,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Geoffrey Cox has scrapped a planned visit to Brussels today for further negotiations because the gulf between the EU & UK over what legal assurances will cut the mustard is so wide. So, what are both sides offering? The latest from me and @tnewtondunn 👇thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/85…
2/ First, the UK offer. The Attorney General tabled proposals for a new, independent arbitration system to rule on when the backstop could be ended. He said the question it should be asked is whether the UK had shown sufficient good faith in coming up with alternative solutions.
3/ If this arbiter said Britain's efforts on alternative arrangements and attempts to strike a trade deal with the EU had been good enough both sides would enter what Sabine Weyand dubbed the 'mini-backstop' - a stripped down backstop only addressing border infrastructure.
4/ Michel Barnier rejected this approach. First, the EU feels Cox is trying to find a legal solution to a political problem by bringing in English law concepts like 'reasonableness' which are alien to them. They say when the backstop can end should be a decision for politicians.
5/ And second, the backstop involves what will be the new external border of the Single Market. And policing the Single Market is the job of the ECJ. The EU is incredibly jealous of this competence and sees Cox's proposal as an attempt to 'carve EU law' out of the process.
6/ One EU diplomat summed up the UK plan thus: 'The Cox version of the backstop is based on no apparent understanding of the Withdrawal Agreement, customs procedure or EU law. It will never fly with Member States. If this is the game plan, I fear we'd better prepare for no deal.'
7/ In response, Mr Barnier put forward an EU proposal for a legal document that 'reinforces the articles for review and arbitration' contained in the Withdrawal Agreement and gives 'appropriate assurances' on the temporary nature of the backstop.
8/ But fundamentally it wouldn't alter the backstop's nature by adding any new concept of a time limit or exit clause. It would simply reaffirm in more detailed legal language the EU's existing pledges to replace it with a trade deal and highlight ways out already open to the UK.
9/ The problem, EU sources say, is fundamentally one of polar opposite perspectives. One says: 'The UK's reasoning is if if the future relationship breaks down then they must be able to get out of the backstop. Our reasoning is the opposite. That's precisely when we'll need it.'
10/ Currently Mr Cox is saying the EU's proposals don't allow him to alter his legal advice that says the backstop could endure indefinitely. People on the EU side are pretty gloomy about changing that. A diplomat says: 'It doesn’t look like we'll will bridge the gap soon.' ENDS
