,
13 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
An oldie, but perhaps worth rehearsing the arguments once more:
1/
1/
The issue with the Irish border is that there is simultaneously a need for a border (because the UK wants to leave the customs union and single market) and nowhere to put it (see graphic)
2/
2/
What I didn't touch on then was what might be the way through this.
3/
3/
In essence, there are two basic ways to resolve the matter
- someone changes want they want
or
- the meaning of one of the conditions is recast
4/
- someone changes want they want
or
- the meaning of one of the conditions is recast
4/
that's a bit more than semantics: the former is about a clear shift in policy, while the latter is more about precising what current policy actually means
5/
5/
Changing policy is the more obvious route, plus it allows a bit more ambiguity about content, while precising exactly isn't ambiguous, with the upside that you can claim you've not given way
6/
6/
Possibilities on changing policy would include: UK signing up for customs union and/or single market post-withdrawal; either side abandoning principle of territorial integrity; joint abandonment of GFA.
Big things then, none simple
7/
Big things then, none simple
7/
Precising is more what's happened, with unpacking of what a 'hard border' involves in specific terms and a mixed economy of rules around the backstop
8/
8/
However, the principle extends to the search for technical solutions that render border checks invisible (on the basis that if you don't see it, it isn't the same as a physical barrier)
9/
9/
The problem with the precising strategy is that it's necessarily less flexible and encompassing, so you'd expect it would encounter issues in operationalisation, as gaps are found and exploited
10/
10/
The one big advance so far has been to introduce a temporal element, by creating space with the transition to negotiate a long-term solution, plus a backstop to cover any gap
11/
11/
This is precising once again, but with the big issue that one party (the UK) doesn't think it is a real segmentation of time, but some kind of ploy by the EU
And this is why precising is less stable: there's less scope for constructive ambiguity
12/
And this is why precising is less stable: there's less scope for constructive ambiguity
12/
In sum, there's been some progress on this, but not a lasting solution
/end
/end
