19th December 2021
Today is a Sunday, and on many previous Sundays this blog has covered claims in the weekend press about what Brexit minister David Frost intended to do with Article 16 of the Northern Irish Protocol.
But this Sunday is about what the Northern Irish Protocol has done to David Frost.
And in essence – the Protocol is still there, and David Frost is not.
So what happens now?
Some are discussing who Frost’s replacement would be.
But this does not really matter.
For until and unless the United Kingdom thinks through what it wants from its post-Brexit policy, the problems associated with the Frost tenure will still be there.
And the question of who should succeed Frost is less important than the question of whether there even needs to be a Brexit ministerial job.
By which I mean that the (apparent) job of Frost was to force the European Union into renegotiating the Protocol, and that attempt has failed – and it will keep on failing.
Instead, we need to have a period focused on implementation and ongoing review of the Protocol, rather than weekly confrontational drama.
This is a task that could be done by a senior diplomat or official, reporting to the Cabinet – rather than a mid-ranking non-cabinet minister.
But whoever is appointed (if anybody), there still needs to be something that the United Kingdom wants to achieve that is realistic: a post-Brexit policy.
*
At the moment we do not have any post-Brexit policy.
We instead have slogans and impossible demands.
We have no balanced and considered approach, reconciling the conflicting political and economic elements of Brexit.
We have no achievable vision of what the United Kingdom wants in the years (and decades) to come following Brexit.
And without a vision and without a policy, any Brexit minister will be without a clue what to do.
We will not have a worthwhile post-Brexit policy while Boris Johnson stays as Prime Minister.
He may go soon, or he may hang on.
But we will have to wait until he is no longer prime Minister before we can develop a serious strategy for our relationship with the European Union.
Until then we will just have the soundbitten, flimsy understanding of the easily bored.
*
And so, like a succession of Russian dolls, each problem fits inside another.
The successor to Frost does not matter because of the larger problem of what is the point of a Brexit minister – and that problem is within the larger problem of there not being a post-Brexit policy.
One day, after the current Prime Minister is no longer in office, there will be politicians who will have the vision and drive to put in place a sustainable association agreement with the European Union.
And that day will come – as the present chaos and incompetence cannot (or should not) continue forever.
The only worry is how long it will take for us to get there.
******
Please help this daily law and policy blog survive.
It needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Things should be reset to how they worked before. Have a Europe minister within the FCDO. That would signal that Brexit is over (thank goodness!) and relations with the EU are part of normal relations with other countries and groups of countries. As you suggest, sorting out the leftovers from Brexit should be the job of a senior diplomat or other official, also working within the FCDO.
The problem isn’t so much Johnson, but a small cabal of self-styled, ideology driven, no-deal “warrior” Tories who probably number around 50 with a similar number of chaff-like hangers on, of whom Johnson seems terrified.
The intolerance of dissent in their chaff ranks saw Dorries summarily expelled overnight from their WhatsApp group which ironically also allowed the mask to slip on the true intentions of their aims: Strip the country of every semblance of humanity, human rights & the imposition of their free market version where the winner gets all the spoils, survival of the fittest & above all, where the end justifies the means. Ironically, few of them would qualify as “winners” in their warped utopia.
Whoever succeeds Johnson will have to face down these swivel-eyed loons to succeed in building back some form of recognisable decency in government. Cameron, May and Johnson have so far failed and having expelled every grown-up Tory, there are very few choices.
This is very much the way I see it. There is a rump within the Conservative Party who will never be satisfied and must at some point be faced down. Cameron failed in this respect, and those that followed have fared NO better. This does not diminish the need for the U.K. to progress beyond “We got Brexit done” – which they most certainly did not do..
This post is good enough to plagiarise : )
Well said
Brilliant! Simply brilliant. Thank you. On Lord Frost. On Mr Johnson. On the complete absence of any coherent Post Brexit Economic and Political Foreign Policy.
Mr Johnson and his Gang of Thugs and Bullies have abandoned the key core Foreign Economic and Political Policy that has kept the country safe and together for four hundred years.
As you so accurately comment, Mr Johnson has replaced that Policy with: Nothing….
There never was any thinking about the consequences and how to deal with them on the part of anyone in the Leave campaign, nor, if my experience of them is anything to go by, any on the part of those who voted Leave. They were told, and wanted to believe, a pack of lies spouted by a gang of loudmouthed sheisters led by the biggest liar ever to hold the position of Prime Minister of this country. There is no ‘solution’ to the unique problem of the Northern Irish border and I write as someone who spent quite a while working in the Province at the height of the ‘Troubles’.
David Frost is an unusual sort of rat to be deserting the ship since, unlike most rats. he was actually invited on board the craft by the captain and accepted with alacrity.
All true.
How long can this last?
That depends on Johnson and he won’t change, surrounded by inadequates of whom only Gove might come up with a plan.
Tory hardline MPs fancy their chances?
They are frightened of what comes next.
Chaos coming soon to EU trade, spring local and NI elections could be critical.
Events etc.
Frost was obviously a terrible negotiator but he did have some interesting things to say about Brexit policy.
In a speech last month he spoke about the importance of adopting a low tax, low regulation model and even went as far as to say that if we were going to continue with a European model then it would have been better to have remained in the EU.
So I can see how record taxation, an enlarged state and increased government involvement in the economy would have gone down very badly.
I’m inclined to take him at his word that this was his reason for Frost exit.
In 2016, pre-Referendum, Frost is quoted as being a staunch supporter of the UK’s membership of the EU. He believed there was no better way to go.
People of faith, of good faith, of true faith, invariably express doubts about the object of their devotion, but Frost was a fanatical convert to the cause of Brexit.
Such folk are often insufferable and invariably damage the cause which they avow whilst often causing fellow believers to edge away from them slowly as they identify the location of sharp objects and not for fears of self harm on the part of the new enthusiast.
Frost is a Zealot who pursued Hard Brexit sovereignty at all costs and in the process, lost his soul.
Still, a seat in the House of Lords is a bit above Attorney General for Wales.
As any fule kno, nature abhors a vacuum. There is nobody in the Party let alone the Cabinet who understands the complexities of NI history or who appreciates UK’s responsibility under the the GFA. The DUP has been thrown under a bus (again). Simon Coventry and the EU’s negotiating position has just immeasurably increased.
How I hate predictive text Coveney not Coventry
“There is nobody in the Party let alone the Cabinet who understands the complexities of NI history or who appreciates UK’s responsibility under the the GFA.”
That is just as true of the vast majority of the wider public. We are not presented with anything approaching a properly informed description of our recent history and are anyway encouraged to see the problem of the Province as a purely Irish one. I have been asked more questions about NI by people in mainland Europe than by Brits; when I worked in Antwerp with a dozen or so other UK nationals I was the only one able to explain to Belgian, Dutch, German and American site staff the origins of the sectarian violence. They were mystified as to why that one small part of the UK should have such a problem. Belgium and Netherlands went through a violent, largely faith-based, revoluion in the 19th century which both nationalities seem well aware of. They appeared to think that that sort of thing now belonged to history and anyway wasn’t something that ever happened in the British Isles.
I’m a 50-something former City lawyer from the North of Ireland and I have also lived approx 1/3 of my life in England, 1/3 in S Ireland and 1/3 in N Ireland. I’m pro-united Ireland, but am old enough, and have lived through enough, to take a pretty long view of history. The point, missed by the DUP, is that, post the ceasefires and post the GFA, when we were all in the EU together, the vast majority of NI’s Nationalists were pretty blasé about a united Ireland, for the very good reason that, practically, thanks to our common EU membership, it had ceased to matter. It had become a secular piety, a manana project. We’re nowhere as ideologically-purist as the DUP, and mostly prefer making a buck, tbh. Before Brexit, whether you were in Britain or in Ireland had become a first world problem – “which rich, liberal Western democracy would you like to be part of” isn’t much of a casus belli, frankly. However, Brexit is now assuming Sisyphean proportions. Brexit was an inherently dishonest project, and the Brexiters are trapped between the rock of their populist Panglossian puffery and the hard place of economic realpolitik. As the English nationalists endlessly spin the tyres on the Brexit bus, the North of Ireland (not even worthy of a mention in the organ grinder’s monkey’s recent resignation letter) is just a mud-flap for torrents of male bovine Brexiter ordure.
Here, fyi, is my blog on how NI’s hardline Unionists have messed up re Brexit, and the miscalculations and misunderstandings that has brought them to this sorry state. As I note in my wee blog:
“It’s worth posing the question – in what ways did the DUP think that making the Union with Britain more difficult would strengthen the Union with Britain?
In reality, a vote to remain in the EU would have strengthened the Union with Britain. Even a vote for the half-way house Protocol, which keeps NI fully in the UK and still gives porous access to the EU, would strengthen the Union with Britain.
In short, anything which makes cross-border economic and social life easier for NI’s pro Irish unity population strengthens the Union with Britain.
However, the DUP’s rationale, if one could call it that, seems to have been: “Let’s p*ss off the pro united Ireland population as much as possible; let’s make NI difficult and unworkable for them; that’s bound to convince them of the merits of the Union with GB!” The DUP failed completely to realise that many in the pro Irish unity camp were de facto in the pro Union with Britain camp already. That is, the DUP based its strategy on what it thought its opponents were, as opposed to what they actually were. As an analysis failure, as a policy failure, that takes some beating; and is explicable entirely by the DUP’s comfortable bigotry which ensures that it views its political opponents through the narrow prism of its own ingrained prejudices, and acts accordingly, generally taking the wrong option every time.
This ability to paint themselves into corners (and then to blame the paint-brush) is irrational to an extent that almost defies explanation. The DUP’s Brexit antics derive from a tedious mix of self-pity, white cultural nostalgia, impotent rage and chronic insecurity. The DUP’s Brexit “policy” is a perfect example of how to cut off your nose to spite your face.”
See blog: https://ayenaw.com/2021/10/23/why-brexit-is-failing/
So, now we know who is replacing him, can we expect the focus to swivel from the NI protocol to cheese and pork markets? What kind of buffet awaits?
In Liz we trust.
[ Thinking about this as I sup my wine I can’t stop the words Croque Madame popping into my mind. I’ll put it down to the Pinot Noir]
Liz Truss is the new Brexit minister. The good news being someone competent can be appointed as Foreign Secretary. The bad news is her negotiation skills (“come and sit on my naughty chair and be lectured”) are worse than Lord Frost’s megaphone method. No match for the EU team.
Being Brexit Minister is like being the Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher in Harry Potter. Nobody lasts long before coming to a bad end.
The really very bad news is that Truss will retain her role as FS.
Indeed, it was wishful thinking on my part.
She’s staying on as Foreign Secretary, isn’t she?
Yes, my mistake. So her talents will be spread even more thinly.
‘Rather than ever hearing Boris Johnson’s integrity questioned I’ve never even heard it mentioned’
Substitute ‘Liz Truss’ for BoJ and ‘talents’ for ‘integrity’.
Another bunglemeister Tory cretin. No-one else is acceptable in the humanoid haemorrhoid’s Cabinet.
If Sir Keir Starmer QC plays true to form then David Lammy’s shadow responsibilities should track to reflect those of Liz Truss.
A smart lawyer with the common touch, David Lammy once observed that whilst it was wrong that youths (from his background) dealt drugs, surely there was something wrong with a society in which just one deal in an afternoon netted a youth in his constituency more money than working a 40 hour week at McDonald’s.
If Labour is about supporting aspiration then Lammy is a poster boy.
Lammy was born in 1972 in Whittington Hospital in Archway, North London, to Guyanese parents David and Rosalind Lammy. He and his four siblings were raised solely by his mother, after his father left the family when Lammy was 12 years old.
Lammy grew up in Tottenham. Having attended a local primary school, at the age of 10 he was awarded an Inner London Education Authority choral scholarship to sing at Peterborough Cathedral and attend The King’s School, Peterborough.
He studied at the School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, graduating with a 2:1.
He was called to the bar of England and Wales in 1994 at Lincoln’s Inn.
He even has a spot of California Dreamin’, very popular amongst Tory Party leadership hopefuls, on his CV.
Lammy studied at Harvard University, where he became the first black Briton to attend Harvard Law School and study for a Master of Laws degree, graduating in 1997.
He was employed as an attorney at Howard Rice in San Francisco from 1997 to 1998.
Liz Truss graduated from Merton College, Oxford, with a PPE and was a successful Conservative A-List Parliamentary candidate at the 2010 General Election.
Let battle commence!
But who better than Liz Truss, no doubt arriving in Brussels by tank, to give all a truly merry Christmas and exceptionally good New Year!
Liz Truss seems to me to be a “place marker” of a politician – a posturing, photo-opportunity seeking light weight.
If taking on the Brexit role means taking Truss away from all posts of significant responsibility, that’s good news for the UK. The EU values transparent communication to all its citizens and has highly capable negotiators … so I think Truss will find her capacity for making mischief and / or serious mistakes is more limited in the new role than it has been in previous government roles.
The really big-picture question isn’t: when will the United Kingdom formulate a coherent and sustainable post-Brexit relationship with the EU?
Rather it is: will the United Kingdom itself last long enough to be able to do so?
Commentators above have made the straightforward point that Johnson – and his predecessors – is/were held captive by the ERG MPs and the grassroots Tory membership. But we should ask ourselves what drives and their vision and how it can be challenged in a way that resonates with voters. To my mind, they are really just a rogue Thatcherite element dressed up in patriotic clothing that want a small State and a slash and burn attitude to employment and environmental legislation. This needs to be outed so the electorate really understand that Brexit = hard right policies and not some vague concept of all that was good in Britain 50 years ago (before Johnny Foreigner got his hands on everything). And it also needs to be thwarted in Parliament by the other parties who should be pointing out that leaving the single market is depriving the UK of c.£40b in taxes that can hardly be rectified by cutting ordinary taxes still further unless we are prepared to give up on the NHS, public transport and educating our young people.
Straight to the point. Excellent comment.
Exactly right. Message ends.