is international recognised credibility. and i don t need to make an allusion to the present geostrategic context to say how important it is that the law is respected, that commitments are respected. well. and that should be our starting point. hang on. that allusion of yours to what s happening in russia, ukraine would be relevant if you viewed boris johnson with the same sort of suspicion that the european union and, indeed, the british government view vladimir putin. if that s the nature of the suspicious, hostile relationship that you re dealing with. i didn t say that. ..fine. i didn t say that. well, in that case, that allusion, frankly, doesn t take us very far. no, it takes us very far, because in a moment like this, it is particularly important that all of us who respect the rule of law, who stand by values and principles of the international order, are coherent with our own ideas and act in that way. that s why. .. but to suggest that the british government is flagrantly viol
european council would hear the opinion and consider the opinion of the commission. i think all the indications point to a positive direction. but who am i to say what our leaders will decide? but i think what s already been done, if you take the position of the european commission, if you take the position of a number of leaders in europe and what you expect to happen in the european council, i think very much goes in the direction saying, ukrainians, you are part of our family. ukrainians, we want you to be a candidate and we want you, of course, to perform all the reforms necessary to be able to one day be a member of the european union. and we ll see exactly what the leaders say in just a few days. but on the strategic point i m trying to make, emmanuel macron of france basically said europe needs to develop a much greater, coherent security strategy and capacity of its own. strategic autonomy, he calls it. isn t the truth of what we ve seen unfold in this crisis, that it is
well, hang on, let me stop you there because you said some important things and, if i may say so, the most fundamental point of all is your contention that the northern ireland protocol does notjeopardise the good friday agreement. but the good friday agreement, fundamentally, is about cooperation between the two different views within northern ireland of its future that is the unionist view and the nationalist, republican view. the good friday agreement only works if both sides are brought on board, and right now, your protocol is rejected by the unionists. it s not. there is no unionist politician in northern ireland who accepts the protocol. it s not our protocol. it s the protocol agreed between the uk and the european union, for which there is no, as far as i understand, no formal and comprehensive alternative. the question here is to implement what we have agreed in the most flexible way possible, and that s what we re trying to do. but there comes a point where it s just not w
on northern ireland and a number of other issues, and the trade and cooperation agreement, which looks at the future. let s implement that in a goodwill spirit. oh, my goodness, that does sound so nice and your tone is so emollient. but the truth is, this is not working out at all. i m just describing our attitude. well. . .yes, but let s explore whether that really is your attitude or whether that s just the public face for diplomatic purposes. because in the end, it really, at the moment, comes down to northern ireland. now, the uk government is quite clear they signed an agreement which included a northern ireland protocol, and the idea of that was to ensure that trade could continue to work across the irish sea, that is from the landmass of great britain into northern ireland. at the same time, northern ireland would have the status of being in the eu single market and there would be special measures to ensure the integrity
really matters in terms of safeguarding european security? because on all sorts of things, from sanctions to weapons supplies, within europe itself, there are actually deep divisions. you know something, steve? if president putin s goal was to divide the west. ..if it was to weaken nato, if it was to divide the european union, if it was to divide the eu from the uk, it totally failed. what you have today is nato being most likely enlarged and certainly strengthened. you know, you will have. if sweden and finland confirm, if nato confirms their membership, you will have in 27 member states of the european union, 23 will be members of nato. so there s an almost total overlapping between the two. that s my point nato calls the shots here, not the european union. let me say about what president putin achieved. reinforcement of nato, strengthening of the transatlantic alliance,