At this point the main UK-EU dynamic is who can pin the blame on the other for no deal. Proposals are just part of that game.
Both sides have ramped up the political cost of anything less than 100% of what they want, to the point that no deal is preferable to a concession. 1/
On the EU side they have been clear that the backstop has to remain as is. It would be a massive loss of faith and extremely politically damaging to concede that now. On the UK side anything other than removal of the backstop, if not whole passages of the WA = no deal 2/
The space for compromise is essentially what it has always been: one side gets what they want in practice but concedes in theory, the other says they got what they wanted but concedes in practice.
The previous negotiations have essentially been the UK conceding in practice. 3/
If we were to find a workable compromise it would have to enable the EU to say "we didn't concede on the backstop" while committing to a binding interpretation of the WA to the effect that max fac is what we're headed for (even though these have huge problems). 4/
But the criteria now for a deal on the UK side is that it must allow them to say "we didn't vote for the backstop." Even if you had a deal that in practice would not lead to locking UK or NI in a CU, it wouldn't pass. The EU would have to concede 100% and be seen to do so 5/
I can't see how you can build an agreement that allows both sides to say they stuck to their commitments without massive loss of faith with their core political support.
It has become zero-sum - one side must concede and publicly for a deal. 6/
Faced with a zero-sum concession, either remove the backstop or no deal on the EU side, vs either accept the backstop or no deal on the UK side, both sides will prefer no deal. Ends/
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.