Will my MP support the Rule of Law

[I have no idea why this blogpost is all centred and in italics, and there seems to be nothing I can do about this].

From: Mike Cashman
Date: 16 September 2020 at 08:34:01 BST
To: iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: Re: Iain Stewart, are you loyal to your promise on the Withdrawal Agreement, or do you support Boris Johnson's position which has diverged from the WA?

Dear Iain

I feel that I should follow up on the fairly blunt question I asked you before Monday’s  vote, and replace that question with this letter.

Many of my contacts were horrified at the result of the vote on Monday, and I have sought to assure them that this vote is not final. A vote “in favour” at Second Reading can equate to a vote to give a Bill more detailed scrutiny. I don’t hesitate to say that I would have hoped that law-abiding lawmakers would have voted down this Bill by now; but as my question on Monday indicated, I can at least see that there was a question of competing loyalties, which may have made that a very agonising decision. Importantly, options are still open; many of your colleagues have let it he known through various channels that they do not intend to pass this unamended Bill into law, and so there is still hope for the UK’s reputation.

You may as I say have faced a very difficult decision. You pledged support to Withdrawal agreement & your country signed it. Now your leader wants to renege on it. Where does your loyalty lie?

There was ample time for scrutiny and this is the Agreement that the current Prime Minister argued for and on basis of this sought UK support at the General Election.

Reneging on the agreement now would mean that the basis upon which the General Election was fought was invalid and the government should resign.

Referring to our correspondence, then between you and me there can we have to acknowledge that the challenges of the Northern Ireland protocol were indeed recognised; our correspondence in December 2019 and January 2020 (including the forwarded response from DexEU) makes that clear.

My letter in the Guardian 19 Dec 2019 explicitly raised the possibility that the “oven ready” Agreement was a sham, as has now become evident.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/19/boris-johnson-cant-escape-the-northern-ireland-issue

In fact I wrote in December 2019 to you
“The fact that the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary disagree is a dreadful harbinger of problems to come.”
You will I’m sure take note of the opposition to this Bill of all living former Prime Ministers, of the former Conservative Leader Michael Howard, and two former Conservative Attorney Generals

Leaders come and go. The challenges of Brexit have ended the leadership of the last two Tory Prime Ministers and will perhaps before long claim their third termination since the Prime Minister is now in an impossibly dishonourable position

It is also worth noting, from our correspondence, that your support for Dominic Cummings’ rule-breaking depended on no further damaging evidence emerging, in other words on the fairly fragile hope that no further evidence emerges about a further trip to Durham the weekend after Easter, and that the unscrutinised “evidence” of his presence in London then can stand challenge. ( I am assuming that this “evidence” is simply decoy evidence of a particular mobile phone being in London - I don’t know, since it has not been made public). How long would the Prime Minister last without his adviser?

But the reputation of the UK is at stake - and that can be much more long-lasting than a transient Prime Minister. This matters for all future trade Deals. Aside from the moral and reputational questions, there is no point in swindling the EU if, as seems certain, the result is that the USA and other leading nations then understandably decline to form any agreement with the U.K., since any such agreement would not be worth the paper it is printed on.

I recognise that defeating this Bill will need determination and working together. I am sure that there is much discussion on this between back-bench MPs.

Any MPs who vote to pass this Bill into Law will have to recognise that this action which undermines the reputation of the UK will stand forever on their voting record, and so as individuals they should never expect to be trusted again.

You will I’m sure be aware of the concerns raised by Geoffrey Cox. I felt that the article by his Devon colleague Gary Streeter was also particularly compelling.
https://www.facebook.com/garystreeterSWD/

I hope that you can recognise the significance of this position and that you will also have the courage to support the rule of law and to declare your position and your rationale publicly this week.

with my warm regards
Mike

Mike Cashman
mike.cashman@viewdelta.com

Viewdelta Press
www.viewdelta.com

On 13 Sep 2020, at 09:15, Peter Cook <petercook1001@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Mike and Iain,

Yes, silence is assent.

With your agreement I’d like to publish your answer to uphold standards of democracy.

Peter Cook

Re-Boot Britain

From: Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Reply to: <mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 08:03
To: <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: <sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk>, 'Sally Murrer' <Sally.Murrer@jpimedia.co.uk>, <ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk>, Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>, Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>, Home <peter@humdyn.co.uk>
Subject: Iain Stewart, are you loyal to your promise on the Withdrawal Agreement, or do you support Boris Johnson's position which has diverged from the WA?

Dear Iain

I note the absence of any answers from you to my communications in May, June and August about the Northern Ireland protocol. I suppose I should not be surprised, and I conclude that need to take your silence as tacit agreement that there really is no sensible answer. We are now three and a half months only away from the full withdrawal date, this is nowhere near enough time for businesses to prepare, and they still do not know full details because no agreement has been reached with the EU, so there can not now be any credible plan.

I would like to ask about loyalty. I understand that to be selected as Tory candidate in 2019 you were required so sign a pledge of loyalty to Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement. I have not seen the exact wording and would be interested to see it. But, since presumably you signed that pledge, can you confirm that you are sticking to your promise and fully supporting the Withdrawal Agreement? Or are you now supporting Boris Johnson, who does not now fully support the Withdrawal Agreement he signed?

(We know of course in negotiation that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. If the W Withdrawal Agreement had not been signed and the current issues were sticking points then we would conclude that nothing had yet been agreed).

So, please could you indicate, so that your constituents are aware:
A, Do you support the Withdrawal Agreement which you promised to support
Or
Do you support Boris Johnson’s current position, which has diverged from the Withdrawal Agreement?
Simply responding “A” or “B” will be adequate, and can I suggest that you should not hide your position on this matter from your constituents?

Yours very sincerely
Mike

Cc: Sally Murrer, MK Citizen newspaper
Ben Everitt MP
Peter Cook

Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
mike.cashman@viewdelta.com

From: Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Sent: 22 August 2020 09:14
To: iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk
Cc: sally.murrer@jpress.co.uk; 'Sally Murrer' <Sally.Murrer@jpimedia.co.uk>; 'Peter Cook' <peter@humdyn.co.uk>; publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk; ben.everitt.mp@parliament.uk; mike.cashman@viewdelta.com
Subject: The need to consider seriously how to respond to constituents' concerns about waste of public money
Importance: High

Dear Iain

I am grateful to Peter Cook (in cc and who you will see on this video) for helping me to summarise some interactions with you over the past few months, with his occasional wry illustration to keep the video watchable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU04yQTuNss

In the interview we did not dwell on my most recent letters, which call for an answer on the point where we originally exchanged letters. Although I have not had any response in 2 months on this matter from either you or Michael Gove, who I believe has responsibility I believe for the Northern Ireland protocol; we are now at a point where the complexity of what was being proposed is in the public domain, with reports of £350 million being spent to mitigate some of the problems of the Northern Ireland protocol. It will of course be much more bearing in mind the unclear requirement; this is a Government It disaster project in the making (I have seen them before in a professional capacity) . But at this point there is opportunity to avoid wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, so it’s a good time to intervene. Rather than write further extensively to justify this, I can refer you to the email string and to my original letter to the Guardian in 2019, since my predictions are now playing out before our eyes.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/19/boris-johnson-cant-escape-the-northern-ireland-issue

Sending letters to point this out is however ineffective as we can see, and your office tells me that you do not hold surgeries. I appreciate you calling at my house back in December 2019 when you wanted my vote, and was sorry to miss you. I propose in this video that it is time for a public meeting with your constituents, perhaps “Question Time” style, , at which there may be some level of accountability and indeed readiness to listen and take on board constituents’ concerns.
As the video recognises, in the past you have in some cases responded recognising the concerns that had been raised, and I look forward to a positive response on this matter

Yours very sincerely
Mike

Cc: Sally Murrer, MK Citizen newspaper
Michael Gove MP
Ben Everitt MP
Peter Cook

Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
mike.cashman@viewdelta.com

www.viewdelta.com

From: Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Sent: 01 June 2020 12:47
To: 'publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk' <publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: FW: The need to consider seriously how to implement the proposed Northern Ireland protocol

Forwarded for Michael Gove as requested

Viewdelta Press
mike.cashman@viewdelta.com

www.viewdelta.com

From: Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Sent: 01 June 2020 12:16
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'mike.cashman@viewdelta.com' <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>; 'michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk' <michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: RE: The need to consider seriously how to implement the proposed Northern Ireland protocol

Dear Iain
I am sure you have forwarded my lengthy email on the Northern Ireland protocol, as you did with my first email to you on the subject, and that you are awaiting a response. You may find it helpful to send this new email too to Michael Gove or whoever has Cabinet responsibility, since inclusion by “cc” may be ineffective.
I am not raising any new questions here, but I thought it might be helpful to have a summarised and almost stand-alone version. Meanwhile my fuller letters are below and also available at .https://viewdelta.blogspot.com/2020/05/re-need-to-consider-seriously-how-to.html
You may recall that I have experience of managing the process of exchanging data via various systems with 2000 customers of all sizes. While the NI protocol may be more complex and is certainly more time-pressured I think this gives me some insight.
The nine questions I wish to ask about the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol are these:
Q1, Has there been any progress on defining the required processes?
Q2 Has there been any progress on creating mechanisms to deliver the required processes?
Q3. Has there been any progress on defining consultation with businesses on the required processes?
Q4. Has a process of open business consultation started?
Q5. If as it appears from public documents that UK mainland business s exporting to Northern Ireland are not included in the intended consultation, can plans be changed to include them?
Q6., If there is a plan laying out timescales for preparation, consultation, publication, implementation by all parties, testing etc.; please provide details
Q7. In the light for example of Q6, what would be a realistic timetable overall for Brexit Withdrawal .
Q8 / Q9, Please can you assure me that you have read this letter and will support an extension to the Transition Period?
If you do not support this, that would imply that you believed that the end of Transition in 2020 is possible, which would imply that you can provide a plan of all necessary activities to the end of 2020, and in that case I would like to see this plan;   without this, any belief is just wishful thinking. )

You may know my views on the matter, but the above represents an enquiry as to what any feasible plan concluding in 2020 might be. Seven months since October 31st have been used with very little substantive progress publicly declared on this particular matter, which is why I write to you to enquire if there is further news that has not yet been publicised. There is now only seven months to go
When I was engaged in resolving project/programme management failures-in-progress (and that includes some Government projects/programmes but others too), I often applied a useful rule of thumb – “The past is not a perfect predictor of the future, but it is sometimes the best we have”. If very little progress has been made in the last 7 months, that does not augur well for the next 7 months, and one reason is that in each case progress depends on realistic plans and effective relationships with the key stakeholders. Project reports that attributed past failures to these issues but assumed magical solutions to all problems invariably proved over-optimistic. Let me apply the above rule of thumb. .   As a rough estimate, I would say that it appears that about 5% of the necessary work has been done but 50% of the time has been used, and at that rate of progress it would take another 11 years. I can re-estimate if there is better information about progress
Perhaps you and your colleagues can supply positive answers to the above questions. I would be happy to meet to discuss the matter.
Yours sincerely

Mike

Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
www.viewdelta.com

From: Mike Cashman <mike.cashman@actalpha.com>
Sent: 22 May 2020 06:56
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'mike.cashman@viewdelta.com' <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>; 'michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk' <michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: RE: The need to consider seriously how to implement the proposed Northern Ireland protocol

Dear Iain Stewart
INTRODUCTION
I write in connection with previous correspondence (December 2019) where I observed as follows (full email in email chain below) .
Before retirement one of my major roles was to help UK Governments – and others - out of significant problems with major programmes and projects
The potential Northern Ireland protocol is clearly a business and systems disaster waiting to happen. There’s an unclear requirement, a management imposed-deadline with no reference to feasibility, an uncertain regulatory environment with two supervisory bodies renegotiating their relationship, a large and diverse user base including government and businesses in various locations, and no defined business model. How businesses will react to the additional complications of commerce with Northern Ireland is difficult to predict. Commercial organisations will need to interact with new and probably changing Government requirements, and will of course need to assess whether trading across the Irish sea is still worthwhile in the light of the new requirements. I have made these points in a letter to “The Guardian” published there today, after last week posting similar concerns on your Facebook page.
If the arrangements proceed without proper consultation then business may be more badly affected.

The distinctions between carriage to NI, export via NI to the Republic, incorporation in sub-assembles that then are exported, etc will all need to be nailed down as new precise requirements. What if the sub-assembly is incorporated in a product re-imported to Northern Ireland – has this been considered?
You replied in January), thank you, and I’ll refer to that below
The publication on Wednesday of The UK’s Approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol provides an opportunity to assess progress. I have identified below
the current position, as far as I can ascertain it, referenced to Government documentation and to correspondence from DexEU that you forwarded to me in January and
a reasonable conclusion which takes into account the government’s current challenges.
A number of questions arise, and for ease of reference I have labelled them in this style: “(Q1)”.
I will add that Michael Gove has been quoted as saying on Wednesday “Subjecting traders to unnecessary and disproportionate burdens, particularly as we wrestle with the economic consequences of Covid-19, would not serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland for whom the protocol was designed. It’s important for us all to recall that the clear majority of northern Ireland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, so safeguarding the free flow of goods within the UK’s internal market is of critical importance to Northern Ireland’s economy and people.” There is little to disagree with in that paragraph, other than arguably “for whom the protocol was designed” but of course the proof is the puddling, or more particularly the delivery, rather than the platitudes.
Overall, although many words have been written, I found that it was not possible to reach any conclusions about any substantial progress, the paragraph above is an example – it is all aspiration, with 0 % about delivery. As an introduction maybe that is ok, but I hoped then to find some substance. Let us see.
However, in the interests of courtesy, let me acknowledge that there may be information available by some means which I have missed, and I hope the numbered questions provide opportunity for these gaps in the public record (as far as I perceive them) may be filled. I would not ask all this purely on my own account, but I do in fact agree with the aspirations stated above if this is to be implemented, and the matter is therefore of widespread interest. I have some particular insights as I will mention where relevant below.
Bearing in mind the demise of the Department for exiting the European Union, and the apparent role of Mr Gove in taking on its work, I have included him by cc. (I also checked his website but this work did not appear to be described there).

CURRENT POSITION
James Duddridge’s letter that you forwarded 27th January 2020 stated (my underlining and lettered references)
As your constituent notes, implementing the protocol will require discussions with the EU in the EU-UK joint committee to define the processes involved (A). Putting these processes in place so that both government and businesses are ready for the end of the implementation period will require a complex and wide-ranging delivery program (B). Consultation with businesses is a vital part of this (C). I would like to assure your constituent that the government is working at pace to ensure the requirements of the protocol are delivered in time for the end of the implementation period (D) and that businesses across all sectors are consulted about how best to deliver it

I have consulted the Government’s “Command paper” published yesterday and particularly paragraphs 11 and 26 to 28.
file:/ 2020-05-20_Command_Paper__UK_s_Approach_to_the_Northern_Ireland_Protocol-gov.uk.pdf (© Crown copyright 2020 Produced by Cabinet Office)
For simplicity I will just refer to this as the “Command Paper”.
Four paragraphs of this are pasted at the end below for ease of reference.
(As complementary information I have also included text from the Irish Government website www.gov.ie. Essentially this references the Withdrawal Agreement and tells us that much is yet to be decided).
I would like to respond on four parts of James Duddridge’s letter which you forwarded
“to define the processes involved. “
From the Command paper
“26, This principle needs to be formalised with the EU within the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. There are various ways of making it work in practice…..”
No progress is evident on that main challenge then, other than the (useful) publication of the document telling us that this is the case, and identifying some exceptions. If you feel there has been any progress on the substantive challenge of the newly required processes, please let me know. (Q1.)
“A complex and wide-ranging delivery programme”

Since the processes are not defined, I presume that very little progress can have been made on delivering them, but please let me know if that is not the case. (Q2.)

“Consultation with businesses is a vital part of this”
In the light of the above I assume that very little progress has been made on consultation, but again I stand ready to hear any information to the contrary. (Q3.)

Paragraph 11 of the Command paper states that the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee held its inaugural meeting on 30 April 2020.
A consultation period with businesses would normally in my expectation be at least 2 months, but perhaps you might shorten that to a month.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I assume that no period of open public business consultation is now in progress; I would be pleased to be advised, (Q4.) with details, if it has. I found no trace on the internet.
There appears however to be a blind spot in the consultation arrangements. Although businesses in Northern Ireland will be the recipients of “imports” from the British mainland, it will be mainland businesses that will be exporting, and will be creating details of precisely what is in each shipment, notwithstanding the order details from the customer. Of course liaison with the receiving business in Northern Ireland will be necessary in order to identify whether the items within the shipment are for consumption in Northern Ireland, direct export to the EU, inclusion in a further assembly that may or may not be exported, etc, or indeed potentially a mixture of the above since that is possible now. But, as I say, the sending business will create the information concerning the exact content of each shipment, which will depend on manufacturing and supply constraints and commercial factors. Those British businesses are key stakeholders in this process, because the more complex the process is, the more friction that is introduced at the Irish Sea, the less those businesses will be inclined to continue to trade with Northern Ireland. This introduction of friction at the Irish Sea, denied by the Prime Minister but confirmed by his then Brexit Secretary, is a direct consequence of the Withdrawal Agreement which the Prime Minister negotiated, albeit a consequence that he was clearly unaware of when he signed the Agreement. “We are where we are” this Government is fond of saying, and that of course is always true, and so we have a dog’s dinner of an Agreement that the Prime Minister, judging by his statements, did not want, and did not understand, but nevertheless signed, and now according to whatever we have that represents a plan (which I would be interested to seethe agenda is that this must be implemented.
Anyway, the key blind spot here is the apparent failure to include UK mainland exporting businesses in the consultation. Of course, the Northern Irish first-level recipients could be the surrogates for the mainland businesses in the consultation, and could receive the Government questions or proposals at whatever time something emerges, and could relay those to the exporting businesses, and could collate and send on the responses, and could await further interaction. But that is very obviously inefficient, and time is short. I have led a team dealing with 2000 UK business despatching goods to the UK and overseas, and I can tell you that if despatch information requirements are to change, then the despatching businesses will need to have that information in advance, and so should be included in the consultation. I would also encourage the inclusion of some business expertise within the Government process, because that I think would avoid such errors. Anyone with reasonable awareness of commercial despatching processes would realise the significance of the exporting businesses and would include them in the consultation. It may not be too late to include UK mainland exporting businesses in the consultation– will this be done? (Q5.)
the government is working at pace to ensure the requirements of the protocol are delivered in time for the end of the implementation period

The Government is working at pace? This struck me at the time as ambiguous language that promised nothing, because even a snail’s pace for example would be some sort of pace. I can see from the document that no progress has been declared on the main challenges, although some exceptions have been identified. However, I recognise current difficulties, and will return to this point below.
There is however also a fundamental misunderstanding here of the way that businesses operate. Let me try to explain. Information about despatched goods must be provided by computer systems of some sort, otherwise the administrative burden would be intolerable. After proposals and consultation and finalisation and agreement and publication of specification, those specifications must become requirements for altered IT systems used by high volume despatching organisations on the mainland. Different businesses handle different volumes of outbound goods; for some, typing data into an online form may be practicable, but for high-volume exporters a defined systems interface may be required. Fulfilling these requirements takes time. It is not therefore adequate to aim – as per the Government’s “Command” document to ensure the requirements of the protocol are delivered in time for the end of the implementation period.  This wording shows a fundamental misunderstanding of high-volume business to business commerce. These requirements must be available in good time before they need to be implemented. I would suggest six months as an absolute minimum timetable, but of course one result from consultation would be some idea of how much time exporting businesses would need. However, the prior consultation has not started yet, and I suspect from reading the “Command” document that in fact the Government is not ready to start the consultation, i.e. has not formulated the consultation papers, otherwise there would be more indication of that in the document.
Of course you can ignore business needs and impose law, “ready or not”, based on the Tory Parliamentary majority. But you will be well aware that if you force through in a rush some unimplementable or difficult requirements, then businesses on either side could decide to cut out the business across the Irish sea that is now blighted by the conditions of the Withdrawal Agreement. You would then have damaged both economies (and cross-Border trade)
And so, unless you can show me a plan to the contrary, I conclude that the December 2020 implementation date is now a busted “plan” – I say “plan” advisedly, but I think the reason that the plan has failed is that age-old reason, i.e. that there never was a plan. Despite my letter to you and other inquiries.  I certainly never saw a plan laying out timescales for preparation, consultation, publication, implementation by all parties, testing etc.; please let me know if there is one that can be communicated. (Q6.)
If work had started briskly in November 2019 when the Withdrawal Agreement had been signed then the timetable would have been very tight (and I think still impossible, but at least there was more time than now remains). Since very little progress has apparently been made in 6 months then the rate of progress is not encouraging, but in any case the timetable is now impossible as far as I can see from information available to me.
Incidentally I am well aware that this is one small aspect of what is required to be done to “Get Brexit Done” (in a business sense rather than in a political slogan sense – in business terms some business change is not “done” until at least the new arrangements are in operation). There are many others. But my initial letter was about the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, and I will stay within that scope.
“28.We will have sophisticated data on trade flows for goods entering Northern Ireland” (Command Paper].
Can I make a forecast? I suggest this will not happen in January 2021 . With some rapid system development within Government then you may have the systems that could provide that information, assuming that you have gone through appropriate procurement processes and that the relevant supplier is ready to start work. (Is that the case?). However the data content would depend on data provided by the exporting businesses, which as per the explanations above will not be ready in all cases.
(Or alternatively, the data content might provide 100% coverage for a much lower volume of trade, after business is discouraged).
CONCLUSION
While you might find the tone of this letter might somewhat sceptical (I would prefer the term “realistic”). I have no wish in fact to criticise the slow progress. Admittedly, this challenge should have been foreseen earlier in Government – I foresaw it and blogged to this effect in viedwdelta.blogspot.com . But it’s right to recognise now that Coronavirus has been - and indeed should be - the most important priority. If, for example, a second wave of infection is coming, then once again it will be an all-consuming focus, I am sure that all will agree that Government needs to have regard for the health and safety of its citizens.
And so, I am open to Government suggestions as to what would be a realistic timetable overall for Brexit Withdrawal . I would be grateful if you could let me know. (Q7.)
It would of course be absurd to proceed with a Brexit end-transition date just because it was set in very different circumstances., and so I look to the Government to urgently renegotiate the implementation date for the Brexit transition period. The UK needs this, as is clear from the above, and this is in the UK Government hands; it is clear that the EU would allow more time if required. I suggest an additional two years, but I would also encourage you to consult with Opposition leaders because it would be helpful for all Parties to be agreed on the likely timetable, so that whichever Government finally “completes” this work there will have been some involvement in this timetable setting . Please can you assure me that you have read this letter and will support an extension to the Transition Period? (Q8.)
(If you do not support this, that would imply that you believed it possible, which would imply that you can provide a plan of all necessary activities to the end of 2020, and in that case I would like to see this plan;  (Q9.) without this, any belief is just wishful thinking. )
This being a matter of public interest, where substantive action has been required and called for over the past few months, this letter may be shared publicly – I will, and you are welcome too as well. The same applies to any summaries that I prepare.

Yours Sincerely
Mike Cashman

For ease of reference, the following extracts are included:
Extracts from “Command Paper”
11.Following the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, the structures provided for by that Agreement have begun their work. The first meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee was held remotely on 30 March to launch the work of the Committee and the Specialised Committees, including the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee. The Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee held its inaugural meeting on 30 April. Further to this, we will establish the Joint Consultative Working Group which will act as an important forum for the exchange of information and mutual consultation. The UK Government will also set up a business engagement forum, which will meet regularly to allow Northern Ireland’s businesses to put forward proposals and provide feedback on how to maximise the free flow of trade. The Northern Ireland Executive will also be invited to the forum…………
26.This principle needs to be formalised with the EU within the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. There are various ways of making it work in practice. There are many cases where goods could automatically be classified as internal UK trade, particularly where a business could certify that it was selling its goods in Northern Ireland and not the EU, or where, for example, goods were perishable or it would be uneconomical to try to divert them in to the EU market through Northern Ireland.
27.In any case, to ensure that trade flows freely, the Government will make full use of the provisions in the Protocol giving us the powers to waive and/or reimburse tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, even where they are classified as ‘at risk’ of entering the EU market.
28.We will have sophisticated data on trade flows for goods entering Northern Ireland and will of course work with the Irish authorities to clamp down on any attempts to exploit these provisions for the purposes of smuggling and serious organised crime more broadly. We are committed to using the latest technology, risk and compliance techniques as part of this. The Government will also work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and businesses to develop these proposals. We will produce full guidance to business and third parties before the end of the transition period.

For information: from www.gov.ie today
This references the Withdrawal Agreement and tells us that much is yet to be decided.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
The Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement. It recognises the unique situation on the island of Ireland and provides important safeguards that the Good Friday Agreement will be protected in all its parts, including avoiding a hard border and protecting the all island economy. It also protects the integrity of the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union and Ireland’s place in them.
The Protocol also contains provisions on a number of other important areas, including provision for the maintenance of the Common Travel Area, that North South cooperation can continue and develop, and that the Single Electricity Market will be maintained on the island of Ireland. It also includes commitments to ensure no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in the Good Friday Agreement and confirms that the people of Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their rights as EU citizens.
The detail of a number of operational aspects of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland will be clarified during the transition period by the EU and the UK, working together, in the Joint Committee.
The Government of Ireland continues to place priority on the protection of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, maintenance of the Common Travel Area, Ireland’s place in the EU, and our relationship with the UK.
The Common Travel Area, the question of both fundamental rights and benefits derived from EU citizenship in respect of Northern Ireland, and the future of North South Cooperation are among the issues that will be of particular concern for many people living in Northern Ireland.

Mike Cashman
Viewdelta Press
www.viewdelta.com

From: STEWART, Iain <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Sent: 29 January 2020 11:27
To: mike.cashman@actalpha.com
Subject: Correspondence

Dear Mr Cashman,

Further to our previous correspondence, I have now received a response from the Department for Exiting the European Union.

I attach a copy for your reference.

Yours sincerely,

Iain

Iain Stewart MP
Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes South

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Tel: 01908 686830
UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

From: Mike Cashman
Sent: 20 December 2019 01:50
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: 'mike.cashman@viewdelta.com' <mike.cashman@viewdelta.com>
Subject: The need to consider seriously how to implement the proposed Northern Ireland protocol

Dear Iain Stewart
This is not a “template letter” and should not just receive a “template answer”. I am concerned that you may be about to waste tens of millions of pounds or more, and this letter deserves your attention. I will make the letter and your response public, since this is a matter of deep public concern..
Irrespective of political opinion, the practicality of solutions must be considered.
Before retirement one of my major roles was to help UK Governments – and others - out of significant problems with major programmes and projects
The potential Northern Ireland protocol is clearly a business and systems disaster waiting to happen. There’s an unclear requirement, a management imposed-deadline with no reference to feasibility, an uncertain regulatory environment with two supervisory bodies renegotiating their relationship, a large and diverse user base including government and businesses in various locations, and no defined business model. How businesses will react to the additional complications of commerce with Northern Ireland is difficult to predict. Commercial organisations will need to interact with new and probably changing Government requirements, and will of course need to assess whether trading across the Irish sea is still worthwhile in the light of the new requirements. I have made these points in a letter to “The Guardian” published there today, after last week posting similar concerns on your Facebook page.

If the arrangements proceed without proper consultation then business may be more badly affected.

The distinctions between carriage to NI, export via NI to the Republic, incorporation in sub-assembles that then are exported, etc will all need to be nailed down as new precise requirements. What if the sub-assembly is incorporated in a product re-imported to Northern Ireland – has this been considered?
The fact that the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary disagree is a dreadful harbinger of problems to come.
Since the new protocol was devised only in October then it is not possible for significant preparatory work (e.g. consultation and agreed requirements and business model) to have been prepared – and if this work had been thoroughly done then we would not see these disagreements

I have successfully managed cross-industry developments interfacing with thousands of customers, and managed their redevelopment over 3 years, in a commercial environment. This Northern Ireland protocol doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented successfully in 2020 or 2021. Based on experience of resolving project failures e.g. in government and also of successfully managing complex programmes like this myself I am probably better placed than most to see the risk inherent in the Government approach.

I posted a parody song with a serious message to YouTube on 9^th December,  “Bridge over Doubled Borders”, as part of a satirical songbook “Brexit’s a Musical Trick”. The serious message was to warn about the complexity of the Northern Ireland protocol. I had no inside knowledge at all, but within hours a leak from the Department for Exiting the European Union delivered a very similar message (with a wider scope). It didn’t say “a snowball’s chance in hell” unless you read between the lines.
It’s a good rule of thumb in project management that if the initial estimate is two years and management says it must be one year, then the resulting compressed one-year project plan turns out to be a disaster, with potentially tens of millions of pounds wasted, and the real necessary timescale turns out to be was what was initially proposed. The reason is that the compressed timescale means that attempts are made to undertake work in parallel that can not be done in parallel, e.g. developing systems before a clear business model has been agreed. Money is wasted.

The Boris Johnson “Deal” has zero chance of successful implementation in 2020 or 2021

In these circumstances it is reckless folly to curtail the possibility of extension.
It appears to me that recent Tory Governments also confuse decision date with implementation date. Whatever arrangements will apply from, say 1 Jan 2021, must be clearly known long before this if business is to be ready.
Of course if it is just a case of ‘Any Deal will do’ to fool the electorate, as a segway to a 2020 No Deal that rich backers and Russians want, then the practicality wouldn’t matter to the Government, and their cavalier carelessness can be understood. But in that case we are being played for fools by Boris Johnson
If in fact significant progress has been made that I and the Prime Minister are unaware of, then I would be very ready to have sight of the business model, requirements, contracting strategy, consultation arrangements and overall programme plans for completing this complex work in good time in 2020. But if as I suspect Government does not have such professional preparations made, then please acknowledge the validity of my concerns, act to avoid wasting tens of millions of public money, and vote against any move to prevent extension of the transition period..
With my concerned regards
Mike Cashman
Author, “Brexit’s a Trick not a Treat”, “Brexit’s a Musical Trick”

Mike Cashman
www.viewdelta.com

Find our book and songs with these hashtags (Amazon, Facebook, YouTube)
#BrexitsATrickNotATreat   - and at - https://viewdelta.com/brexits-a-trick-not-a-treat/
#BrexitsAMusicalTrick – and at - https://viewdelta.com/brexits-a-musical-trick/