Thread by @StevePeers

I've read the speech. @hayward_katy's critique is justified; the Telegraph headline is fair; and the speech is profoundly intellectually dishonest. Let's have a closer look. 1/

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1503857875432747026

2/ First, Lord Frost states that 'we knew that couldn't be achieved without a short run economic cost'. But that is not the basis on which Leave campaign argued its position. Any suggestion of a negative impact of Brexit was dismissed as Project Fear.

3/ Lord Frost argues that 'trade policy [is] not subject to meaningful scrutiny' at EU level. In fact, trade agreements are subject to more parliamentary control by the European Parliament than in the UK Parliament. (The same could be said of some other non-EU countries, too).

4/ Lord Frost falsely suggests that the May government was interested in only 'a simulacrum of leaving'. In fact, the May government was, from an early stage, committed to leaving the single market - and leaving many other EU policies besides.

5/ Lord Frost very, very falsely states that the Northern Ireland protocol was 'imposed on us'. In fact, the UK govt presented it as a negotiating victory, campaigned on it as an 'oven ready deal', and Parliament voted on it.

6/ Stop claiming that a treaty which the government applauded and campaigned for was 'imposed' on it. No, really, just fucking stop already. I will never, never, never accept this lie.

7/ Lord Frost places the blame for a hostile relationship between the UK and EU almost solely at the foot of the EU - with a bit of blame assigned to Remainers. But it's not serious to pretend that there was no hostility coming from the Leave side/the government.

8/ Lord Frost claims that "The EU needs to recognise that the Protocol was always temporary". In fact, Johnson's version of the withdrawal agreement removed all references to it being "temporary".

9/ It's true to say that NI Assembly members will vote on whether to give continued consent to (much of) the Protocol. But it will only end if the assembly members refuse consent. It is not intrinsically temporary.

10/ Lord Frost says "In appeasing Greta Thunberg, we very nearly gave a free pass to Vladimir Putin." What can I say? The level of geopolitical analysis of a pub bore.

11/ As for his threat to relations with the EU, the Telegraph headline actually *understates* it. If his demands are not accepted, he suggests not only to campaign to end the protocol, but also to "rebalance" the later trade deal, to reduce trade relations or terminate the deal.

12/ His suggestions for improving relations (agreement on mobility for musicians etc, more foreign policy cooperation, youth mobility, simplified tourist movement) are, on the other hand, useful.

13/ But these useful suggestions are - as he acknowledges - a *reversal* of the policies which were applied when he was involved with the negotiations. Frankly, this calls his judgement into question.

14/ A reset of relations, with some new ideas on the table, is a good idea. But it's not convincing argued like this: not being truthful about what the Leave campaign/govt has said and done; blaming EU/Remainers wholly for hostility which the Leave campaign/govt has stirred up.