People are doing hot takes, here's mine. Difficult to judge conclusively w/o seeing the legislative detail and wording of what's being proposed. No doubt the symbolism of Brandon Lewis' choice of words on actions UK taking will reverberate - hard not to. As to context/content? /1

Govt may be trying to do a lot of different but related things here. On the one hand, business generally wants as little disruption as possible, and the protocol -dating back to the Joint Report- does have the provision to guarantee "unfettered access" from NI to GB /2

Guarantee might arguably be too strong a word - "nothing in this Protocol shall prevent unfettered market access...." at least in the sense unfettered access is not defined or spelled out in the protocol itself - one for the UK and EU to work out in the Joint Committee negs /3

Some might say that's a matter for HMG to decide re: movements from NI to GB but clearly the extent of how Govt ensures can have implications for the letter/operation of the protocol itself. NI Affairs Ctttee in UK Parl recently called aim "optimistic" https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmniaf/161/16109.htm /4

EU and UK from start had diff views about what flexibility exists within protocol for operationalising it, and looking at what was left out of it can often be taken together to try and justify the push for flexibility. Not clear whether HMG wanted to use FTA to tidy it all up /5

Regardless, EU Commish has also made operationalising the protocol to be ready in case of no FTA (some might say also to force HMG to acknowledge how much of an impact this cd have in these circs + what they signed up to) a top priority, independent of FTA talks themselves /6

Hence noise around readiness has come from EU trying to push the UK into showing its hand early on re: standalone protocol implementation. UK pushed back some in form of its NI Command Paper, which to untrained eye looked like guidance but was publicising its interpretation /7

(might add that this has not gone unnoticed by business trying to plan, realising said command paper was far from a confirmed basis on which to prepare but rather part of neg tactics/process in a way - also why firms often say, when these games are done then i'll make changes) /8

If I understand correctly, HMG arguing that to make contingency provisions for there being no FTA (one could say and to satisfy EU demand for details of its approach to protocol implementation), needs to have legislation in place to carry on this unfettered access commitment /9

However it seems that HMG are making provisions for a more generous approach -one might argue to minimise the impact of no deal- to delivering on UK (and EU since in WA?) unfettered access commitments in the event of no-deal, which on its own raises Qs /10

Will legislative provisions unveiled in the Internal Market bill really just be about insurance policy provisions, and even if so, does it not need to be agreed first w/the EU in the JC given the WA is supposed to still apply regardless? Which brings us to other motivations.. /11

Using unilateral legislative measures to spell out your intended contingency approach when circumstances have not really changed insofar as only yday PM's statement referred to no-deal being considered still a good outcome from the start certainly seems like a neg tactic.. /12

...given the Govt clearly wants EU to move more towards its approach to implementing the protocol on unfettered access (e.g. minimal/no paperwork attached to sending goods from NI to GB), unless they want the FTA to smooth over much of this. How much it can/cd remains unclear /13

The irony being that said paperwork for movements btwn GB and NI has often been referred to as mere "new administrative costs" by this govt, however it seems they do want to keep their word -PM's words filmed and all- of no new forms for NI-GB etc. /14

Only, and this is where I wonder what Im missing, genuinely not sure why/how why employing the heavy-handed tactics here around unilaterally being willing to break intl law for a contingency where circs haven't really changed is going to positively convince the EU to move /15

If it really is a contingency measure, why put it in the Internal Market bill now rather than after negs have concluded either way? Will it change/be rendered moot if and when an FTA comes back? What certainty rather than added confusion is being given to businesses here? /Ends