//it’s clips of Johnson and government ministers telling us there will be absolutely no problems at Dover as a result of Brexit.
Give it a go, it’ll enlighten you..//
I don’t need enlightenment. If you adopt the philosophy that I have – that is that all politicians tell lies – you would have paid no heed to anything Johnson or anybody else told you about the likely consequences of Brexit. It was as clear as day to anybody who thought about it, that many remaining EU nations – some more than others – would make our leaving as troublesome and as inconvenient as they could. There is, of course, no reason whatsoever for this. Incredible as it may seem, many countries outside the EU trade perfectly well with it (so far as the EU’s protectionist regime permits, that is) and their citizens have no trouble travelling to and from it. Normal countries do not go out of their way to hinder mutually beneficial trade and tourism. But EU countries cannot, by any stretch, be included under the heading of "Normal."
So, anybody who believed most of the claptrap – uttered by both sides – that was spouted during the referendum campaign have only themselves to blame if they considered that when they cast their vote. The Leave campaign over stated the simplicity of the task whilst the Remain campaign over stated the dire consequences they said would ensue if we left. Both told lies and it was for the electorate to make up their own minds based on what they knew, not what they were promised.
So my thinking is by no means woolly. I have wanted this country to leave the EU since 1992. In fact it is more clear than almost anybody’s. I believe the EU is a pernicious, protectionist organisation and it was not in the UK’s interest to be a member under any circumstances. Nothing any politician has told me has caused me to alter that belief, especially nothing that was uttered by either side in the campaign. So when I stand accused of falling for lies I get the hump because the way I cast my vote was not influenced by any politician – liar or otherwise (if indeed there is another variety).
//We're trying to renege on the NI protocol which we negotiated.//
No country should be bound by a Treaty that causes it such severe trouble as the NI Protocol does. It has a clause within it that provides for its suspension (which the EU almost implemented in 2021) so we must either implement that clause or ditch the Protocol in its entirety.
//Or is that the fault of the French too?//
No, It’s mainly the fault of the EU. The NI Protocol was drafted on the understanding that it would be implemented pragmatically. Its aim is to protect the EU’s Single Market, not to destroy trade between different parts of the UK (though why those signing it believed it would be operated in Good Faith when the other signatory was the EU is anybody’s guess). There is no reason why it shouldn't work but it clearly doesn't. There is no need for goods dispatched from GB destined to remain in NI to be checked – it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a method of discrimination. Similarly there is no need for the EU to undertake 20% of all its customs checks on the 0.5% of its imports that cross the Irish Sea. But pragmatism has been trumped – predictably – by ideology.