indeed for the UK it has been so many tantrums and so little winning. So much so that other countries will know now that it is easy to negotiate with the UK, allow the media win, achieve all the detail you want. We can call it the UK-Australia model.
If only the UK free traders who used to warn us of the perils of trade barriers hasn't decided in the last five years to put purist definitions of sovereignty ahead of trade.
Ah. Not that they'll automatically take the opportunities. But almost like imposing a labour supply shock on top of supply chain strains wasn't a good idea...
Oh sheez, not the only offender, but can we make some better attempt to understand negotiations and the EU? Everything is theoretically negotiable if you have the capital. The EU doesn't suddenly offer gold, and didn't yesterday. For the oldies, RTFM.
It might be hard to believe in the UK, but numerous countries are currently negotiating with the EU on all manner of trade subjects. Few involve threats, most are going slow, all involve both sides tweaking negotiating positions regularly, most will deliver something.
Sure, move fast and break things. But if those things are of interest to other countries, which many are given we trade, then its either the rule of law or law of the jungle in which the biggest / fastest etc win. The latter might sound fun until we're on the wrong side of it.
And have a go at international lawyers or thinktankers or whoever you want. But ultimately since Brexit no UK government has shown an interest in listening to the many people who really understand international trade or law, in the UK or elsewhere. Perhaps listen more, yell less?
Theories of change as well, the UK government has gone for the small revolutionary cadre approach to Brexit, where only the ideologically pure need apply, as opposed to the building of a broad team which is more normally considered best practice (but maybe wrongly).
Important to be clear that the UK risks de-skilling as a result of our policy choices - that those formerly working in higher productivity export sectors will end up working in lower skilled lower productivity domestic areas. We chose trade barriers.
Government's definition of free trade = lower tariffs is appropriate only to around 1980. For the last 40 years free trade has been more about movement of people and regulatory alignment, on both of which we are now comparatively protectionist.