Read on Twitter
I do not think that the UK ever ventured any credible plans. All those put forward by the Tories were based on misreadings of how the system worked and none of them could be delivered in a realistic timeframe. This is why May and the EU agreed to park the issue... (thread below) https://twitter.com/ihatenimbys/status/1356876809523113985
We had the likes of Paterson and Malthouse pushing their own unicorn solutions based on "trusted trader" schemes, not understanding the nature of third country controls or the immaturity of the technology they proposed. They imagined "trusted trader" schemes as a panacea.
This obviously wasn't going to fly, leaving the backstop as the only workable solution that could allow A50 talks to progress. Both sides recognised it was politically suboptimal which is why it was converted into a backstop in the event that subsequent trade talks failed.
The backstop would only be activated in those conditions, and May later secured additional agreement to phase it out if ever it were activated as a deal sweetener. The intention was always to replace it in trade talks.
This was grossly misrepresented by the DUP and the ERG, the latter knowing that any subsequent deal replacing the backstop would involve adoption of EU rules with ECJ oversight if not jurisdiction. They were the ones who wanted the backstop to become the frontstop.
The reason for this being that they thought NI was expendable - or rather they place the priority on regulatory divergence even if that meant leaving NI out of the picture. They never cared about NI at all and strung the DUP morons along for the ride.
So bent on their idea of regulatory sovereignty they refused to back May and ousted her in favour of Johnson who would do their bidding. Thus, this protocol is entirely Johnson's responsibility. It didn't have to be this way.
The EU, though, played it badly by invoking the GFA, rubbishing technological solutions, asserting that even ANPR cameras etc would be attacked - thereby setting the appeasement precedent. We're now seeing the consequences of that.
But nowhere was there an informed debate about what was possible. Under UCC, EU had already committed to universal paperless declarations, and Single Window, which would have eliminated most customs friction. That was then only a matter of agreeing an implementation timetable.
The Tories didn't propose it because they didn't know about it and I doubt the EU side had fully comprehended their own works in progress. Both sides were working to an obsolete understanding of the system, thus we failed to exploit an opportunity to bring Single Window forward.
That then left the regulatory controls, which would still have required its own protocol, but there is no reason why any of that had to happen at the border. The EU, though, maintained the appeasement principle.
Short of joining EEA Efta there is now no easy solution - and EEA Efta is simply not going to happen now. It's going to require a rethink of the protocol, perhaps involving a common SPS area unless the TCA can be beaten into shape.
There it's difficult to see a way forward because even the most refined TCA does not get around EU third country official controls so it may end up with NI being unresolved and largely unmentioned. It is then for the EU to resolve through its own constructs.
What's needed is some more ambitious thinking, along the lines of what has occurred with automotive regulation, moving to a Regulation 0 approach, forming up on Codex standards and UNECE processes. But for that, trade luvvies would have to acknowledge it exists. Which they won't.
