eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
And I’ve seen your answer to these questions of yours always seems to be “it’s the (insert adjectives) EU’s fault”. You have 99% reliability coming up with this answer. I remember one recent exception to this, where you did write the proposed UK regulation on wine imports looked like a self inflicted disaster, and one not due to the EU.
It is a UK rollover of an existing EU third country rule, but yes, the UK's (absurd) decision to roll it over.
The EU’s NIP policy is the direct result of BoJo’s choices. The EU has actually been pretty flexible in its search for solutions to the NI issue: the mechanisms offered first to Th. May, then to BoJo have been quite different, reflecting the twists and turns in British requirements. Many member states felt the concessions given to Th May went too far. They needn’t have worried, BoJo threw it all away in his bid to become PM.
The NIP is the direct result of the EU's strategic decision to weaponise the NI border and the GFA. They have succeeded admirably.
My general stance on the EU is positive: if it didn’t exist, it would need to be invented. I see no reason to change this view just because the UK decided to leave and chose the daftest way to do it. The EU is obviously a highly imperfect organization, and the various EU institutions make plenty of mistakes, including on the NI issue. The Art 16 incident in February, for instance, was an embarrassing own goal by VdL’s team. Fortunately, it was reversed promptly.
There's quite a bit of humbug in here, starting from the bizarre statement that if it didn't exist, it would need to be invented. The EU evolved from the post war desire by France to contain any further German expansionist urges. It was also deeply informed by the neoliberal movement of the 1930s, and the utopian fantasies of a number of its key players. As those initial dreams and objectives were hard wired into its founding principles, it has very little relevance to today's global geopolitics.