Absolutely worth a watch by @BrigidLaffan. Pretty thorough refutation of the Frost account of how we got to the Protocol in his introduction to the Policy Exchange paper (blaming Whitehall and the Benn-Burt Act).
Interesting to compare Brigid’s account to the far more sophisticated explanation of how we got to the Protocol in the Policy Exchange paper itself.
That paper recognises Ireland’s achievement - emphasised by Brigid - in getting its concerns about the border and its view of how critical the border was to the Good Friday Agreement established and accepted by the EU.
It also acknowledges the huge U.K. failings during the May government: failure to know what it wanted; failure to get up to speed; failure to understand that as a Member State Ireland would have huge weight with the EU.
The paper argues, however, that that approach downplayed the “East-West” GB-NI aspect of the GFA. (There’s a lot of detail - so that’s a heroic summary.)
However, it seems to me that the weaknesses of the paper are ultimately the same fundamental weaknesses as that of Frost’s approach.
1. Its failure to understand the political reality (powerfully argued by Brigid) that any checks/infrastructure at the border is simply unacceptable to the population that lives on either side of it (and without whose consent any form of border can’t work).
2. Its failure to acknowledge that - for the EU and for Ireland - the inevitable corollary of an open border is that NI has to be (effectively) in the EU customs territory and regulatory zone for goods.
That is the legal infrastructure that underpins open borders across the EU - and in its absence no other border anywhere in the world operates without checks and infrastructure.
Absent any coherent UK response to either point 1 or point 2 - and none emerged before the Protocol or has emerged since - the reality remains the Trilemma: and the consequence (given Johnson’s choice of hard Brexit for GB) is the Protocol.
(The first tweet should say “Parliament” rather than the Benn/Burt Act: Twitter really needs an edit function.)
(And to be clear - “far more sophisticated” above is a comparison to David Frost, not to Brigid Laffan.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…
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).
Frost asks the question why the May government - in the 2017 joint report - accepted that alignment with some EU rules would be needed to avoid checks and infrastructure on the Irish border.
There is an obvious answer to that question: that (the famous Trilemma) that the only ways of avoiding checks/infrastructure at the Irish border were (1)to align with EU customs/goods rules in NI, with checks/infrastructure over the Irish Sea or (2) UK alignment with those rules.
1. The key phrase in Castex’ letter wasn’t accurately translated by @alexwickham and nuance was lost. Nuance matters in diplomatic letters (see eg how the Franco Prussian war broke out).
2. The French government (which knows rather a lot about diplomacy and careful drafting) must have known that the phrase (even accurately translated) would wind up the current government and its outriders (and that an inaccurate translation was quite likely).
As today is Reformation Day (95 theses nailed to the door of Wittenberg church etc), a good day to recommend a fascinating set of @GreshamCollege lectures on the English Reformation by Alex Ryrie.
Link here to the one on the “Tudor Reformation” (how the Tudor State used the rupture to grab and centralise power*). gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-e…
But also recommend (particularly) the ones on the Unwanted Reformation (how spectacularly unpopular it was), the Catholic Reformation (an intriguing road not taken), and the Anglican Reformation (not till 1660 at the earliest).
This is right and important. Though note that even if (which is unlikely) the EU agreed to rewrite the Protocol and to replace adjudication with the “not Swiss”* arbitration model, all disputes on the meaning of these obligations would end up in the ECJ. Just more slowly.