Some of us have been making the point @Bill_Esterson draws attention to for some time. See the HoL Internal Market Select Committee in April 2020 and my comments on it uksala.org/house-of-lords…
https://twitter.com/bill_esterson/status/1455580356439166979
The Committee commented that “It is troubling that no one we heard from thought that the UK Government had a clear understanding of what state aid provisions it had signed up to in the Protocol”.
This was my evidence (and this is not controversial on the law). 
Also worth noting what the Commission’s guidance says (my summary and links here). uksala.org/eu-commission-…
As it happens, I think that this is deeply unsatisfactory and - on this issue - see a lot of merit in the current government’s case that the Protocol (Art 10) should be amended. See eurelationslaw.com/blog/the-uks-p…
Unfortunately, the current government missed a boat on this when it failed to get the Art 10 issue looked at when it agreed detailed subsidy control provisions in the TCA.
And it has also buried this good point in a heap of bad points about the Protocol. Which is a shame.
It would certainly help clarity about, and accountability for, the current government’s position (and demonstrate to those of us that are sceptical that its own thinking is clear and realistic) if it published its draft revised Protocol - including its suggestions to replace A10.
https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1455584981426782214
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
