After much speculation, the Foreign Secretary confirmed in Parliament today that the Government intends to introduce a new law to unilaterally suspend certain parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Liz Truss emphasized the need for pragmatism in addressing practical challenges. While the preference remains a negotiated solution with the EU, the plan is not to completely discard the Protocol. However, the Good Friday Agreement is being undermined, and in the absence of progress from Brussels, legislative action is necessary to establish revised arrangements.
Some argue that the Government is cynically reneging on a deal agreed upon in good faith by both sides. However, it is important to note that the Protocol was agreed upon during a time when pro-Remain politicians in Parliament were actively undermining the UK’s position, even eliminating the option of a no-deal Brexit. The sequence of negotiations, along with the EU’s refusal to explore innovative solutions to the Irish border issue, limited the Government’s options.
Furthermore, ministers do not seek to completely abandon the Protocol and have managed to convince some critics of the deal that seeking changes is a better approach. It is evident that the current arrangement is not functioning perfectly, especially considering the opposition from unionist parties in Northern Ireland leading to the collapse of power-sharing.
In the short term, the question is whether Ms. Truss’s statement will encourage Brussels to reconsider the terms of its negotiator’s mandate, enabling more productive discussions. However, given the EU’s unwavering commitment to protecting the “integrity” of the single market, it may be challenging for them to depart from their ideologically rigid stance. Initial indications are not promising.
If this is the case, ministers will need to decide whether it is worth risking economic retaliation from Brussels to proceed with the legislation. To minimize the impact on the cost of living crisis, it is crucial for the government to clarify the necessary actions, which may involve significant tax and regulatory reforms to enhance the competitiveness of the economy. The worst outcome would be for the government to escalate the situation and then back down due to fear of the consequences. History has shown that Britain has paid a price for displaying weakness in the face of EU threats.
Reference
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
After much speculation, the Foreign Secretary confirmed in Parliament today that the Government intends to introduce a new law to unilaterally suspend certain parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Liz Truss emphasized the need for pragmatism in addressing practical challenges. While the preference remains a negotiated solution with the EU, the plan is not to completely discard the Protocol. However, the Good Friday Agreement is being undermined, and in the absence of progress from Brussels, legislative action is necessary to establish revised arrangements.
Some argue that the Government is cynically reneging on a deal agreed upon in good faith by both sides. However, it is important to note that the Protocol was agreed upon during a time when pro-Remain politicians in Parliament were actively undermining the UK’s position, even eliminating the option of a no-deal Brexit. The sequence of negotiations, along with the EU’s refusal to explore innovative solutions to the Irish border issue, limited the Government’s options.
Furthermore, ministers do not seek to completely abandon the Protocol and have managed to convince some critics of the deal that seeking changes is a better approach. It is evident that the current arrangement is not functioning perfectly, especially considering the opposition from unionist parties in Northern Ireland leading to the collapse of power-sharing.
In the short term, the question is whether Ms. Truss’s statement will encourage Brussels to reconsider the terms of its negotiator’s mandate, enabling more productive discussions. However, given the EU’s unwavering commitment to protecting the “integrity” of the single market, it may be challenging for them to depart from their ideologically rigid stance. Initial indications are not promising.
If this is the case, ministers will need to decide whether it is worth risking economic retaliation from Brussels to proceed with the legislation. To minimize the impact on the cost of living crisis, it is crucial for the government to clarify the necessary actions, which may involve significant tax and regulatory reforms to enhance the competitiveness of the economy. The worst outcome would be for the government to escalate the situation and then back down due to fear of the consequences. History has shown that Britain has paid a price for displaying weakness in the face of EU threats.