You can skip to page 12 of the document by the way - there's nothing of any pertinence before then scribd.com/document/38842…
Ah there we are, only ever a matter of time. Trusted traders. Question is: How do you know who is a trusted trader? For that you need to do checks, whether electronically or in person. And that means.... wait for it... a border. 
This is the Border 2.0 repot which this is based on constantly mentions 'gates' and 'systems'. In other words: a border.
As Paul Mac Flynn, senior economist at the Nevin Economic Research Institute, said: "If [gates] are not a border fortification, I do not know what is."
A reminder. The backstop Britain signed up to guarantees complete invisibilit: no posts, no infrastructure, no guards, no CCTV.
This is genunely the section on regulatory compliance. Basically: Chill man, there's smuggling all the time. We'll let you know if we see anything fishy.
Borders are so unhip. They're so old fashioned. Oh yeah, we know we had that whole freak-out about borders a couple years back and have now set fire to ourselves, but you guys should just chill and not worry about it.
Telling that even in a document which is ostensibly supposed to address EU concerns about Ireland, ERG can't help but sneak in some impotent and legally illiterate threats.
This paper and indeed most Brexit rhetoric is based on double-think on regulation. Firstly: We're keeping regulation the same so no need for checks. Secondly: We're going round the world signing trade deals which require changes to regulation.
One of those things is true, but they can't both be true. UK right now is an extremely volatile country, with a deeply divided and weirdly emotional political class.
It's absurd for the EU to assume everything will be fine in future no matter what we do. Shit, even I don't fucking think that, and I live here.
More threats, which make no sense and completely betray the idea that this is an attempt to see things from the EU's perspective. Every time ERG guys mention the WTO, they lie. It's like muscle memory.
The bit of the SPS they quote shows why it is ineffective as a threat. The demand is contingent on the exporter having an "appropriate level of... protection" and that is determined by the importing country.
And um... that's it? That's the whole paper. I'm not going to do a full piece on it, there's nothing new there at all that wasn't in the much better Border 2.0 report.
This, from March this year, addresses all the max-fac 'we'll make your borders no more' arguments and shows why they are bullshit. They've provided nothing today to add to it. politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03/…
