It is not new that the UK Government reject a Northern Ireland-only backstop, or that the interpretations of the UK and EU / Ireland differ on what was agreed in December (let's not analyse the text again, they diagree). 1/ theguardian.com/world/2018/jul…
Question 1: Is it really the UK Government's position (informally at least) that the backstop should be UK wide essentially in such a way that the UK remains tied to all EU structures and commitments (money, people) at least until there's a future agreement which may be never? 2/
If endless transition is the unstated UK policy then it doesn't matter that the content of the White Paper was often incoherent, it was never intended to be used except as a fig leaf. Parliamentary debates are then just an elaborate game 3/
Question 2: Is the EU really going to reject an arrangement that prevents an Irish border, retains freedom of movement, and retains UK contribution to the budget? If the alternative is no deal as the UK has ruled out every alternative? 4/
All the EU has to do is talk plausibly about theoretical customs arrangements and common rulebooks which they know will never be implemented to provide cover for the UK's plan. 5/
Question 3: Is a UK wide backstop plan really plausible? Unless she's a fabulous actress the PM believes in the White Paper, but I doubt officials do, and MPs and the EU disregard it. Could she get enough votes for this 'no change Brexit'? 6/ ends
