The Irish protocol.

No, you're overthinking this. A thriving NI and a floundering GB will not be a problem for Brexiters. Nobody in GB pays any attention to what goes on in NI, and they will readily filter out any comparison between GB and NI on the basis that NI is too weird a place for anything that happens there to have any signficance for what happens or might happen on what they fondly think of as "the mainland".

So you are not really interested in solving this for businesses in NI. You just want to continue to cause as much disruption as possible and see haow far you can get? i.e. keep throwing your toys out of the pram until you get attention? I think we all now that the DUP and Frost have no real interest in resolving this mess. The question is how much the UK Government agree with you.

Comparison with SF are irrelevant, they are a political party who are pursuing real political solutions to the unique situation in NI.

the operation of the Single Market is overseen and adjudicated by the ECJ. That applies whether you are Amazon or artisan making homemade bread for export. If you want access to the single market then you must abide by that arbitration. Even if an arbitration process is set up to deal with NI it will be subject to the rulings of the ECJ.

Remember that the peoples of NI are getting access to the Single Market because of the perceived Irishness and hence EU citizenship not because of any links to GB. Are you suggesting that the rules should apply to everyone else but not those Irish people living in NI?

What a ridiculous comment. Lord give me strength.

The UK is being criticised for behaviour that other countries are criticised for, and your instinct is to shoot the messenger? Would it not occur to you to wonder why other countries are never criticised in this way? Could it possibly have anything to do with the UK's egregious behaviour?

What is ridiculous about it? Why wouldn't anyone be fed up with those crocodiles going on and on and on. Saying that they deserved "equal rights" and equal access to jobs and housing and then also asking for that State sponsored forces stop shooting them randomly on the street. The cheek of them asking for fairness and equality.

The European Convention on Human Rights, and of course the European Court of Human Rights, are not creations or institutions of the European Union. The ECHR has 47 signatory nations, which include Russia.

The erroneous conflation of the ECHR and the EU has long been happily tolerated by Eurosceptics as a way of blaming the faceless Brussels Bureaucrats for situations like blocked deportations of undesirables when oft times those cases revolve around said undesirables relying on the articles of the ECHR.

As pointed out already, the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. It's also part of the Good Friday Agreement:

The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency.

Correct on all your predictions so far, Downcow?!?

Catch yourself on. You've performed about as accurately as a stopped clock. You've been wrong more times since this thread started than I've had warm dinners, and I never miss a meal.

Christ almighty.

You've been told time and time again that the easements NI will be offered could be very far reaching, but the NI Protocol would not be renegotiated. This is as specific as one could possibly get given that you don't seem to really know what you want yourself and we don't know what compromise will come from the British side also. Your prediction that the EU will make some changes unique to NI.....well you're about as helpful as a weatherman standing in a downpour telling us there's a 70% chance it's raining. Predicting what is and has already happened is hardly Mystic Meg stuff.

I'll happily stick my neck out and say there is no way NI will remain in the single market without being subject to ECJ oversight. The alternative to ECJ oversight is the complete collapse of the NI Protocol, which I'd hate to see but would be a perfect example of the constant ability of Unionism to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Your very first prediction in this thread - in post #1, no less - was that the NI Protocol would be declared illegal by the NI High Court. That was wrong. So you belief that you have been correct on all your predictions so far rests on the ability to simply forget the predictions that have not been correct.

Will the EU "make some changes to how the single market is overseen in NI that will be unique to NI"? Well, the current arrangements for oversight of the Single Market in NI are already unique to NI, so any refinement of those arrangements will also be unique to NI. So I think this prediction is correct. But it's not a very adventurous prediction; it can only be falsified if the EU makes no changes at all, which we already know will is not the EU's intention.

Will the EU agree to end the jurisdiction of the ECJ in NI? To grapple with this, it probably helps to come to terms with why the NIP gives the ECJ jurisdiction in NI in the first place.

1. Everyone will readily agree that the EU, like anyone else, is entitled to have, and apply, its own rules about what does, or does not, enter the Single Market.
2. But, as everyone has already agreed, the application of those rules at the NI/RoI border would result in a hard border in Ireland, which both the UK and the EU have ruled out.
3. So, after a couple of false starts, the solution to this problem that has been agreed is basically this: On behalf of the EU, the UK will operate the external border of the Single Market, so that goods imported into NI and which will or may be reexported to the Single Market are qualified for entry under Single Market rules.
4. What this effectively is is the EU authorising the UK to police a section of its external border, and the UK committing itself to do so.
5. Crucially, what the UK will be doing here is applying EU rules. Although applied by the UK authorities, they remain EU rules. And, if there is any dispute about EU rules, hat they mean, how they work, that dispute is resolved in EU courts, just as disputes about UK rules are resolved in UK courts.

There's something of an analogy in the arrangements for the Common Travel Area, under which a traveller arriving in Heathrow but headed for Ireland will be denied entry at Heathrow if he doesn't have whatever visa or other documentation he requires as a matter of Irish law to enter Ireland (and vice versa for a traveller arriving at, say, Shannon but headed for London). In such a case, if the traveller is turned away at Heathrow because he has been denied the visa he needs, and if he wants to challenge that denial in the courts, he doesn't head off to the English courts; he heads off to the Irish courts to challenge the action of the Minister who denied him a visa. The rule may have been applied to him in England, by a UK immigration official, but its an Irish rule; the Irish courts are the proper jurisdiction for thrashing out disputes about those rules. (And, again, vice versa if he is turned away at Shannon because he has been denied a UK visa).

It's basically the same here. The UK authorities have agreed to apply rules of EU law to the import of goods into NI. The proper court for interpreting those rules and establishing their meaning, and for arbitrating disputes about the application of those rules, is the ECJ. The UK understood that well when they negotiated, signed, ratified and enacted into law the Withdrawal Agreement. The pretence now of Lord Frost to regard it as an insufferable outrage is not a convincing one; if he really believed that, wouldn't he resign in shame? If the Tory party in general believed that, wouldn't they demand his head on a plate?

So, this is a confected row over a bogus issue, and unionists should not allow themselves to be used in this way by people who, quite frankly, despise the union but regard unionists as useful idiots.

Will the EU agree to change the arrangement in regard to the ECJ? My guess is probably no, but I think there is a less than 50% chance that they will agree to a token change - e.g. an extra layer is inserted into the process before questions of EU law arising under the Protocol are referred to the ECJ; something of that kind.