The UK Prime Minister has embarked on an interesting and risky course. In the 7^th month of the 11 month transition period following Brexit, he has announced plans for a Bill which would allow the UK to unilaterally alter terms agreed bilaterally with the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.

That agreement falls under International Law – at least that is what we are told. However, there isn’t really any such thing as International Law since there isn’t an umbrella body capable of enforcing it. The Security Council of the United Nations comes close, but as we know, one veto there is enough to block any sanctions. International Law is more widely-agreed conventions on how countries should take agreements made between them seriously.

What Mr Johnson is proposing isn’t so much a criminal act the UK could be prosecuted for, but a partial reneging on certain terms contained in a legal agreement. For a country that generated the term ‘my word is my bond’, in use for over 500 years and the motto of the London Stock Exchange since 1801, it is a remarkable turn of events.

Aside from the possible consequences of changing some of the terms retrospectively, it seems obvious that the UK government wants to send a clear message to both the EU and home audience that Britain is going to be doing things their own way and not be bound any more by agreements with or expectations from the EU.

Experts are divided on the benefits of the powers envisaged under this Bill. Interfering with the agreed customs status of Northern Ireland, which could see a hard border as yet established with the Republic of Ireland, is not going to go down well in Dublin, and in the border areas. The Good Friday agreement signed on 10 April 1998 and which brought to an end decades of terror centred on Northern Ireland, effectively created an open border between Ulster and the Republic. Mr Johnson is planning to have legislation available to change that.

While I understand his desire to thumb his nose at the EU, and be seen to be doing so, I find it incredible that he wants to risk rekindling the conflict known to many simply as The Troubles. That thought alone sends a shiver down my spine.

My position as a British ex-pat in the Netherlands is also suddenly brought back into focus. Reciprocal arrangements to allow each other’s citizens to remain after Brexit could be called into doubt. The Netherlands is not especially known for reneging on agreements any more than any country, but I do not want to become collateral damage in a campaign of recriminations should Dutch citizens wishing to stay in the UK start encountering problems. The Withdrawal Agreement contained the agreed intention to allow those already settled in other EU countries to continue to do so, subject to the individual country’s provisions for making that possible.

The Netherlands announced early on that people like me would be allowed to remain on the same footing as before; I would only lose the right to settle elsewhere in the EU, something which the Netherlands has no power over.

I really do not care very much about the UK shooting itself in the foot over the trade deal; I’m tempted to say that that is their funeral! I also have no real reason to travel to the UK any more since I no longer have any close family there. The Netherlands may lose a significant trading partner, but still retains 26 countries as trading partners within the EU. I would suggest that the economic damage suffered by the lack of a trade deal between the UK and the EU will be felt more in the UK than here.

I am suddenly reminded of school playgrounds back in junior school days. Groups of kids would form ‘gangs’ (not in the violent sense of the word) and the ultimate sanction was being excluded from such a gang. It could have been argued that there were far more pupils to mix with outside of the gang, but being excluded hardly ever brought more benefits than disadvantages.

Brits love exclusive clubs. The problem all through the history of Britain’s membership of the EU is that it wasn’t their club. That was essentially the sticking point. Instead of focussing on the economic benefits of membership, it was the perceived omnipotence of ‘Brussels’ that stuck in people’s minds.

Of course certain rules have disadvantaged the UK, such as the restrictions on state bale outs to the steel industry for example, but very many entrepreneurs and industries have benefitted enormously from the level playing field for trading with Britain’s closest neighbours.

Now the UK is not only enacting the choice of the narrow majority who voted Leave, by threatening to retroactively adjust the terms of the withdrawal agreement, they are showing a middle finger as they walk out of the door. I was brought up to regard such behaviour as being somewhat immature.