Unionists will not be able to get the best of both EU/UK worlds

That bill, which seeks to overhaul the Irish Sea border, is progressing through parliament and most unionists see it as one of the few pieces of legislation since the 1998 Belfast Agreement in which a UK government has flatly ignored Irish demands as to how NI should be treated legally.

Yet Mr Poots, wrote to George Eustice that it was "unacceptable" that NI farmers would be forced to accept the same agricultural subsidy regime as the rest of the UK under the bill.

This is an extraordinary revelation, yet there has been little unionist criticism of Mr Poots. He is unapologetic for his intervention, saying he still opposes the protocol but wants the right fix for farmers.

Unfortunately though, his letter was the latest mixed message from unionists over the protocol. It will have pleased Brussels.

There is still widespread confusion about the so-called 'best of both worlds' that many unionists think might be on offer. It isn't.

There are two options: we are either fundamentally in the EU single market or fundamentally in the UK internal market. We have ended up in the former at the expense of the latter.

But few unionists grasp the full consequences of this because few people deal with trade, and thus much of the impact is disguised.

It is painful to accept but a proper overhaul of the protocol will mean NI losing out on aspects of unfettered EU trade. However, this will be compensated for in the form of a return to unfettered internal UK trade.

The protocol is before the UK Supreme Court this week in case that has full unionist support. Full support for the NI Protocol Bill should mean acceptance of all of its implications.