Thread by @JamesERothwell

Dominic Raab, setting out leadership stall: "There is still time to negotiate a legally-binding Exchange of Letters to give the UK a clear exit from the so-called Backstop of EU laws, over which currently we would have no say."

Raab says he will withhold the £39bn Brexit bill and spend it on mitigating the negative effects of leaving on WTO terms if he becomes PM and has to take UK out with no deal

Raab says he's a credible negotiator, citing his experience working on the Brexit deal (which he initially disowned and then supported in parliament) and says he's the man "that Michel Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt complained pushed Brussels too hard".

Raab also says: "There is still time to change the Backstop for the technological and operational arrangements that would avoid the need for any hard border between Northern Ireland. These are reasonable, limited, requests."

Couple of issues here. Firstly, Raab is simultaneously taking credit for the Brexit deal and trashing it - he cites his own exp working on the deal as reason to vote for him but now thinks it's rubbish. So Q is why didn't Raab make those changes to deal when he was Brex sec?

The answer is that he did try, and the EU said no. So another Q: if Raab's attempts to change Brexit deal failed then, why would they succeed now? Maybe a general election would give a public mandate to do so? But EU/IRL would still say no - it has its own interests to protect

On "legally binding changes" to backstop. It's a grim fact of life now, for anti-backstop crew, that the EU just isn't shifting on the UK having a unilateral right to leave the backstop without alternative arrangements in place. Again, why would it treat Raab differently?

(Worth adding that UK *can* unilaterally trigger the process of leaving backstop, it just has to convince a joint panel that alternative arrangements are in place so there is still no hard border. Point of nuance often lost in debate, but you can see why)

On Raab's broad ambition to change backstop - TBF this ambition is not isolated to Westminster and has been mulled over elsewhere. Some debate over whether a time-limited backstop would in practice serve same purpose as vanilla backstop. E.G this piece:

https://twitter.com/danobrien20/status/1132579564230795266

On claims of his talents as a negotiator - see below @NinaDSchick tweet about the actual content of that discussion, which suggests that Raab wasn't quite the Brexit Bulldog he purported to be

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1132962768326471680

On the £39bn, Raab says he would withhold it. But is that a serious pledge(?) Big chunk of the bill is pensions. So is Raab pledging to not pay pensions? How would Tory voters feel about that if it were their pension? Or would he only pay "essential" liabilities in the bill?

Let's say Raab withholds the whole bill, EU has to go whistle. Politically probably a great move to win over Brexiteers. But does that have ramifications for UK signing FTAs with non-EU countries? Is a country putting its best foot forward when it defaults on vast sums of money?

On all these issues, Raab gambit is go hard or going home, be so tough that the other side capitulates. But EU did not capitulate on the following: sequencing of talks ("row of the summer," anyone?), no FoM in transition, Chequers, scrapping backstop. So why capitulate to Raab?

Other areas where EU did not capitulate: Divorce bill being explicitly tied to a trade deal. No ECJ rule during transition. ECJ having future role in citizens rights after Brexit. (Though EU did concede to UK in several areas, such as all-UK backstop)

You might retort that all this went wrong because Theresa May was weak, and a stronger leader can bend the EU to its will. But that leads to another Q: why wouldnew leader not run into same problems listed above, and how would they tackle them? B/c if the answer is "walk away..."

..then PM Raab is now in a sticky situation. He's out the EU with no deal, but the contingency plans that keep the lights on (basic but vastly inferior arrangements for aviation, lorry drivers, etc etc) are coming to an end in 6-9 months. What next?

Does he go back to the EU and ask for a new trade deal? If he does, EU plans to put 39bn and backstop back on table. At this point Raab - or any other no deal PM - must now capitulate to EU in humiliating fashion or lose the safety net of those contingency plans. Tricky choice.

This gets to heart of the trap that is 'no deal' which has been highlighted repeatedly by folks on both sides. No deal is not end of the process. EU's no deal contingency plans are condiments, not food. And they're on a time limit...so back to the table you go? What then? /ends