Irish foreign min Simon Coveney says he is "more optimistic" about progress in the EU UK Joint Committee over implementing the Northern Ireland Protocol.

NEW: Michel Barnier has told EU member states there has been some movement on the level playing field, and on dispute resolution, but that fisheries talks remain "very difficult" @rtenews understands. Sources say this could go through this week and beyond...

2/ Acc to one senior source, Barnier said there was acceptance that the EU could take retaliatory measures against the UK if it diverged from EU standards but that it would not be "autonomous", in other words, before taking action there wd need to be some dialogue with the UK

3/ "It's the operationalisation of that principle that is now under discussion," acc to source. The EU see this is progress as for a long time the UK refused to accept that if they diverged the EU had a right to do something, says the source

4/ "That principle has now been accepted, but how it is implemented is the nub of the dicussion."

5/ From the EU perspective the concern is the UK might change its rules to make it more competitive, says the source. "Barnier seemed positive that the principle of couter-measures had been agreed."

Here is the rough transcript and story of @realDonaldTrump's NI envoy, his meeting with @simoncoveney and the alleged threat of the EU using aviation as leverage over the UK if the Internal Market Bill led to a hard border on the island of Ireland.

2/ Mr Mulvaney was talking to the @iiea via video link.

Asked about the concerns in the US over the IMB, which breaches the NI Protocol, Mr Mulvaney said that in his meetings with all sides his worry was that the Bill could result in a border “by accident”.

3/ He told the presentation: “The best response I got on the matter was from Simon Coveney when I met with him in Dublin.

4/ “I said to him..., look, Simon, my fear is this: there’s a no deal Brexit. The IMB kicks in, the Brits don’t want to put up a border on the island, because they know what that means, the Irish don’t want to put up a border across the island because they know what that means.

5/ “The Europeans come in and say, well, if you’re not going to control the flow of goods from outside of the [European] Union [to] inside the Union, from Belfast to Dublin, for the sake of this discussion, we’re going to force you to ring the whole island of Ireland

Amid the hail of accusations that the EU wanted to put a hard border on the island of Ireland last Friday, it's worth pointing out what the ill-fated resort to Article 16 was about:

2/ Under the Commission's trade mechanism, any Covid vaccines leaving the EU for third countries would need export authorisations, ie to ensure vaccines were not being exported which were actually part of an avanced purchase agreement between member states + pharma companies

3/ Any movements of exports from one member state to another would NOT have required such an export authorisation

4/ Because of the NI Protocol, Northern Ireland would typically have availed of NOT having to had export authorisations for any vaccines being sent there from Belgium (or wherever)

5/ However, someone in the Commission spotted the fact that, also under the Protocol, there was unfettered movement of goods between NI and GB

The DUP's Ian Paisley MP tells the NI Affaris Committee that the NI Protocol shd be "removed" and that Article 16 of the Protocol should be invoked. Describes it as an "unmitigated disaster... Those who advocated for the Protocol have some responsibility for that.

"The protocol is now an impediment to trade. We told you so."

Article 16 of the NI Protocol: "If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the EU or the UK may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.

"Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
functioning of this Protocol."

Mr Paisley then berates @Freight_NI for not demanding that Article 16 be invoked. Mr Leheny asks him what the alternative is. Mr Paisley says removing the Protocol is the alternative.

BREAKING: The EU and UK have agreed a trusted trader scheme that would mean exemptions from tariffs for up to 98pc of goods flowing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland from January 1, @rtenews has learned.
The other 2% wd potentially avail of rebates from any tariffs.

2/ Tariffs would mostly only apply if no free trade agreement is concluded between the EU and UK.

Both sides have also agreed that agrifood products coming from GB to Northern Ireland will be exempt from requiring export health certificates for a period of at least three months

3/ These have proved the biggest concern for UK supermarket chains in NI, who rely on large and mixed consignments of food coming from GB depots.
Export health certificates can cost up to £200 per product and need to be signed off by a designated veterinary inspector.

4/ It’s understood the issue of how supermkts will comply with EU food safety rules could be dealt with through a UK commitment - possibly a declaration - that it does not intend to change its food safety rules from Jan 1. At that point the rules will be the same as the EU's.

5/ The trusted trade scheme would be subject to a review, or sunset clause, three and a half years after the Protocol comes into effect, according to an internal EU briefing

(THREAD) Pre-election Russia collusion may take down Trump. It's equally possible the Trumps' pre- and post-election collusion with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel will do it—a course of collusion also connected to the Kremlin. I explain here. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.

2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.

3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.

4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.

Alright, I'm going to explain this one more time because I keep getting tweets like "people who vote for politicians who let them die of hypothermia deserve to die of hypothermia."

The people who voted red in Texas are, by and large, relatively fine right now. Yes, the storm has hurt them but the storm was going to hurt everyone.

But. They're either rich enough that *their* power wasn't cut off or rural enough that they have fireplaces and wood and wells.

Those millions without power are in places like Dallas county and Tarrant county and Harris county, I.e., the urban places that have the highest concentration of blue voters.

So it's not "(all/most) people voted for hypothermia and now they will fittingly die of hypothermia".

It's "(certain) people voted for the folks in cities to die of hypothermia, and they are, while the aforementioned voters are safe and dry and relatively comfortable."

Well, gosh, why don't those voters *do something* rather than passively being killed??

Do you know how many people live in Harris county? 4 million. Do you know how many ballot drop-off boxes they were allocated last election? 1.

1 box for 4 million people.

(THREAD) The main problem with that @DanDrezner piece in the Post is that it's an international politics prof writing about the field in which I'm a professor—communications. No one in communications would *ever* compare the blogosphere to either Twitter or Substack. Here's why.

1/ Back in the mid-aughts, I was a Koufax Award-nominated political blogger (I don't know what Drezner was doing then; I first heard of him about a year ago). So I was into the blogosphere pretty deep, as I also ran a second high-traffic blog that was focused on the art world.

2/ The "blogosphere" was an outgrowth of MySpace and LiveJournal, inasmuch as in the heady early days of the internet people suddenly realized that they could engage in private diaristic writing—a very specific subgenre of writing—in the public square, and it was suddenly "okay."

3/ So the blogosphere as such had *nothing* to do with journalism, which needless to say was in a different state just 15 years ago (note: unlike Drezner, I also teach writing and journalism at the university level, so this thread is squarely "in my area," unlike his Post piece).

4/ The blogosphere was a manifestation of the transformation of the public-private binary at the dawn of the internet—and *also* connected to the "creative writing" explosion (what I did a PhD on); in the aughts, creative writing was the fastest-growing discipline *in the world*.