The Irish protocol.

(1) Varadkar (at the time) and now Martin will certainly have had input into the negotiation outcomes but blaming them, individuals who had no direct bearing on the NIP, equally or above your own PM who actually signed the NIP is ludicrous. Direct your anger at Westminster first and foremost, not Dublin.

(2) This is the circular contradiction which simply can't be squared. You either want to be bound exclusively by British law or you don't. There is no half in, half out here. Now, if you want to reserve the right to selectively implement laws - no problem. But you then lose the ability to argue that to implement particular laws will distance you from the rest of the UK - your argument essentially will boil down to wanting to reserve the right to distance yourself from British law in order not to be distanced from Britain (my own head is hurting just writing that).

Which leads to your repeated points about the GFA and cross community consent. Either the NIP and Brexit both require cross community or neither does. The NIP is a direct outcome of Brexit. You cannot demand consent for the later without demanding it for the former too. If the only way in which to deliver Brexit is with the NIP, then it is Brexit overall that has changed your standing in the UK, not the NIP specifically. It's not really something that can be interpreted in numerous ways.

Finally, I am not suggesting that you lose any right to oppose the British government on anything you disagree with. Quite the opposite. Which is why I am still baffled that, in your mind, it's the Irish government at fault, it's the Irish government that have broken the GFA and it's the Irish government who are required to make the next move to deescalate matters.

(A) Do you think that would be problematic? Is it not pretty much what you did yourself earlier in this thread?

(B) I think the reaction would be not so much "this is offensive" as "this is bewildering". If Johnson were to do this, the obvious response would be — pardon my French — "If you think the Irish Sea checks are so damaging, why the fûck did you insist on them? And, having got them, why did you act to intensify them? And, if you now think that the choices you made were disastrous, why are you still in office? When the UK has a PM whose representations we can take seriously, send him to us."

If Donaldson were to do this, the reaction would again be bewilderment, followed by a shorter but equally pithy reply; "Why in God's name are you saying this to us?"

On edit:

Lookit, I think we can probably agree on all sides that Brexit has not been well managed or well implemented on the UK side.

One of the recurring errors made by the UK was repeatedly rejecting what was offered or what had already been negotiated, while failing to suggest any alternative. We all remember the “Brady amendment” (though we would probably pay good money for a course of hypnotherapy that would enable us to forget it) but it was just one of the more egregious of the many examples of this phenomenon.

It seems to me that the UK is still making this mistake, and at a time when its position is even weaker, because it is rejecting not just something which has been offered, or which has been negotiated, but something which has been agreed, signed, confirmed with a mandate secured in a general election, ratified by Parliament and enacted into UK domestic law. And they’re still not suggesting any alternative.

This tactic failed, without exception, every single time that the UK tried it when matters were still on the table. It is delusional to imagine that it can succeed when the UK is already legally and politically committed to an agreed solution. People in NI who are unhappy about the NIP should be seriously worried - or maybe really, really angry - that the UK is addressing (or perhaps pretending to address) their concerns though tactics which cannot possibly succeed. 

So I get that a combination of frustration and anxiety may lead people to suggest idiocies like showing EU leaders photographs of the Dublin bombings. It’s stupid, and useless, and counterproductive, but no more stupid and useless and counterproductive than what the UK government is actually doing. It achieves nothing beyond an expression of people’s fear and anger and sense of abandonment, but even expressing that is something.

Is there a better way?  Possibly. But I suggest that one of the criteria for “better” has to be that it mustn’t depend on Johnson or Frost because, obviously, they can’t be depended on. The way forward is to forget about them and think about the position, interests, concerns, and perceptions of the EU.

Right now, the EU has (1) a binding international treaty that isn’t their ideal, by any means, but that they can live with; (2) a broad international consensus that will back them in maintaining this treaty and deprecate the UK if it repudiates or violates it, or is seen to act in bad faith with respect to it; and (3) a strong political and economic strategic advantage which will enable it to apply effective pressure to the UK if the UK does repudiate or violate the treaty. All in all, it’s a fairly sweet position which means that the EU has no real need to accede to UK requests for revision. And it has a powerful reason not to accede, since the UK isn’t proposing - and seems wildly unlikely to propose - any alternative which would be better calculated to square the circle of not hardening the Irish border and at the same time protecting the integrity of the Single Market.

Hang on to that last point, because that’s the key to the thing.

Matters will change if the forthcoming Assembly elections return an anti-NIP majority. Then, the EU knows that the NIP has a limited shelf-life; it’s likely to be voted down in 2024 and, if that happens, negotiations on a replacement will commence. 

So, it seems to me, those in NI who oppose the protocol want to achieve two things. First, they want an anti-NIP majority in the 2022 elections. Secondly, they want a proposal that can be advanced in the post-2024 negotiations that will satisfy them, but that also stands some chance of being acceptable to the EU, given the criteria I have just mentioned.

As regards getting an anti-NIP majority, standing on a platform of replacing the NIP but not saying with what will just perpetuate the Brexiter error. The hardline loyalist vote has been in long-term decline, and nobody else will be won over by such a platform. It seems unlikely that an majority for replacing it can be won simply by denouncing it and banging the Lambeg drums. It will be necessary to win over moderates.

As regards coming up with a viable alternative, clearly HMG under Johnson isn’t going to do this, so they’ll have to do it themselves. 

And they kill two birds with one stone, I think, if they can come up with a proposal which (a) avoids any hardening of the Irish border; (b) protects the integrity of the Single Market; and (c) is kinder to NI than the NIP currently is. 

A tall order, you may say, but it’s the key to success. Moderate voters and/or moderate parties might be persuaded to sign up to support such a proposal, and that might create a majority in the Assembly for replacement of the NIP with the alternative. In the post-2024 negotiations, the EU should be open to a proposal which combines all these features. Then, all you’d have to do is to get the British government onside. And, of course, post-2024, that may not be the Tories. Or it may be the Tories, but under somebody competent and credible. At any rate, it might be someone that takes NI wishes and interests seriously, and not as something to be traded away in order to advance the hard Brexit project.

A tall order, you may feel. But it seems to me a much more productive approach than waving around photographs of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in an attempt to blame the EU for the failings of the British government.

The DUP raised the spectre of violence after Brexit happened. More as a way of goading those who don't take their seats in Westminster but they raised it nonetheless. They were the ones that first introduced its prospect to the whole Brexit debacle. Fair play to Leo (whom I don't particularly like) for acknowledging the point that the DUP raised. Another case of them inadvertently undermining their cause.

Why would Boris negotiate a deal involving sea checks and then show pictures to EU officials stating this will happen if sea checks are introduced. Do you not think he'd look a bit stupid?

Your edit reads like a very strong summation of the situation to me.

As much as I strongly favour the NI Protocol over any of the alternatives the British government presented during negotiations, like the vast majority I'm not irrationally tied to it. If an alternative was suggested that wasn't just, 'cake, more cake and a Unionist veto', I'd be easily convinced, as I'm sure the vast majority of moderately minded people would be. There's your anti NIP vote sorted for 2024 alright.

Ultimately I haven't seen a single suggestion that amounts to more than British exceptionalism, just trust us or magic technology solutions that just aren't feasible. Instead of suggesting solutions, those so vocally opposed to the NI Protocol seem to be favouring moaning, threatening and begging the foreign government they so strongly oppose having any say in NI to fix it for them. Until that changes, I'm happy to acknowledge that the NIP isn't perfect, but it beats the alternatives, unless the UK is willing to soften its own cough a bit as a whole.

But die-hard Unionists don’t want to admit that. It goes against their grain. They want to blame somebody else instead, usually the Irish Government.

'Imposed'?

How is negotiating and signing an agreement and trumpeting that as a 'great' 'oven ready' deal in the slightest way 'imposed'?

There is nothing in the Protocol for people in Ireland to fear.

They did what they did because they don't care about belligerent Unionists. Who have been unable to mount even sustainable protest against it, never mind the threatened violence.

When did NI grant consent for Brexit?

Because if you want to continue to argue that the NIP was pushed through without the consent of NI, then you are objecting to the very validity of Brexit itself.

Theres no talking to you is there, I just give up now I really do

He's talking through his ass don't mind him

Surely this would depend if this is achieved through easements already existing within the Protocol (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you), or if not, what the UK and the EU relatively give up to secure these changes. If the EU was to bend with no reciprocal changes on the UK side and give you all the cake you want, you'd be correct.

I suspect the first of those will happen, with the Tories and their usual papers crowing about it as a victory, hoping that enough of the population don't bother actually reading the legal document to catch them out.