I think one point in this threat stands out. The IM bill is not just a direct assault on the WA but on the concept international treaties as such. Fair enough, other breach treaties too but those are usually more powerful than the counter party and can force changes. /1 https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1311585068150861824

It should be fairly clear that this is not the case for UK. The bigger question is, if courts can't convince UK to comply with law, why should EU bother with courts and don't apply raw power politics themselves? /2

You can obviously now argue that collaboration is always better than confrontation - and I would agree on that. But Brexit on NI was binary, fudging isn't possible and UK made fundamental changes of the set up without considering key stakeholders. /3

Being culprit and not having power to introduce Deutungshoheit (the dominance of ones perspective on an event over other possible interpretations) plus not even having the power to push back against EU makes that situation to a power play. /4

And for an emerging power that's just not acceptable. My reading is the following: The legal steps are "just" a warning shot. If UK doesn't comply, I suspect there is a good chance of maximum escalation. /5

How could this look like: Well, primarily policing the IRE-NI border and via advertising and media campaign directly blaming Unionists, Loyalists and HMG for breaching law and forcing a inner Irish border - even against declared will of Stormont. /6

We can all but guess, but I doubt that Irish border guards will main target of violence if you revive troubles. I guess the anger will go in another direct. It may even happen that you see parts of the EU opening up on SCO indy (e.g. EUParl). /7

This, in connection with clocked borders and little incentives on EU side to relieve them could brew a perfect storm. I also suspect movement targeting crucial industries in UK to get a slice of the pie. /8

You may rightfully argue that those steps also hurt EU: Sure, but just to a limited extent and much less than for UK. Besides, reinforcing ones dominance over how trade and economic police in Europe is framed and conducted seems to me also a valid economical goal. /9

Last but not least, again, UK doesn't need to like - just swallow it, don't taste it would be the answer on that one. They don't need to be happy or like the reduced place in Europe, for all intends and purposes it is enough that they are there where EU wants them. /10

A UK state paralysed and potentially disassembled will be less likely to do anything about it but moaning. Which leads to the last point: Commenters have highlighted that EU's key achievement is civilising conflicts between (group of) states. /11

But this refers solely to member states (and to an extend to deeply integrated states who can't change anything about the degree of integration) and not to outsiders. UK is an outsider in close proximity acting in bad faith with little power. /12

If there is any sense of Unionists and people who would like to prevent a revival of troubles, they would do very well to reverse course with whatever means necessary. Otherwise Gotbatschow's warning applies: The latecomers are punished by history. /13

To conclude: The legal proceedings aren't the end of the story but the beginning, and from my perspective further escalation'll remove civilising legal safeguards & make raw power politics very likely. If you don't play by the rules, there is no reason to apply those to you. /14

So what do EU scholars think on this one @APHClarkson @rdanielkelemen @BrigidLaffan @simonjhix @KeohaneDan ? Will EU stick to resolution mechanisms of WA or switch very soon to tools of power politics? 15/15