Brexit minister Lord Frost claims EU ‘doesn’t always look like it wants UK to succeed’ as he demands N Ireland changes

Published

4 years ago

October 12, 2021

admin

Brexit minister Lord Frost has accused the EU of being an organisation “that doesn’t always look like” it wants the UK to succeed as he demanded changes to post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland.

In a speech in Lisbon, the cabinet minister called on Brussels to help “tackle the fundamental issues” with the Northern Ireland Protocol – which he claimed was “not working” – and to show “the same ambition and willingness” to solve problems.

He also reiterated a threat to suspend post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland by triggering Article 16 of the Protocol.

But critics attacked Lord Frost for now trashing an agreement he helped negotiate with Prime Minister Boris Johnson less than two years ago, and for risking a new row with the EU.

In his speech on Tuesday, Lord Frost said the Protocol was “the biggest source of mistrust” between the EU and UK and said the border arrangements had “completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland”.

“There is a widespread feeling in the UK that the EU did try to use Northern Ireland to encourage UK political forces to reverse the referendum result or at least to keep us closely aligned with the EU,” he added.

“And, moreover, that the Protocol represents a moment of EU overreach when the UK’s negotiating hand was tied, and therefore cannot reasonably last in its current form.

“Whether or not you agree with either analysis – the facts on the ground are what matter above all.

“Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented.

“But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working.”

Lord Frost revealed he had shared a new legal text with the European Commission on Tuesday with his planned changes for the Protocol.

These include the removal of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from oversight of the Protocol.

He spoke ahead of EU vice-president Maros Sefcovic delivering Brussels’ response on Wednesday to the UK government’s suggested changes to the Protocol, which Lord Frost outlined in July.

The Brexit minister said the UK was “really ready” to discuss the EU’s own proposals “whatever they say and we will obviously consider them seriously, fully, and positively”.

But he warned the EU must be ready to agree to “significant change” to the Protocol.

“We need the EU to show the same ambition and willingness – to tackle the fundamental issues at the heart of the Protocol head on,” Lord Frost added.

Senior EU figures – including French President Emmanuel Macron – have previously warned that “nothing is negotiable” with regards to the Protocol.

But, while Lord Frost admitted he understood why the EU “feels it is difficult to come back to an agreement reached only two years ago”, he stressed “that in itself is far from unusual in international relations”.

The last great battle of Brexit

By David Blevins, senior Ireland correspondent

Some are describing this as the last great battle of Brexit.

It’s less about the practicalities of the Northern Ireland Protocol and more about the politics – who has the power to enforce the trading arrangements.

When the UK voted to leave the EU, Northern Ireland became the square peg in the round hole.

How would Northern Ireland exit the EU with the rest of the United Kingdom without the need for a border with the Republic?

In the end the two sides compromised, leaving Northern Ireland in the EU’s single market, much to the angst of Unionists.

Now, there is a new dilemma. How can Northern Ireland remain in the EU’s single market and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) not have oversight here?

It’s too soon to know if Lord Frost’s stance on the ECJ is a negotiating position or a red line for a UK government seriously considering Article 16.

Responding to Lord Frost’s speech, former Conservative minister Gavin Barwell – who was also chief of staff to ex-prime minister Theresa May – accused the Brexit minister of causing new tensions with EU nations.

“The absolute state of David Frost trashing the deal he negotiated + hailed as a triumph – despite many, yours truly included, warning it was a dud – *and worse* now using it to further undermine our relationship with some of our closest friends in an increasingly dangerous world,” he posted on Twitter.

Labour’s shadow Brexit minister, Baroness Chapman, claimed senior Conservatives were “desperate to use a tussle with Brussels to distract from their domestic failures – whether on COVID, the energy crisis, or the needless culling of thousands of pigs”.

She added: “Today was an opportunity for the government to reset relations with our partners in the EU after a fractious start to our new relationship.

“Instead of approaching the occasion with maturity and in the spirit of cooperation, Lord Frost has effectively asked to rip up the agreement he negotiated – and the Prime Minister signed – just two years ago.”

And Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael, the party’s Northern Ireland spokesperson, said: “This Conservative government is playing out like a badly-written farce.

“The same minister who just months ago was trumpeting the government’s botched Brexit deal now says it’s intolerable and has to be changed.

“After all the upheaval British businesses have suffered and all the challenges they face now, they need certainty and support from the government, not more pointless posturing.”

Politics

‘We’re a team’: Jess Phillips defends PM’s decision to suspend Labour rebels

Published

5 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Starmer suspends four Labour MPs for breaches of party discipline

A minister has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to discipline rebellious MPs, saying they would have used “stronger” language against those who are “continually causing trouble”.

Home Office minister Jess Phillips told Sky News’ Matt Barbet that Labour MPs were elected “as a team under a banner and under a manifesto” and could “expect” to face disciplinary action if they did not vote with the government.

It comes after the prime minister drew criticism for suspending four Labour MPs who voted against the government on its flagship welfare bill earlier this month, while stripping a further three of their roles as trade envoys.

Politics latest: PM to welcome German chancellor

Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell all lost the whip, meaning they are no longer part of Labour’s parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs.

Labour backbenchers lined up to criticise the move last night, arguing it was a “terrible look” that made “a Reform government much more likely”.

But speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: “We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don’t know what you expect.

“Now I speak out against things I do not like, both internally and sometimes externally, all the time.

“There is a manner of doing that, that is the right way to go about it. And sometimes you feel forced to rebel and vote against.”

Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she said: “I didn’t call it persistent knob-headery, but that’s the way that it’s been termed by some.”

She said she would have described it as “something much more sweary” because “we are a team, and we have to act as a team in order to achieve something”.

More than 100 MPs had initially rebelled against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP). Ultimately, 47 voted against the bill’s third reading, after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat.

Three other MPs – who also voted against the government – have had their trade envoy roles removed. They are Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin.

However, it is understood this was not the only reason behind the decision to reprimand all seven MPs, with sources citing “repeated breaches of party discipline”.

Ms Maskell was one of the lead rebels in the welfare revolt, and has more recently called for a wealth tax to fund the U-turn.

Mr Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, proposed a series of amendments to the flagship planning and infrastructure bill criticising the government’s approach.

Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, led a rebellion against the cut to the winter fuel payments while Alloa and Grangemouth MP Mr Leishman has been critical of the government’s position on Gaza as well as the closing of an oil refinery in his constituency.

Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, wrote on X on Wednesday that the prime minister’s actions “don’t show strength” and were “damaging Labour’s support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform”.

Leeds East MP Richard Burgon added that “challenging policies that harm our communities” would “make a Reform government much more likely”.

Ian Lavery, Labour MP for Blyth and Ashington, warned the suspensions were “a terrible look”.

“Dissatisfaction with the direction the leadership is taking us isn’t confined to the fringes,” he wrote.

Politics

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer’s MP suspensions

Published

7 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer's MP suspensions

I’m going to level with you – I am very, very confused.

In fact, I’ve got five reasons why I’m very confused.

The first reason I’m confused is because this is meant to be a show of strength, but most people have literally never heard of these four individuals.

Rachael Maskell is a bit well-known, but if this is intended to impress the public, then I’m not sure the public will notice.

Secondly, if it’s about installing discipline in the parliamentary Labour Party, I’m confused about that. Surely Sir Keir Starmer‘s aim right now should be to unite the parliamentary Labour Party rather than divide it.

After the welfare rebellion, the promise was to listen. Starmer gave interviews saying he was going to create policy more sympathetic to his party.

This is the opposite approach.

The third reason I’m confused is because they’ve been suspended in part for their role in the welfare rebellion that forced the government into its U-turn.

It was only yesterday morning that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government’s welfare reforms were in the “right place” – yet the people who helped get them there are suspended.

Suspended for agreeing with what is now government policy is an odd look.

Fourth, I’m confused at who the most prominent individual to be suspended is – Rachael Maskell.

She was on Sky News within minutes of the suspension looking genuinely surprised and really rather upset.

Now, there’s absolutely no doubt she was a ringleader in this rebellion. Eight days ago, she authored an article in the New Statesman discussing how to organise a government rebellion – so I think that’s pretty much case closed.

But Rachael is of the soft left, not the hard left. And who else is on the soft left? It’s Starmer.

It does feel as if the prime minister is slightly coming for people who have dangerously similar views to him.

I understand this is all about drawing hard lines and showing who’s on your team and who isn’t.

But some of that line looks like it goes awfully close to people that you really wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if you’re prime minister.

And finally, three other MPs – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin – have been sacked from their trade envoy jobs. They do retain the party whip.

But here’s the thing that hurts your head: if you are a Lib Dem trade envoy, like Sarah Olney, or if you’re a Tory trade envoy, as George Freeman was until a couple of weeks ago when he was suspended, you do not have to obey the whip – and you can continue to keep your trade envoy role.

But if you’re in the Labour Party and you’re a trade envoy, you do have to obey the whip.

And it’s just one of those mad inconsistencies where if you’re in another party, you can keep your trade envoy role, if you’re in the governing party, you can’t. That just doesn’t make sense at all.

So there are my five reasons why I’m completely confused.