Writing in today’s Telegraph, David Frost asserts that “We could endlessly go over the circumstances that produced the Protocol in 2019, as many seem to want – preferring that to dealing with today’s problems. We knew the deal was far from perfect. We never wanted the arrangements that limited trade into Northern Ireland. But our Protocol got rid of the hated “backstop” that would have left us stuck in the EU customs union and unable to run a trade or economic policy of our own”.

He continues “Moreover, we had no walk away option, thanks to Messrs Benn and Burt, and their Surrender Act in Parliament, which made “no deal” impossible. If we had not signed up in October 2019, we would have faced endless further prevarication, the unravelling of the Brexit vote, and the complete disintegration of our constitutional process and confidence in our Westminster system. That’s why we did the deal. It was the right thing to do. If we hadn’t, I think we would still be in the EU now”.

This is something of a rewriting of history. That “hated backstop” was, as its name implies, a backstop, only to be activated in the event that post Article 50 trade talks failed. Had the deal been signed, there was all the time in the world to negotiate a replacement instrument within the transition period. But there were other games in play.

The ERG used objections to the backstop as a device with which to oust May and install Johnson as their man. Everything that followed was political theatre. Johnson claimed he was the man who could re-open talks and get rid of the backstop, but did so by reverting to a previous version of May’s deal, in which the backstop became the front stop. Johnson and Frost are responsible for the protocol as it exists now. They negotiated it, they recommended it – as did the Vote Leave clan.

It was clear at the time that the Tories had no intention of implementing it and to date the issue is unresolved. They now argue that the Protocol does not enjoy the necessary consent. Frost asserts that unionists and Unionist parties have withdrawn consent for the Protocol arrangements, and Northern Ireland can’t be governed properly until this situation changes. That much is probably true – but because that’s the result they’ve engineered.

In fairness to the EU, it has demonstrated a willingness to stretch its own rules to breaking point, but it’s politically useful for the Tories to maintain the dispute as a wedge issue; to maintain the pretence that this is still a Brexit government. Every now and then the Tories hint they will scrap the Protocol in the same way they keep saying they’ll stop the dinghy invasion. There is no basis on which to trust this government.

Frost asserts “The Government has no option now other than to act unilaterally to disapply part or all of the Protocol. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, which the Protocol is supposed to protect, is on life support. There is an imminent threat to our ability to govern Northern Ireland and protect its people’s economic, trading and security interests. It is obviously essential for the UK Government to be able to govern the whole country properly. That is why it needs to act – and has the absolute right and duty to do so”.

When it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter how technically elegant a solution may be, if it does not enjoy democratic consent then it has to go. This is where the EU appears disingenuous. It will says it not countenance any measures that would exacerbate tensions but it doesn’t seem to care so long as its regulatory territory is not compromised. You could be forgiven for thinking that the EU’s position isn’t really about the “peace process”.

If, though, the Tories end up pressing the nuclear button, it will likely collapse the TCA and all further trade cooperation with the EU, putting us back to square one. The question of what relationship should replace EU membership remains unanswered. Thus we cannot say by any measure that Brexit is “done”. We have yet to find a new normal in our relations with the EU, and bilateral trade will continue to suffer. The Tories have made a royal mess of Brexit.

There was a way to avoid this mess but none of the players chose to take it. Had we remained in the EEA (and gradually rolled it back) there would have been no need for any protocols or backstops but remainers (hand in hand with Brexit hard liners) forcefully campaigned against this option, and when given the option to vote on Brexit outcomes, parliament slapped away the hand of compromise. They voted 377 against the Efta based option. When both sides had resolved against any kind of compromise, all they were left with was variations on what exists now. They all “own it”.

Since all parties have now ruled out every option there’s nothing any normal person can do but watch from the side-lines and despair. It’s up to the people who got us into this mess to get us out of it. Chances are, they won’t. They’ll make it worse. It will not be resolved without a decisive change of approach – which won’t happen under this government or its immediate successor. The most we can hope for is for the current dysfunctional relationship to limp along in the background. Putting the Protocol out of its misery might well be a welcome development, but it’s hard to see that being the end of the matter.

Ultimately it is for EU wonks to go back to the drawing board. The UK is acting to preserve the integrity of its own internal market over and above that of the EU – as any sovereign country should do. That is a reality the EU must come to terms with and modify its own approach. The inherent conflict here is that the EU offers nothing in between a threadbare FTA or full alignment thus any “relationship” is an ultimatum. By definition that is not a “partnership”.

Being that the point of dispute is the role of the ECJ, one way forward would be to collapse the Protocol into the TCA using the TCA’s internal systems for dispute resolution, but with a view to building an “EEA lite” covering only the sectors where there is significant material impact. That, after all, is the only logical direction of travel for the TCA. The EU can be steadfast in its approach to minnows like Switzerland and Norway, but it can’t play those games with a powerhouse. The EU must decide if it exists to advance the interests of Europe or whether it serves only the existential foibles of the EU corporate entity.

We should, however, not get carried away with the idea that the Tories are sincere about fixing their Brexit mess. By every other measure they've abandoned Brexit. In policy terms, Not Zero puts us in lockstep with the EU regulatory agenda, economic policy is still in the hands of remainer technocrats and we’re going backwards in terms of controlling our borders. The NI issue serves as a Tory decoy to distract Brexiteers from the fact that nothing whatsoever is being done to capitalise on our departure from the EU.

And there’s a reason for that. The Tories don’t have the first idea what to do with Brexit. they have neither the talent or the imagination and, more crucially, have nothing close to an accurate diagnosis as to what ails Britain. Torygraph columnists bleat about the need for deregulation but have no idea what or where to deregulate. In its approach to EU trade, the Tories are succeeding in piling on the red tape.

The obvious starting points being agriculture, energy and digital policy require a total departure from the EU acquis, forging our own strategy for national independence, but when it comes to ideas, the Tory cupboard is bare. Boris Johnson tells us we have a skills gap requiring yet more immigration from India – which tells us that the mentality has not changed since Brexit. Instead of addressing skills and training, they still see the mass import of people as the answer. Almost as though Brexit never happened. They learned nothing.

Nothing about the NI Protocol discourse has changed since 2019, but it’s always useful to drag it back to the fore when Tory popularity is flagging because they want us to forget that this government doesn’t really believe in Brexit – and it never did.