Just a quick one this morning. Lord Frost and Brandon Lewis have written a piece for the Irish Times (don't ask me why - I assume it's because the Irish government have already rejected the idea) calling for "a new balance in how the [NI} protocol is operated." This is an international treaty signed about 18 months ago with the contentious part, the protocol, negotiated by Frost himself. It's clear he had no idea what he was doing.
The two key paragraphs in the article are these, with the important words highlighted:
"The rules by which we do this [control the movement of goods GB-NI] are set by EU law. Nevertheless, given the extraordinary nature of this agreement, and the delicate political situation, we expected to be able to administer them sensitively in practice. We assumed that the requirements to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and to try to avoid checks and controls at Northern Irish ports, both spelt out in the protocol, would be meaningful. We expected that the protocol’s injunction to minimise impact on everyday lives in Northern Ireland would be fully reflected. But it isn’t working out like that."
What Frost is saying is that they agreed the fine details of exactly what checks would be applied and then assumed a paragraph about 'facilitating' trade meant the EU would somehow overlook a lot of the checks that they had agreed. The word 'facilitate' means to make something easier not to eliminate the thing altogether.
I would want to ask him why he "assumed" and why he "expected" something different to what the treaty specifies. If he had assurances from the EU why weren't they written in? If he had no such assurances, why make the assumption? Either way he looks like an idiot.
The second paragraph of interest is this one:
"But we need constructive and ambitious discussions with the EU which deal with the actual reality. To simply say “the protocol must be implemented in full” is to take a theological approach that is frozen in time and does not deal with the reality that now exists. If operating the protocol on the current basis is making the situation worse, then how can pressing for an even more rigorous assertion of it make sense? Can it be right that the commitments made in the protocol to protecting the Belfast Agreement and preventing disruption and economic harm are deemed less important than those designed to protect the single market?"
The two sides spent the best part of two years negotiating and Frost got involved at the end and with a ridiculous deadline, frantically agreed the NI protocol as a triumph, went to the electorate with it as an 'over-ready' deal, had it ratified by the great majority of MPs, signed by Johnson and given Royal assent in the implementing laegislation.
This was done to 'protect' the GFA. Now he is bellyaching that it isn't working and the EU must agree to changes.
When the two sides agreed another extension to the 'grace' period for chilled meat, Tony Connelly at RTE tweeted:
So, the EU and UK have both issued unilateral declarations on the extension to the chilled meats grace period.As per earlier tweets, they don’t match up in terms of what the extension is for...— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) June 30, 2021
The EU say the 3 month extension is to allow more time for supply chains to be reconfigured (to find new suppliers in the Republic or to send much bigger loads from GB to NI to reduce paperwork for example) while the UK side doesn't mention any readjustment at all.
The Irish Times piece makes it clear we want to spend another three months trying to renegotiate the deal. That is not going to happen.
