,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
PM in Corbyn letter wrote Political Declaration delivers on “benefits of a customs union” incl no rules of origin checks.
But this part P23 refers specifically only to “single customs territory” -the backstop.
Backstop being “replaced” (Brady) at same time as banked for future.
But this part P23 refers specifically only to “single customs territory” -the backstop.
Backstop being “replaced” (Brady) at same time as banked for future.
... but that has not been negotiated yet - ie the very crucial issue of the application of rules of origin settled only for backstop.
The PM can not claim to have settled the issue to both Corbyn & manufacturers, when it is specifically only currently linked to backstop.
The PM can not claim to have settled the issue to both Corbyn & manufacturers, when it is specifically only currently linked to backstop.
This is obviously the same issue that @anguswalkertalk heard Olly Robbins chatting about - ie the backstop as “bridge”. It is also the same specific issue Raab resigned over... it leaves us here:
To Tory backbencher: backstop must be “replaced” because it would lead to a single customs territory from which UK could not unilaterally exit..
but to Labour/ manufacturers: future relationship has all “benefits of a customs union” because built on same single customs territory
but to Labour/ manufacturers: future relationship has all “benefits of a customs union” because built on same single customs territory
It’s schrodinger’s rules of origin-eliminating backstop, simultaneously being replaced and curtailed to get Tory rebel votes, but also forming the basis of the future relationship to get Labour votes.
Some reporting from last year on the Rules of Origin issue -
