,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ EU sources are pointing out today it's not only PM Johnson's demand that the backstop be scrapped that is problematic in his letter to Donald Tusk, but also the fact that it is paired with confirmation that it is the UK's intention to diverge from EU rules in the future.
2/ Johnson said under his trade plan UK rules on areas like environmental, product, and labour standards will 'potentially diverge' in future. So the backstop is unacceptable because it'd make GB choose between following EU regulations or putting up ever greater barriers with NI.
3/ This is seen in Brussels as confirmation of what PM Johnson's sherpa, David Frost, told the Commission in recent meetings - that the UK doesn't want to sign up to the Level Playing Field measures it has proposed for the future relationship, and which Theresa May agreed to.
4/ This creates an added layer of complication in two ways. In the event that the backstop was ever applied, it would intensify the need for checks in the Irish Sea over time as the regulatory divergence between NI and GB widened. This is of course unacceptable to the DUP.
5/ And secondly if the backstop weren't applied (or expired at the end of a time limit) it would increase the need for checks on goods entering Ireland from Britain as the whole UK, including NI, diverged from EU rules, placing greater strain on already unproven tech solutions.
6/ As the EU sees it, per a source: 'Keeping an external border entirely free of physical infrastructure and associated checks, for the long-run, requires a significant degree of regulatory and customs integration between the countries on either side. That’s just how it is.'
7/ The EU is adamant that it cannot simply agree to let Ireland waive or water down checks at the border, as the UK is planning to do for goods going in the other direction. It doesn't believe the British strategy is viable in the medium to long-term anyway.
8/ Otherwise 'we leave the border open with no safeguards to protect the Single Market other than trust in the Johnson government, which intentionally wants to diverge from the EU regulatory framework, undercutting the Level Playing Field'.
9/ That would lead to 'an open border where the chlorine chicken and GMO corn can just freely enter with no other safeguard than Johnson saying just trust me'. That's if the UK did a post-Brexit trade deal with the US (or others) that involved lower food standards, of course.
10/ In conclusion, Brussels fears the UK's proposals are 'the wrong things at the wrong time'. Whereas 'had he come up with a real, serious proposal to change the backstop into a workable base [for the future relationship] we would and should have entertained it very carefully'.
11/ And that, of course, has always been the Brexiteers' greatest fear about the backstop. That it was designed as the 'base' for a much closer relationship with the EU than they want, restricting Britain's ability to diverge on regulation and strike its own trade deals.
12/ So when the EU says the UK got a good deal with the backstop, it has a point but only *if* that sort of close relationship is what Britain wants. EU still can't understand why the UK would choose an FTA, which it sees as a massive downgrade, over Single Market/Customs Union.
