Were clause 4 of Article 5 amended as I suggest, the Protocol would have much of the flexibility it needs to work to the satisfaction of all parties.
The fourth article in a five-part ConHome series this week on the future of the United Kingdom.
The Political Declaration approves non-regression but not dynamic alignment – elements of which the EU has backed off from.
In practice, a workable protocol requires arrangements that reflect its wider aims — including respect for the territorial integrity of the UK.
For many, WTO terms are good enough for trade and the compromises required for a deal are politically unacceptable.
Given the EU’s risk levels, its lack of investment in NATO and its poor relations with its neighbours, it is hardly an attractive partner; more of a liability.
From the start, the trade bloc has not fully understood the Belfast Agreement and has been slow to see that it undermined many of its positions.
Agreeing underlying principles, not getting an extension, is the key to reaching an agreement.
Specific governance arrangements can be established in individual areas, and an agreement should sit outside the overarching institutional framework.
Essentially, the EU seems to want a controlled partnership, not a partnership that works because there are shared values and common interests.
It is clear from the Declaration that the Council’s directives for negotiating the future relationship with the UK have departed substantially from it.
This is not about NHS on the cheap; the Army has a long history of having to upscale rapidly, and should be used in these troublesome times.
The 200,000 hotel rooms run by the main hotel chains alone in the UK provide sufficient additional capacity to draw upon both locally and nationally.
Labour’s broadband policy is not about investment in infrastructure, but about a revolution in content to shape our collective political culture.