,
18 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Okay, let's go through this again, from the top! /1
Free Movement of People is one issue. It exists between EU and Switzerland because Switzerland signs up to EU Free Movement. It currently exists for all of the UK too /2
It's *even easier* to cross the Swiss border than the UK one because they are in Schengen, so no passport controls (Free Movement+ if you will) /3
There is also a separate form of Free Movement+ at the Irish border as a result of the UK-IE Common Travel Area. This is separate from Schengen and also allows (in a certain context) a completely open border between NI and the Republic of Ireland /4
Now, what is that context I just mentioned? Shared membership of the EU Single Market and Customs Union /5
This is vital to an open border because it's not only people who cross borders, goods do too /6
When we look at goods traffic between the EU and Switzerland we see a very different situation to the one that exists for people /7
Switzerland has an agreement with the EU to participate in the Single Market and is outside the Customs Union. The result? Numerous hard border points to check goods coming into Switzerland and coming into the EU (these checks aren't just one way - we'll return to this) /8
Now what is the post-Brexit context set to look like? Well nothing is fixed but at the moment it's looking like the UK leaving the Customs Union and Single Market to maybe be replaced with some levels of regulatory alignment in some areas /9
This is a much more distant relationship than the Swiss model. I repeat, it is *more* distant. You cannot remove border controls for goods while advocating a UK-EU relationship less aligned and integrated than one which itself requires a hard border! /10
Brexiteers put forwards two solutions to this. First, they have faith in the powers of technology to remove the need to have checks at the border. Well, fine, you can believe that. But no such system is in operation anywhere in the world and the UK gov hasn't presented any /11
Second, the UK could unilaterally decide to disregard the need for checks. Now this brings up issues with WTO rules but let's put that aside for one moment. Remember I said earlier that checks go both ways? Here's where it becomes relevant again /12
It's not enough for the UK to say it will just ignore checks and take the risks on quality and smuggling. The EU would have to do the same too. And faced with a UK environment lauding the benefits of aggressive deregulation, why would the EU put its consumers at risk? /13
(let alone the reality of encouraging the growth of smuggling - organised crime - by having no checks between two different regulatory and tariff regimes) /14
And this is where the backstop comes in! If we get to the end of a transition period and these issues still exist, with no trade deal or agreements on regulatory alignment or tariffs, something has to be in place to stop the return of a hard border in Ireland /15
Both sides recognised this and both sides helped design the backstop. Now the EU wanted this to be NI-only but the UK insisted on most provisions being UK-wide, and this is what we got /16
So. Two key points to finish. Unless the Brexiteers can present some actually workable solutions for their hard Brexit (just invent the technology that doesn't exist yet and it'll all be good) the backstop is necessary. /17
Or you could maybe work your way out of the backstop by aiming for a much closer relationship than the Swiss model (which, just to labour the point, requires a hard border) but so far Brexiteers have been adamant that they won't do this and so that's why we are where we are /end
