Thread by @nickgutteridge

1/ I've done this before but on a day like today it's worth remembering the striking difference in the way the EU and UK see the backstop. From the Brussels furnace, based on convos with officials/diplomats, the EU perspective (not advocating either way just reporting as ever).

2/ EU negotiators acknowledge the Withdrawal Agreement is 'toxic' and are aware why, even if they don't understand the British reasoning. They see the backstop as a rare UK triumph, securing tariff and quota free access to the Single Market with few of the usual strings attached.

3/ Member States have always been a bit uncomfortable with the Ts & Cs of the UK-wide backstop because it doesn't contain some stuff they'd want in return for such market access - things like fishing rights, dynamic alignment on environmental and social/employment standards etc.

4/ It also separates access to the Single Market for goods from services, which some EU countries with service-based economies find a bit disconcerting. They fear that under the backstop the UK, which is 80% service-based after all, could exploit that for competitive advantage.

5/ The UK-wide backstop also sets a precedent ahead of future trade talks by giving Britain that quite significant quota and tariff free access to the EU market before negotiations have even begun. As one official put it they see it as 'a kind of gift from the EU' in that regard.

6/ The EU official sums it up: 'The Brits managed to have in a Withdrawal Agreement a quasi Customs Union. No tariffs, no quantitative restrictions and no other impediments with respect to quotas. Something the EU has never given to any other country in the world except Norway.'

7/ 'The common perception in the UK is the Withdrawal Agreement of Mrs May is toxic. The reality is that given the red lines of the Government this is not badly negotiated and it’s fairly close to Chequers, that’s the truth of it.' Chequers minus, to coin an @adamfleming phrase.

8/ Remember that Chequers, whilst loathed in the UK for keeping us too close to the EU, was loathed in Brussels and Member States in equal measure for trying to replicate many of the economic benefits of Customs Union and Single Market membership without all the obligations.

9/ A diplomatic source says of the backstop: 'Since the whole thing became so toxic nobody really managed to explain what the UK negotiators secured, something for which you have to fight for years in any ordinary trade agreement and that comes with a lot of conditions attached.'

10/ A problem with the EU's reasoning from a UK perspective, of course, is it's based on the premise of 'why wouldn't you want a Customs Union?' It also doesn't address the DUP's opposition to regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland only and resulting checks in the Irish Sea.

11/ So, what happens if PM Johnson ditches the backstop and asks for a GATT 24 standstill agreement? From the EU perspective you quickly enter 'very complicated negotiations which have the purpose to basically cover exactly the same benefits the Brits already obtained in the WA.'

12/ These take place on the basis of Article 218, not 50, meaning Member State ratification is required. The French, Belgians and others will demand fishing rights. Ditto a LPF on social/environmental/labour rights. Greece and Italy will want Geographical Indication protection.

13/ 'You will see all kinds of preconditions that we haven’t seen before.' The upshot, says an EU official, is the UK will end up having to negotiate 'all the prerequisites' built into the backstop in terms of market access but only on 'a worse basis' and with more risk involved.

14/ 'With the UK-wide backstop they obtained tariff and quota free access to the EU market. If we start from scratch because there’s No Deal are we seriously going to give them the same thing right away? It will be a nightmare and in the meantime we'll have the disruption.'

15/ As for PM Johnson's GATT 24 idea, it's 'unthinkable'. Why? 'It would give an unprecedented opening to the Single Market without any safeguards. They're out of the ecosystem, legislation checks, safety standards. It would amount to full access to the SM without any strings.'

16/ So all of this is why the EU side can't understand the UK obsession with ditching the backstop. One diplomat argues 'Europe needs to make the case that what we offered is not such a bad deal'. Truth is that horse has long since bolted and started a new life on the moors. ENDS