Welcome to the Rudloe and environs website.


Here you will find news, articles and photos of an area that straddles the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in north-west Wiltshire.


Contributions in the form of articles or photos are welcome. Even those with completely contrary views to mine!


Thanks to the website builder 1&1 and Rob Brown for the original idea.


Rudloescene now, in January 2014, has a sister, academic rather than anarchic, website about Box history here: http://www.boxpeopleandplaces.co.uk/

It contains thoroughly professional, well-researched articles about Box and its people.


Contact rudloescene through the 'Contact' page.


James Gray's 1st February 2019 newsletter and my response are reproduced for rudloescene readers below. And further below you will find his 22nd February 2019, 14th March 2019 and 13th September 2020 newsletters and my responses.

1st February 2019 newsletter


Dear Constituent,

Odd things, dreams. I woke up on Monday morning absolutely determined to back Graham Brady’s amendment to the debate on Tuesday. He called for the PM to return to Europe and demand a fundamental change to the Backstop arrangements, which was pretty much my own view. So I told the European Research Group via their WhatsApp, that that was what I was planning, and the whole world fell in on my head. I had phone calls from the very great, counter briefings, words of warning. I was one of only 15 people supporting the amendment; it was selling out; it could not get through; the DUP would not like it; we have an alternative plan etc.

But I ploughed ahead, seconded the Brady amendment, spoke at the ERG meeting in support of it (to a less than enthusiastic audience), did a bit of media and canvassed my friends and colleagues. Slowly but surely people came to realise that the deal – bad as many parts of it are – could just be tolerated if we could get rid of the backstop and that the Brady amendment just might be the way to do that. And at all events, opposing a motion which seemed at least on the face of it to be calling for exactly what we wanted would have been viewed as a little odd. During Tuesday more and more colleagues came round to that view, and of course we won the amendment in the end by 16 votes.

So now the PM has to go back to the EU and reopen the negotiations seeking a legally binding alternation to the backstop provisions. We gave her a means of doing so with the so-called Malthouse compromise, and we have done a lot of work on electronic alternatives to a hard Irish border. So we have the solutions for her, but she must now persuade the EU to accept them.

If they do not do so, then we will all know who to blame. The Conservative Party - and Parliament - came together to propose a solution to recent gridlock; we know what we want; we want a deal without the most obnoxious part to it. The EU must now step up to the mark. If they do not do so (and we will have another ‘meaningful vote’ on whatever they agree to later this month) - then they cannot be surprised if, come 29th March, we leave without any kind of agreement at all (which, of course, no-one wants.) The ball is now firmly in their court. I hope that they will enter into the spirit of the game.

So I am proud that - thanks apparently to inspiration in a dream - I helped persuade the ultra-sceptical 80 or so members of ERG to swallow their reservations (at least for now) and support the Brady amendment. As a result, we have a direction of travel which the whole Conservative Party and Government supports. With luck and a following wind, the EU will do what we want, and we will finally be able to leave the EU on 29th March with a clear agreement of the way forward.

I was but a small pawn in a big game, but on this occasion (rather immodestly) hope that I played a relatively decisive role in it. I am proud to have played some part in unlocking the Parliamentary gridlock, and therefore some little part in helping us towards leaving the EU.

I hope I am not being like Spike Milligan, whose Autobiography was immodestly entitled ‘Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall.’ ‘James Gray: How I helped Britain leave the EU.’ I hope it’s more as Shakespeare hath it, “A small thing, but mine own.”

Best wishes,

James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire


Yours truly's response follows:



Thanks for the newsletter.

After consistently 'rubbishing' Mrs May's Deal, you now propose to support it in spite of its "40 fatal flaws" (your newsletter of 20th November 2018) as long as it includes a nebulous, undefined amendment! I have spent hours trying to find out what the Brady Amendment actually proposes (* see below) and have found only the following "To require that the Northern Ireland backstop be “replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border” while supporting the notion of leaving the EU with a deal and therefore supporting the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change". In your 26th August 2018 newsletter, you said "It seems to me that it means ‘leaving the EU’ and that is what we must now do - lock, stock and two smoking barrels. WTO is probably the best route". 

I am concerned that in spite of the sentiment expressed in your 20th October 2018 newsletter: "I remain hopeful that our divorce from Europe can be on civilised and sensible terms of benefit to both halves", you continue to use disparaging, inflammatory language about our European partners.

In your newsletter of 21st December you said "The enemy in M Barnier, and Juncker and the rest of them. They are the ones who are preventing a fair Brexit by their insistence on the wholly unnecessary backstop.  But in the speech Mrs May gave to Parliament on 10th December 2018 she said "We had hoped that the changes we have secured to the backstop ...". Note 'we' meaning your government! It was not, as you say disparagingly, "Barnier, Juncker and the rest of them".

Your newsletter of 13th December 2018, in spite of an agreement being reached over our (yes 'our') required changes to the Withdrawal Agreement, included "make them (the EU) see reason". And in the same newsletter, you said that the requirement was "a clean and straightforward break with the European Union".

In your newsletter of 21st December 2018 you said "Everywhere I go round the constituency people tell me that they want Brexit sorted; they want to fulfil the people’s expectations in the Referendum of a Clean English Brexit; they want certainty and clarity; they want an end to the national humiliation which we are suffering at the hands of the EU; and to a very significant extent, they want us to stand up to Brussels in a real way and tell them how it is". Clean English Brexit is your phrase, not one I have heard elsewhere. It's interesting that your book 'Full English Brexit' which was published in October 2018 has had sales of just one copy in three months at Corsham Bookshop indicating that the thinking people of Corsham do not share your sentiments.

Two other things also, the first of which I have mentioned to you previously, Full English Brexit is all very well but what about Scotland and Northern Ireland who voted to remain in the EU? Secondly, Full English Brexit was a track on Billy Bragg's album 'Bridges not Walls' which was released in the autumn of 2017 - it seems that you have taken your book's title from an ardent socialist.

Your (as indicated above) "the national humiliation which we are suffering at the hands of the EU; and to a very significant extent, they want us to stand up to Brussels in a real way and tell them how it is" is entirely from the imaginations of Brexiteers like yourself. It was our 'decision', through a flawed referendum (I'll come to this later), to leave the EU; it was our decision to enter into a 30-month period of negotiation in order to obtain a deal. We have had the great and the good of the Conservative Party haggling over this deal yet when the deal is done and signed off in law, one side wishes to renege on it. And this, according to your logic, is the fault of the EU.

Getting back to your inflammatory language, your 11th January 2019 newsletter included "the EU negotiators who were crowing this week in a German newspaper that they had ‘won’". Perhaps you could give chapter and verse on this unlikely story and perhaps the newspaper was Bild, notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism.

Your 17th January 2019 newsletter included "Delete the obnoxious backstop" and "That would be to ignore the will of the people so clearly expressed in the Referendum" (see below). With regard to the Backstop, Simon Coveney's (the Irish Foreign Minister and deputy Taoisach) sentiments are clear and measured. In his interview with Andrew Marr during the latter's 27th January 2019 programme, he said (apologies, this is a series of long quotes from the programme but the questions and answers are important) "It was agreed that there was a need for a fallback or insurance mechanism for the people of Northern Ireland - the Backstop is already a series of compromises designed around British red lines. It was Britain that asked that the Backstop should be UK-wide on customs. It was the UK that insisted on review mechanisms for the Backstop so that it could be changed or removed if everyone agreed. The very need for the Backstop in the first place was because the UK wished to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the EU. The Irish position is that we have already agreed to a series of compromises and that has resulted in what is proposed in the Withdrawal Agreement. Ireland has the same position as the EU when we say that the Backstop within the Withdrawal Agreement is part of a balanced package that isn’t going to change. The problem with arguing against the Backstop is that nobody yet in arguing against it has come up with a pragmatic, sensible and legally sound way of avoiding border infrastructure re-emerging between the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland and that is why it took two years to get the Backstop agreed and why I believe that the Prime Minister is correct when she defends it. If we don’t have a Backstop, then the EU, Ireland and the UK will have to work together to try to avoid border infrastructure but that will not be easy. There is no magic solution here. If there was, it would have emerged by now and that is why Ireland will insist on the UK keeping its word both to Ireland and the EU and to the people of Northern Ireland in terms of protecting a fragile but hugely valuable peace process. Don’t forget, Brexit is not an Irish policy; these are decisions that are being taken by the UK that are causing huge problems on our island, north and south, and there is an obligation on people to have pragmatic solutions here rather than wishful thinking in relation to border infrastructure".

Andrew Marr then asked: "We are where we are. To be absolutely crystal clear, if the House of Commons votes next week to remove the Backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement and to find alternative arrangements, your reaction will be that the Withdrawal Agreement is, in effect, holy text and cannot be touched?"

Simon Coveney responded: "That is like saying to Ireland that we are not now going to follow through on our commitments to a negotiated and sensible way forward to prevent border infrastructure re-emerging in any circumstances as an insurance mechanism and we’re going to replace it with an aspirational hope and a commitment that somehow will solve this but we don’t know how. Is it reasonable to ask people north and south on the island of Ireland to actually move ahead on that basis. I don’t think it is and I don’t believe the EU will support that approach at all".

Andrew Marr: "And therefore, again to be clear, you don’t think the EU or the Irish government would accept a British escape clause from the Backstop or a time limit to it?"

Simon Coveney responded: "There is already a review mechanism for the Backstop if there are sensible ways of providing the same solutions that the Backstop provides (if it is ever triggered). People keep talking about games of chicken and of the UK position being against the Irish or the EU position; we’re all trying to work together here. Britain and Ireland are two islands next to each other; we have an extraordinary history together, at times a very tragic history but we have to work out those things together and stop talking about games of chicken. We’ve had 30 months of negotiation; we have a withdrawal agreement; we have a future relationship declaration. There are ways of resolving these issues, in my view, by changing the aspirations within the future relationship declaration which will reassure people that the Backstop is never likely to be used. That is the way I hope those negotiations will go, rather than the British parliament deciding on something that may command a majority in Westminster but has no chance of getting agreement or ratification in the EU. Listen to what people are saying in Europe; this isn’t just about Britain’s future, it’s about our future together, the UK and the EU separate but at the same time working together in our combined interest. The European parliament will not ratify a withdrawal agreement that doesn’t have a Backstop in it, it’s as simple as that".

Andrew Marr asked: "As I understand it, you’re ruling out a time limit to the Backstop and a unilateral British escape clause, so I’m running through the options. One is a separate, individual treaty between Ireland and the UK to resolve the Irish border issue. What about that?"

Simon Coveney responded: "With respect, you’re talking about this as if we’re starting the negotiations again. All of these issues were debated, discussed and argued over when we were putting a Withdrawal Agreement and an Irish Protocol to the agreement together. We teased through these issues in great detail and your prime minister signed up to the Backstop as a compromise which was designed around her and Britain’s red lines and now you’re saying “Well actually we’ll accept a Withdrawal Agreement as long as we take out the compromises that the EU was willing to make. That is a wholly unreasonable position."

Again, apologies for the inordinately long quotes from Andrew Marr's programme but they set out an altogether reasonable position in the kind of language that you said "I remain hopeful that our divorce from Europe can be on civilised and sensible terms of benefit to both halves" that you wanted but have not, yourself, used.

"So clearly expressed in the Referendum" you say. When it comes to constitutional amendments, the United States requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. But our then prime minister, autocratically, decided that the immense constitutional issue of our EU membership should be delegated to the people in a simple remain/leave referendum, with no precautionary measure. Not only was there no need for such a referendum in the first place but with no precaution in place, a majority of one would have been enough to trigger the process of leaving the EU. Quite ridiculous. And now, with the experience of the last 30 months and with changes in the demographic and, perhaps, changes in attitude, another vote could well go with remain. But either way, this is no way to run a railroad (as someone once said) never mind a country.

Phew, that's my piece said for the time being - People's Vote I say.


Paul Turner


* Apparently the Brady Amendment is based on a Plan A and a Plan B which together form a Plan C known as the Malthouse Compromise. Detail of the plans and analysis by Dr Sylvia de Mars, an EU and international law specialist in the House of Commons Library, may be found here: The Brady Amendment

22nd February 2019 newsletter


Dear Constituent,

This week’s decision by Honda to relocate their manufacturing from Swindon back to Japan in 2022, with a potential loss of 3500 jobs directly, plus others from the supply chain, is of course deeply regrettable. Many people in North Wiltshire will be very concerned about it, and I will gladly do whatever I can to help with their particular circumstances. I attended the first meeting in Swindon yesterday of the Taskforce set up to deal with the repercussions of the decision. Amongst other things, I reminded the meeting of Dyson’s £200 million investment in electric car Research and Development just 20 miles up the M-4 at Hullavington. Maybe our area could become a national hub for electric car R and D, perhaps even manufacturing. That would be one good way or using what will by then be an empty, but high-quality car plant. Might even be of interest to Sir James?

It is also worth remembering that unemployment in North Wiltshire (and across England) is at an historic low. 800 people are currently registering in this area, which has been the same for several years. Most of those people are transitting between jobs. There is a great deal of expansion and opportunity across the area, and I am hopeful that after the initial shock has passed, the Honda employees will come to realise the opportunities in the area which will now open up for them.

The automotive industry is going through troublous times globally- Nissan’s announcement about its diesel 4x 4, Jaguar Landrover’s difficulties, even Dyson’s decision to move their corporate HQ (albeit only two highly paid top executives, one of whom already works in Singapore) may even be a part of it all. Its about a Global downturn in demand, environmental concerns over diesel emissions, competition from electric cars and much improved public transport in many places.

Brexit, and uncertainty caused by it, cannot have helped. But it is in no sense to blame. 85% of the cars manufactured in Swindon are destined for the US market; a large part of the balance is domestic. Those who have their own political reasons for doing so, will try to blame Brexit, but that really is both misleading and forlorn. There is no evidence at all of any kind of economic downturn as a result of, or in anticipation of Brexit; and it is ruthless and relentless scaremongering to suggest otherwise. These people are playing with workers’ personal concerns for their families, and it is quite wrong.

The split in the Labour Party is perhaps more directly attributable to Brexit, as well as to a general disaffection with their Leadership. I hear that up to 100 Labour MPs are being threatened with deselection by their Momentum-swelled local Labour Associations. One colleague was telling me that his Association has gone from 200 members, each of whom he knew personally for many years to a staggering 8,000 members, none of whom he knows at all. The obvious presumption is that these are communist infiltrators seeking to take over the Labour Party. By any stretch that must be a deeply damaging prospect for democracy in general as well as for Labour.

So I salute the bravery of the magnificent seven, and of those who will follow their lead. They may well be sacrificing their own careers and livelihoods in favour of their beliefs and background. That takes courage politically, and they should be congratulated and supported in their decision.

Best wishes,

James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire



Your missive is interesting as much for the events not mentioned as those that are.

'Taking back control' was one of the mantras of the Leave cabal yet the Business Secretary, Greg Clarke, and indeed your government knew nothing of this momentous decision. This and other decisions, for example the loss of hundreds of jobs at Coopers in Melksham, are almost entirely at the whim of foreign companies. This state of affairs is seen across the whole breadth of (so-called) British industry from infrastructure (all our existing and upcoming power stations), the motor vehicle industry, the railways, our utility companies and so on.

Much has been made in the press lately of possible security issues around adopting Huawei's 5G telephony yet we are in thrall to the Chinese for (one of) the most basic elements of our infrastructure - power. This selling of the family silver has been going on for years in Britain but would not be countenanced in other European countries.

You also fail to mention the significant EU/Japan trade deal which has just been finalised which will save EU (and Japanese) companies billions in tariffs. UK companies will not, when outside the EU, benefit from this deal. Meanwhile Trade Secretary Liam Fox has been in South America trying to elicit possible trade deals with Peru!

And you mention Labour defectors but you do not 'salute the bravery' of the Conservative defectors. Such partial views are, I would suggest, to blame for defections from both sides.


Paul Turner

14th March 2019 newsletter


Dear Constituent,


This time last week, I was hoping against hope that the Attorney General would bring back some concession on the Irish Backstop, which would be sufficient for me to support the PM’s badly flawed Deal. And to begin with I was quite encouraged. ”She cannot have made that last minute dash to Strasbourg for meetings with M Barnier unless she really had achieved some kind of a breakthrough,” I reasoned. “Her Deal was so thoroughly beaten last time round on account of the obnoxious Back-stop arrangements. She must have got them removed, or at least a firm end-date inserted.”


So, to begin with on Tuesday I was rather inclined to support her Deal. Better than No Deal, perhaps, and certainly better than No Brexit, which might otherwise be the consequence. I went along to the Attorney General’s Statement. He would be an enthusiastic supporter of the negotiation, presumably, which would enable me to firm up my support. Sadly not. His support for the deal was wishy-washy to say the least. Afterwards it was strongly rumoured that he had told the PM that he could not support it at all and was offered the revolver and bottle of whisky treatment as a result. The Deal was as bad as it had always been, with no redeeming Cox’s Codpiece to make it any better. So my decision was clear- I voted against it for the second time. The  majority was smaller, but still overwhelming. Had it been closer; had I felt that my vote would have really mattered, then perhaps I would have been persuaded. But the DUP and most of my ERG colleagues, decided to vote against the Deal, so there was really no purpose in my compromising my Brexit principles. Or at least, not yet.


For the astonishing events of Wednesday and Thursday very probably mean that we will now either have to accept Mrs May’s Deal, atrocious as it is in many ways, or conclude that we really cannot leave the EU after all, and remain diminished and humiliated slaves of the Brussels hegemony for all time. On Wednesday, the PM’s motion proposed that we should not leave on 29 March with No Deal.  Dame Caroline Spellman moved an amendment that that should become a permanent No to ‘No Deal’.  Then she tried to change her mind and pull her amendment, which a Labour MP nonetheless moved on her behalf, which was then won by 4 votes. So now having been a three line whip to support the PM’s motion, it became a three line whip to vote against it. Yet in an unprecedented breach of collective responsibility, a gang of Ministers including Devizes MP,  Claire Perry, rebelled against a three line whip, abstained, and by that means allowed the amended motion to be carried. Sarah Newton was the only honourable minister to resign. The rest should be ashamed of themselves. The end result of their culpable disloyalty is that Brexit is suddenly starting to look increasingly unlikely.


Now this is a very fast-moving scene, and the outlook changes daily if not hourly. However whatever now happens, I am finding it increasingly hard to conclude anything other than that the only way we can achieve anything which even vaguely resembles the Brexit that 17.4 million people voted for is indeed the PM’s deeply flawed and in parts wholly obnoxious deal. It breaks my heart to say it, but my strong instinct is that our efforts to produce a Clean Brexit, a full Brexit, even a No Deal Brexit have now failed. There comes a time in any war when the losing side has to recognise defeat and seek to extract the best possible terms for their troops. The End Game, as it is known in chess.


I think we are now there. So my expectation is that when the same old deal is brought back before us next week, I for one, and I hope enough of my ERG colleagues to make it pass, will march through the Ayes lobby in support of the Deal, with our heads held high having fought a good fight. Its not what we wanted, but it now looks like the best we can actually get. To my strong Brexit electorate I would say: “I am sorry. You know that I  tried my best.” To my Remainer electorate: “I hope that you will at least be pleased at a much softer Brexit than people like me might have liked”, and to my pragmatic reasonable middle grounders: “I think you will understand my dilemma and my eventual decision.” And to you all, please understand the heavy burden of responsibility which all MPs feel resting on their shoulders. These decisions will affect life in Britain for generations to come. They are mot made lightly nor easily.


Best wishes,


James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire




I'm a tad confused.


Was your newsletter written before or after you appeared on TV on Wednesday evening and, addressing the camera and Mrs May directly, you said "I will never vote for your deal"?


You say that it is "a fast-moving scene with the outlook changing daily" so you were an absolute No on Wednesday and assuming your newsletter was written yesterday (Thursday) you were a Yes. When is the vote - next Tuesday? So let's see: Wednesday - No, Thursday - Yes, Friday - No, Saturday - Yes, Sunday - No, Monday - Yes, Tuesday - No. So it appears that you will vote against the deal next week (assuming a Tuesday vote).


In spite of the fact that the same deal is being brought back to the Commons for a third vote, then possibly a fourth, Mrs May and most MPs have voted to deny the possibility of the electorate even a second vote. One law for you and another for us?


There do appear to be many issues around referenda not least that they create division (almost three-years-worth so far with many more years to come for 'the' referendum). A major issue was that 'the' referendum was deeply flawed with no precautionary principle (it could have been won by a single vote whereas a precaution of just 55% would have avoided the subsequent chaos) such as is required in the USA for constitutional issues where two-thirds of both houses and three-quarters of state legislatures must approve.


Any referendum (the return of capital punishment, the scale of non-EU immigration, whether a multi-cultural society is wanted ...) at the time of 'the' referendum would most likely have returned an anti-establishment result. 'The' referendum was an appalling idea with no precaution and should never have been held. Politicians should have had the sense to see that and, in spite of the screams about the "end of democracy", should have followed their consciences (that's what we elect them for isn't it?) and dismissed the result.


When I see/hear leavers on TV saying repeatedly 'just get on with it' I despair of their lack of consideration of all the issues; my better-half and myself turn to each other and say "there is no 'just get on with it' button"! The best way out of this shambles? Why, revoke Article 50 of course (vis Ken Clarke, the SNP and five-sixths of MPs' consciences). That really is the 'just get on with it' button.




Paul Turner

13th September 2020 newsletter


Dear Constituent,


There has been a great deal of sound and fury over Brandon Lewis’s (factually incorrect) remark that if we seek to vary the terms of the Northern Irish Protocol to the Brexit agreement, then we will “be in breach of International Law.” It is perfectly true that every time you try to vary any international treaty it is a technical breach of the law. All that is happening is that we have spotted a fundamental flaw in one aspect of the EU Withdrawal Agreement and this Bill seeks to correct it.

It would only have effect if we fail to come to a Free Trade Agreement with the EU by the end of the year- which I still hope we will be able to do. But the trouble is that this particular aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement actually incentivises the EU NOT to make any such trade agreement. After we have finally left the EU, the UK Government may decide to help certain sectors of business in various ways. It may be that we would try to create a high-tech hub rather like Silicon Valley, very probably much of it in this area. Electric cars, for example, may well be an attractive idea, perhaps to replace Honda. Perhaps we will seek to support one or other aspect of farming. These things are known as ‘State Aid’, and under the Withdrawal Agreement they can only be done with prior approval of the EU - for all time to come. It’s ostensibly in case any of the State Aid supported goods went via Northern Ireland and into the EU market; but that is cover for banning State aid on the mainland of GB as well. And the EU of course would never agree to it.

So the UK Internal Market Bill is crucial to protect seamless trade and jobs across all four corners of the United Kingdom at the end of the Transition Period. It will: ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory; guarantee that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true ‘unfettered access’ to the rest of the United Kingdom, without paperwork; removes any possible legal confusion about the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to the EU’s State Aid regime for the duration of the Protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to those EU rules.

The Free Trade Negotiations are at a crucial stage. The EU wants to apply their State Aid rules to the whole of the UK; they want to apply fishing quotas to fish caught in our own territorial waters, and in a number of other ways they want to keep the UK within the EU in all but name. We cannot allow that. That is why we must make it plain that if we do not reach agreement on Free Trade, we will have taken steps towards an alternative- of which this Bill is a crucial part. 

I am glad that the negotiators are being tough- it’s the only language which Mr Barnier and co understand. They need to realise that the people of Britain voted to leave the EU, to leave the single market, to leave the EU courts and structures. The notion that we would nonetheless be prevented from subsidising one or other of our business sectors in the event that we chose to do so, undermines and invalidates Brexit. This is fundamental to our decision to leave; and if the EU negotiators do not give ground, then we must be ready to walk away, leave the question of a trading agreement to another day; and be ready to trade under WTO rules just as much as we will do with the rest of the world.

Best wishes,


James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire

My initial response ...



Greetings from darkest Rudloe.

You say the following: "These things are known as ‘State Aid’, and under the Withdrawal Agreement they can only be done with prior approval of the EU - for all time to come."

I have just downloaded the Withdrawal Agreement and, inter alia, it says the following on State Aid:

"In respect of aid granted before the end of the transition period, for a period of four years after the end of the transition period, the European Commission shall be competent to initiate new administrative procedures on State aid concerning the United Kingdom. The Commission shall be competent after the end of that four year period for procedures initiated before the end of that period."

Note, '... for procedures initiated before the end of that period.', not, as you say, "... for all time to come".

Your response?


Paul Turner

My further response ...



Having thought about this a little further, the four-year period is relevant to State Aid granted before the end of the transition period. Beyond the four-year period is relevant to State Aid initiated before the end of transition (note 'granted' v 'initiated').

It seems (unless you can put me right) that neither case refers to the possible State Aid scenarios beyond the end of the transition period that you suggest vis: a UK 'Silicon Valley', farming or electric cars.




James Gray's response ...


The NI Protocol is for ever.




My response ...



I've been looking for chapter and verse myself but can find nothing of your 'NI Protocol is for ever'.

By the way, my reference to the following:

"In respect of aid granted before the end of the transition period, for a period of four years after the end of the transition period, the European Commission shall be competent to initiate new administrative procedures on State aid concerning the United Kingdom. The Commission shall be competent after the end of that four year period for procedures initiated before the end of that period."

was from Article 93.

But one thing that I really don't get is the Consent Mechanism.

Given that the underlying purpose of of the Protocol on Ireland/N Ireland is set out in the Agreement as follows:

"The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is a fully legally operative solution that that avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland, protects the all-island economy and the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement in all its dimensions, and safeguards the integrity of the Single Market."


The Consent Mechanism is set out as follows:

"The EU and the United Kingdom have agreed to create a new mechanism on “consent”, which will give the Northern Ireland Assembly a decisive voice on the long-term application of relevant EU law in Northern Ireland, based on intense discussions between Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Commission has been in constant and close contact with the Irish government on this point.

This consent mechanism concerns the substantive issues of regulatory alignment on goods and customs, the Single Electricity Market, VAT and state aid.

In practice, this means that four years after the end of the transition period, the Assembly can by simple majority give consent to the continued application of relevant Union law, or vote to discontinue its application, in which case the United Kingdom would notify the EU. In such a case, the Protocol will cease to apply two years later.

Every four years thereafter, the Assembly can vote on the continued application of relevant Union law. In case a vote of the Assembly gathers cross-community support for the continued application of relevant Union law, the next vote can only take place 8 years thereafter."

If the NI Assembly votes to discontinue the application of Union (EU) law which will bring about the cessation of the Protocol, surely this could (will!) have disastrous consequences, inter alia, for that oft-stated, all-important 'protection of the Good Friday Agreement'.

But back to your "NI Protocol is for ever", the Consent Mechanism (at least) illustrates that it isn't.




He has not responded which, if I may say so, is typical of current Tory politics. They will bluff and bluster but when challenged on the facts, they have nothing to say. This has been happening for quite some time (maybe forever!) - remember before the last election when the only party leader to refuse to be interviewed by Andrew Neil was (of course) Boris Johnson. Andrew Neil is a very astute and direct political commentator - Boris's 'bluff' would have been exposed - the solution? - hide away (Jacob Rees-Mogg) , say nothing (except slogans like 'Take back control').


And talking of 'Take back control', HM and myself watched the wartime (1942) propaganda film In Which We Serve  (starring Noel Coward) over the weekend. Some of the dialogue involved a conversation between shipmates on HMS Torrin when one seaman was extolling the virtue of Rolls Royce cars. If only he knew that 60 years or so later, Rolls Royce would be owned by BMW (and Bentley by Volkswagen). Been to hospital for a scan lately? Most MRI and CT scanners are German (Siemens). Kidney problems? The new dialysis centre in Bathford is run by a German company, Fresenius. Power? Hinkley C is being built by French company EDF with Chinese backing (The Chinese are also building nuclear power station Bradwell B in Essex). Steel? The Chinese have recently bought British Steel. Water? Wessex Water is owned by Malaysian company YTL and so on and so on. 'We' have been relinquishing control of our land, infrastructure, buildings, utilities and other companies over many years; our former western-European (EU) neighbours would not dream of selling off such fundamental parts of their national infrastructure but our governments would, and have.

Print Print | Sitemap
© Paul Turner