Thread by @nick_gutteridge

1/ EU countries are ready to help May drag out the Brexit talks until March 21, when they will try to stitch together a last minute compromise on the backstop at a summit here in Brussels. Here's some of the latest thinking on how that might all pan out 👇
thesun.co.uk/news/8414467/e…

2/ Diplomats and officials now predict little movement at all before the end of February. They privately describe the reopening of negotiations between Barnier and Barclay as ‘smoke and mirrors’ designed to buy the PM time. There will then be a 'frantic' period starting in March.

3/ EU capitals are looking at two things they can do. Firstly, those legally binding tweaks to the Withdrawal Agreement demanded by MPs. An avenue of exploration is adding wording to Article 20 of the Protocol on Ireland, known as the review clause.

4/ As you can see, Article 20 isn’t very long and doesn’t really contain any detail. Suggestions for ‘beefing it up’ include adding a stipulation the usefulness of the backstop is reexamined at set periods after it’s been triggered - e.g. every six months.

5/ EU is also considering what words it can add to acknowledge the possible emergence of technological alternatives to the backstop. But it remains deeply sceptical nonetheless. As one official put it they can’t rely on ‘miraculous solutions’ popping up in the next few years.

6/ Such additions would be a ‘keyhole operation’ on the Withdrawal Agreement and could be added under whatever banner you like - protocol, codicil etc etc - their legal significance would be the same as part of the overall document.

7/ Remember a lot of this stuff is already basically in the Tusk-Juncker letter of reassurance from last month. The one that Selmayr strongly hinted to MPs the EU is considering writing into the Withdrawal Agreement.

8/ But none of this represents either a time limit on or unilateral exit clause from the backstop. Instead, they would be designed to provide greater legal assurance the EU has no intention of using it for long, and would have to work really hard to ever justify doing so.

9/ A diplomat says: ‘We really wouldn't accept a backstop which in essence or practice would be time-limited.’ An official adds: ‘The problem is on the substance. We disagree on the content. The EU can't give what the UK is requesting in terms of a limit.’

10/ Your regular reminder here that the EU hates the backstop and never wants to use it. Member States fear it would actually be good for the UK and especially NI, give both a huge competitive advantage in services. They’re surprised Brits can’t see this.

11/ The second prong of this strategy is to try and give the legal status of the Political Declaration a bit more oomph. Brussels is already deeply put out that it is dismissed as a meaningless document in the UK - a perception officials consider to be ‘very unfair’.

12/ A large part of the EU’s strategy to get the backstop over the line revolves around their conviction that what the UK really cares about is future trading relations. So it wants to dispel the fear it’s a trap in that regard (something Robbins’ remarks will hardly help with).

13/ With that in mind, it sees the way forward as making the document more specific. Replacing ‘coulds’ with ‘wills’ as Verhofstadt put it earlier. An official says: ‘It’s the most solemn political commitment you can get from us. We’re not going to back down from it.’

14/ Other ideas floating around are turning the Political Declaration into a legal instrument or even lodging it with the UN. But the official warns while they’ll do what they can it can ‘never have the value of a treaty’ because it deals with stuff after the UK has left.

15/ So that’s where we’re at. Will this be enough to win over MPs? Brussels has learnt to be sceptical about that by nature. But it is, as a diplomat puts it, realistically the best it can do. ‘That's the package you could agree to. I can’t see leaders going beyond that.’ ENDS