So, the Attorney General's full legal advice seems to have a number of implications for the UK. With my "I am not a lawyer hat" at a jaunty angle, here goes...
1) The backstop will include a defacto border in the Irish sea (see marked section).
gov.uk/government/pub…
1) The backstop will include a defacto border in the Irish sea (see marked section).
gov.uk/government/pub…
Goods from GB will require additional checks as they cross into the EU. This will lead to queues at ports and other concerns applicable to a no deal scenario. In other words, Just-In-Time may survive during transition, but highly likely backstop will kill it. *Firms will leave*
The mechanism of the customs arrangement and the movement of goods between the UK and the EU is described as "single, coherent". This is *not* the same as frictionless. In other words, there will be new red tape, but it will be the same red tape UK-wide.
Then we get the wishy-washy, mealy mouthed bit. Both parties should negotiate an agreement to replace the backstop using "best endeavours" and "subject to the duty of good faith". Neither expression means much, and they're certainly not sufficient to force the EU to do anything.
Smoking gun time (as much as there is one, anyway): the backstop is indefinite despite all the pretty language about the intent of the parties to the agreement that it shouldn't be, because (paraphrased) intent counts for almost nothing in law (ie another wishy-washy bit).
Next a long section about how although backstop's indefinite one would *expect* EU to be keen to get rid of it because it's bad for the EU. (Which is not the same as saying that it WOULD get rid of it). Ends by saying the UK has to *trust* negotiations will conclude positively.
Smoking gun #2: the backstop can only be exited by mutual agreement of both parties (this section was very clear on that)
Absent unicorns (magical thinking technical solution that doesn't exist) the only way to exit the backstop is to conclude an agreement that's so good, it negates entirely the need for a backstop.
This bit is intriguing, since it explains that the arbitration panel (meant to rule whether backstop can be exited) won't in practice rule against either the UK or EU's express wishes. So each party is reliant on the good will of the other. We also can't walk away from the WA.
Next, the "Hotel California" aspect of the backstop, i.e. that we can never leave it unless the EU allows us to. If the UK tries to claim the EU is acting in bad faith, the EU only has to consider & reject any new UK proposal to send both sides back to square one. Infinite loop.
Summary of the summary (original in BOLD because it's *important*): the UK can't exit the backstop by any means other than successfully negotiating a new agreement, which could take any amount of time (shrugs)
But the bad news doesn't stop there, oh no...
The real head-scratcher is what happens if the transition period doesn't give both sides long enough to sort out all the systems and processes that wil be required to implement the backstop? Answer: WE LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA.
The real head-scratcher is what happens if the transition period doesn't give both sides long enough to sort out all the systems and processes that wil be required to implement the backstop? Answer: WE LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA.
Final note: it's a short document so I urge you to read the whole thing, not just my selected snippets. I may have got stuff wrong. I may have been overly pessimistic. But the above were all the things that leapt out of the document. Happy reading!
