Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Reading the comments from the trade experts it sounds like most of the "huge" EU concessions are just spin as they are heavily conditional, tying British private actors to EU market rules. Hardly a completely surrender, rather actually workable solution for some of the issues that Northern Irish Business has on the ground.

Yeah - far less than the EU spin before announcing this. The weirdest is there's one part of the "practical benefits" infosheet that doesn't seem to be covered by any of the proposals in the papers. It's not clear if that's just a mistake or maybe a sign of where the thinking is going in terms of discussing the practical implementation.

Anton Spisak is broadly pessimistic and raises a number of points around the gap between spin and reality:

Anton Spisak
@AntonSpisak
Having taken a bit of time to read through the EU's N Ireland proposals, here're some reflections on what they mean, what it means for the future of the Protocol, and where we're heading in wider UK-EU relations.

(A thread)
Before I get to practical and tactical considerations, there's an important "philosophical" point to make first. These proposals are significant because they move us away from general application of EU rules to NI to a world where aspects of EU law can be exempted for NI. /2
This is a big shift for the EU. The Commission had previously insisted that it operated in a constrained space where "bespoke ideas" weren't mostly possible. So, yes, the EU did move, on the point of principle, and that is important. /3
That, I think, will be seen as a small victory by many in London. Remember that the big philosophical argument with the EU has been on the extent to which flexibilities like this were possible at all. HMG will feel vindicated that the hardball strategy is somewhat working. /4
Moving on to the substance, EU proposals introduce a set of facilitations  - on customs, medicines, movement of SPS goods and, lastly, on engagement with NI stakeholders - which are a) helpful, b) go in the right direction, but c) are mostly far off from what the UK seeks. /5
On customs, EU proposals talk about expanding the notion of "goods not at risk of being moved into the EU SM" (helpful in principle), but that's where they stop. Perhaps that's intentional to keep room for detailed discussions with UK. /6
Most notably on customs, the proposals introduce a new idea of "structural safeguards" - things EU could do if UK doesn't comply with its obligations here. This includes, eg, a review and termination clause. Also, and unsurprisingly, EU proposed no changes to the VAT regime. /7
On medicines, the EU has proposed that regulatory compliance for medicines intended for NI market can be undertaken by UK-wide regulators. Helpful, again. But the conditions are pretty strict: ongoing application of relevant EU legislation and enhanced surveillance system. /8
On SPS issues, the EU focuses on "reducing physical checks" and "simplifying certification" for retail goods, not on abolishing all checks or documentation. This would apply only to goods destined for NI market only. /9
What makes me skeptical is the detail. Eg 1, the EU says that this is conditional on the UK aligning on "basic production requirements" with the EU. How broad is the scope of this condition? What sort of alignment is envisaged by EU (static/dynamic)? /10
Eg 2, the EU says that SPS proposals would reduce physical checks, but most of the costs might actually stay for businesses. Much of the required documentation should, according to the Commission, still be "available electronically for inspection". /11
On the "engagement with NI stakeholders and authorities", I've found EU proposals underwhelming. The EU is suggesting formalising various fora for exchange of info - which is useful - but it doesn't address any of the concerns over the Protocol's "democratic deficit". /12
It's disappointing the EU hasn't put forward ideas on involving NI authorities in pre-legislative discussions. I think there's a room for giving NI authorities greater input into pre-legislative process to preempt concerns over how EU rules under the Protocol might affect NI. /13
It's also worth noting the areas on which the EU has been silent: governance and dispute settlement (and the ECJ); VAT; and state aid. Which is exactly where the gap with the UK's proposals is greatest. /14
This leads me to two observations with these EU proposals:

1) A premise behind them is the EU should only be addressing "practical" and demonstrable difficulties with the Protocol as it stands. /15
I worry this misunderstands the nature of the problems with the Protocol.

Current problems aren't only about practicalities but also about political difficulties (ie lack of support by both NI communities) and legal ambiguities in the Protocol's text, which undermine it. /16
2) It seems that EU proposals are about the measures that could be taken either unilaterally by the EU, or by additional decisions agreed by the Joint Cttee. But the EU seems opposed to making amendments and modifications to the text of the Protocol. /17
The UK's whole premise is that the text of the protocol has to be amended. Frost shared its new text with EU days ago. It's this, rather than the ECJ and other issues, where the gulf with the UK will be biggest in the coming weeks/months. Can textual changes be made or not? /18
The biggest obstacle to agreement I see is that neither UK nor EU can really move on the legal text point. The EU has said that it wouldn't renegotiate the protocol, implying no textual changes and the need for a new mandate by the Council, if changes were required. /19
The UK, on the other hand, has said that it would only accept de facto a new protocol. Tinkering with the edges wouldn't be enough. So, unless one side moves, I fear we're facing two irreconcilable positions on what can actually be done at this point. /20
Where does it all leave us? It's in both sides' interest to appear constructive and engage in discussions in the coming weeks. But I expect that those will run out of road when the new gulf on what can be done with the Protocol's text itself emerges. /21
At that point, I think, the Article 16 case from the UK will be almost certain. And, depending on the scale of UK action, I don't have any doubts that the EU will argue that it did "all it could" and respond to UK actions by retaliating. /22
There's a question about how robust that retaliation by the EU will be. I imagine the EU might prioritise those measures where the interests of EU27 don't diverge, where the Council can act unanimously, and which hit the UK hardest. /23
To conclude: I think we're at a moment of real danger that could escalate into a full-blown trade war and cost us many years of "normal relations", at the time when the west doesn't need this and has more important things it should be doing. Can it be avoided? I'm not sure. /Ends

From a BBC article on wider reaction in Northern Ireland the UUP seem disappointed and even the various business groups more or less seem to see this as a start - the rest are more predictable/already fixed and immovable. As I say I think the key is build support in business/civil society and then with moderate unionists to break unionist opposition - but that doesn't seem to be happening with these proposals:

Ulster Unionist Party

It is "a step forward but there remains a long way to go", according to UUP leader Doug Beattie.

"We were told the protocol negotiations could not be reopened, but we have now proven otherwise. This has been achieved through negotiation, not threats; through engagement not disengagement.

"The fact that the EU recognises that the protocol isn't working and needs substantial change is a positive development.

"However, I am genuinely disappointed by what I heard from European Commission Vice-President Maros Šefčovič and the supporting non-papers.

"Expectations were raised, but the proposals do not match them."

[...]

The Confederation of British Industry

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said both the UK and EU had listened to businesses and are aware of the technical solutions needed to protect trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

"Both sides must now grasp this opportunity to get back round the table - and agree sustainable long-term solutions that work for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland," CBI Europe Director Sean McGuire said.

Northern Ireland Retail Consortium

The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium (NIRC) has welcomed "signs of movement from both sides".

However, a spokesperson said if the proposals are to work they must provide "stability, certainty, simplicity and affordability" to Northern Ireland's business community.

They said the NIRC will "reserve judgement" on whether these requirements have been met "until both legal and technical texts have been seen".

"As an umbrella group for business, we will have meetings with both the UK Government and the European Commission to discuss these proposals in full and we look forward to understanding how they would keep NI business competitive and ensure choice and affordability for consumers," the spokesperson added.

Federation of Small Businesses NI

The FSB in NI's Roger Pollen said there is now an onus on both sides to negotiate a new trade solution relatively quickly.

"In terms of the timescale as to when we need to get this sorted, yesterday would have been very nice," he said

Mr Pollen said under current arrangements many businesses in Northern Ireland are faced with "vast amounts of bureaucracy" when bringing goods across from GB.

Should new arrangements be agreed by the UK and EU before Christmas, "businesses would heave a fairly big sigh of relief".

Logistics UK

Seamus Leheny, a representative of trade body Logistics UK, has said companies across the UK are not concerned about the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) role in the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The UK Government has demanded that the ECJ is removed from its role in the protocol as the arbitrator of trade disputes.

But Logistics UK policy manager Mr Leheny told BBC News: "We have got 18,000 members across the UK and we haven't had any representation from any member regarding the ECJ.

"What people want is solutions to the protocol, they want the protocol to work and that is what we are interested in."

He added: "What people are looking for, we are in solution mode here, and the logistics industry, we are solution seekers. We want to get these fixes that the EU have proposed.

"We need to see the legal text obviously to make sure the safeguards are there but people just want to build on this because they see the best way for peace in Northern Ireland is improve people's prospects and livelihoods. That's when I speak to businesses, that's what they want."

[Sheilbh]

Total aside and non-Brexity. But the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner has resigned. He made those very insenstive remarks about Sarah Everard's murder "that women should educate themselves about powers of arrest, saying they should know "when they can be arrested and when they can't be arrested"."

He is currently the only person to have resigned following the murder of Sarah Everard

[Jacob]

Hold the presses! Johnson a liar!

If someone continues to lie egregiously in the public sphere, I think it's better to continue calling that out than to shrug and accept it as business as usual.

[Tamas]

Hold the presses! Johnson a liar!

If someone continues to lie egregiously in the public sphere, I think it's better to continue calling that out than to shrug and accept it as business as usual.

I think I mentioned it during the election campaign but there was some Northern hairdresser lady on some "ask the people" kind of BBC report who explained she likes Johnson, sure he is untrustworthy but "at least you know where you stand with him". 

[Sheilbh]

I think I mentioned it during the election campaign but there was some Northern hairdresser lady on some "ask the people" kind of BBC report who explained she likes Johnson, sure he is untrustworthy but "at least you know where you stand with him". 

I genuinely think that's part of his success or his appeal to a segment of the public. The most common word focus groups get about Johnson is apparently dishonest; in polls over 60% of people think he's untrustworthy and only 20% think he's untrustworthy - and he won the 2019 election with 44% of the vote. There is a slight contrast with Trump here - about 50-55% of Americans thought Trump was dishonest or untrustworty, but 35-40% thought he could be trusted.

Although as I say if the DUP or ERG genuinely believed Johnson then they're just idiots (whcih I suspected of the ERG, but good to have confirmed of the DUP). Especially when you consider the details of that conversation - Johnson apparently told Paisley in private that he would sign-up to something he didn't support, publicly proclaim its benefits for the purposes of winning an election and ultimately aim to tear it up. And Paisley is outraged or surprised that Johnson might not have kept his promise

[Tamas]

Fair point but the thing is, right now Johnson appears closer to the "tear it up" position he promised the DUP, rather than the "honour it" promise he made to the EU and to the British public.

I concede it, however, that it is impossible to know which position he will ultimately take.

But the EU concessions were a good opportunity to declare victory and move on. The fact that he hasn't tells me he will bend to the radicals who won't rest until there is a hard border between the two Irelands.

[Sheilbh]

I concede it, however, that it is impossible to know which position he will ultimately take.

My suspicion is he'll do a deal in the end.

But the EU concessions were a good opportunity to declare victory and move on. The fact that he hasn't tells me he will bend to the radicals who won't rest until there is a hard border between the two Irelands.

I mean the EU hasn't made concessions - they're "discussion papers" for the start of talks which are incredibly vague on the details. They're not done.

My view is as long as there is united unionist opposition there is a problem and no-one can declare victory and move on. Not least because we have a Northern Irish election in 2022 ahead of the consent vote in 2024 - so community tension and the identity issues around the NIP are going to ratchet up for at least the next year if not more.

From a UK-EU perspective, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson did a deal (overruling Frost) and then left Northern Ireland more or less to spiral until 2024 - which will probably be after the next election and possibly after Johnson's decided to leave office. Admittedly if the current options being discussed work then there is the possibility that over time they acquire support within the unionist community but I'm not particularly positive about that possibility.

[Tamas]

I mean the EU hasn't made concessions

From the very article you posted:

Before I get to practical and tactical considerations, there's an important "philosophical" point to make first. These proposals are significant because they move us away from general application of EU rules to NI to a world where aspects of EU law can be exempted for NI. /2
This is a big shift for the EU. The Commission had previously insisted that it operated in a constrained space where "bespoke ideas" weren't mostly possible. So, yes, the EU did move, on the point of principle, and that is important. /3

[Zanza]

Britain now announced unlimited cabotage for foreign, i.e. EU trucks/drivers - so far only for two weeks. Another step towards giving foreigners privileges that were taken away as rights from British citizens in the EEA by leaving the Single Market. But, to be fair, under British control now, not as a right, but as a privilege. So I guess a Brexit success.

[Sheilbh]

Absolutely - but there's no text of EU "concessions" to claim victory over just a willingness to move. What they've published are discussion papers.

You're right Johnson could say "I got the EU to acknowledge that they can move - and that's good enough for me" but I'm not sure that would really work

I've said before it's slightly frustrating that this stuff, which is apparently possible, wasn't in place before there were impacts on Northern Ireland in January and this hardened into an identity issue. But I'd note that it is striking that - and I am not a fan of Frost or Johnson's negotiating "style" - the EU is conceding on points now, while almost exactly concessions were apparently impossible or absolutely out of the question when the EU was dealing with more conciliatory UK negotiators. I think it's quite frustrating and I can imagine Theresa May - who really took the union and unionist concerns seriously - is tearing her hair out watching this

Britain now announced unlimited cabotage for foreign, i.e. EU trucks/drivers - so far only for two weeks. Another step towards giving foreigners privileges that were taken away as rights from British citizens in the EEA by leaving the Single Market. But, to be fair, under British control now, not as a right, but as a privilege. So I guess a Brexit success.

And actually on slightly more liberal terms than the EU rules on this - so early divergence too

[Richard Hakluyt]

Total aside and non-Brexity. But the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner has resigned. He made those very insenstive remarks about Sarah Everard's murder "that women should educate themselves about powers of arrest, saying they should know "when they can be arrested and when they can't be arrested"."

He is currently the only person to have resigned following the murder of Sarah Everard

Did you see the clips of various North Yorkshire worthies and councillors saying that he had to go? Mainly elderly white men but with sufficient nous to get it. I really do not get what is happening in London, supposedly far ahead than so many other parts of the country, but so often reprehensively behind when it comes to policing.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Hold the presses! Johnson a liar!

If someone continues to lie egregiously in the public sphere, I think it's better to continue calling that out than to shrug and accept it as business as usual.

I agree with you there; for people interested in politics it is axiomatic that Johnson is a habitual liar, but for the benefit of people who are not interested in politics it is worthwhile repeating the message and hoping they get it.

[Sheilbh]

Did you see the clips of various North Yorkshire worthies and councillors saying that he had to go? Mainly elderly white men but with sufficient nous to get it. I really do not get what is happening in London, supposedly far ahead than so many other parts of the country, but so often reprehensively behind when it comes to policing.

Yep - and it's North Yorkshire. They'll all be Tory too.

But it's crazy with the Met and with Dick especially. If you read back to the Jean-Charles de Menezes stuff (where she was commander and there was a subsequent cover-up), it's really striking the number other senior police officers who went to bat for her and basically said she was essential.

Then there's the Daniel Morgan inquiry when she was Deputy Commissioner and then the Commissioner. It was ordered by Cameron, it took 15 months from being established for the Met and the Inquiry to agree terms on which the Met were prepared to disclose information and they drip fed it for seven years and all the issues in the difficulties the Met putt in place for the Inquiry to access investigation databases etc. As Stephen Bush put it, a headteacher wouldn't survive an Ofsted report with this type of criticism.

Then you have Sarah Everard's murder - and there's now an inquiry into the circumstances of that and Wayne Cousens. There'll no doubt be cover-ups and obstacles in place of the inquiry etc. While everyone explains how essential Dick is. Apparently Khan's reasoning is if she stays in post then it will align Met Commissioner contract with the mayoral elections - meanwhile Patel's apparently looking at reforming the Met entirely based on a Times report that she thinks it's "rotten from top to bottom".

Separately I'm sure there's issues with the government's fight with GPs - but just heard a journalist on the left describe the push for a return to face-to-face appointments as "populist, 'customer-is-always-right' politics" and a bit Brexity "if I'm an English person and I want to see my doctor - then I will". Which doesn't seem to me like a wild demand.

It makes me suspect the left may be moving back to its pre-Blair position of caring more about the "producer interest"/employees in the public sector than the "consumer interest"/users of the public sector.

[garbon]

I've had no issue seeing a GP so I don't understand what is happening there. My GP was even empty.

On Met, it is just wild how many chances she gets.

[Tamas]

I've had no issue seeing a GP so I don't understand what is happening there. My GP was even empty.

On Met, it is just wild how many chances she gets.

Good for you. This year it took us enormous effort to get non-dismissive feedback from our GP practice. It came to near-begging before we could get a GP on the phone who could be bothered to give a F, actually read and understand my wife's blood test report (which took us forever to get them to ask), and not just spot the first excuse for a blood test rerun to get rid of us.

It's been an exhausting and frankly humiliating experience from the overworked lazy dismissive assistants to the overworked lazy dismissive GP who clearly refused to spend a single minute understanding what's in front of her and just jumped to the conclusion that got us out of her hair the quickest (by ordering a 100% pointless and unrelated 3rd blood test). Luckily being annoying enough landed us in front of a GP who actually cared, eventually.