Hearing that the legal link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Future Agreement(s) has re-surfaced as a negotiating issue. The EU wants to be able to cross-retaliate not only across the whole future relationship, but also between the agreements. The UK doesn't like the idea

The issue isn't new at all. If we go back to March, the EU's initial text asked the UK to commit to ongoing compliance with the WA as one of the "essential elements" of the future agmt. The EU also wanted to link any breaches of essential elements to "interim remedies", (2/n)

meaning that if there were a breach, either side would be able to take temporary retaliatory measures on a unilateral basis. The UK didn't think that such interim measures were either necessary or desirable. But the issue appears to be back on the table again. Why? (3/n)

Perhaps because of IM Bill, Taxation Bill, and any future unilateral tinkering with NI Protocol. This would give the EU an ability to argue, on the grounds of Future Agmt. that an "essential element" (ie the WA) has been violated, and to retaliate with respect to the future (4/n)

The key difference from Article 178 of WA -- a provision which already allows cross-retaliation between the WA and the Future Agmts -- is that A178 can be used only after the arbitration panel has ruled about the breach. Which can take time. (5/n)

By contrast, the sort of "interim remedies" -- which the EU now argues should be part of the future agmt -- would allow the EU to act unilaterally -- and in a specific and limited way. It's a quicker way of retaliating if there were a breach of the NI Protocol (again). (6/n)