,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
More nuance to what @MichelBarnier is saying, imo. Short thread:
1. WA is the outcome of compromise: two years of "painstaking talks" which covered everything from citizens' rights to data-sharing and Irish border. Subtext: we both negotiated and reached this deal.
2. Backstop is a "carefully crafted" insurance policy. It was also a win for UK negotiators: "At the UK’s request, we agreed to have a UK-wide customs dimension to that backstop" (reminder: EU wanted it to be NI-specific). Subtext: difficult to see how it can be improved.
3. Solution to backstop (or AA) can be found: EU open to exploring options now if HMG can come up with some that respect integrity of SM. Subtext: But running out of time + EU believe solutions wd be found as part of future trade negotiations, not by re-opening WA.
4. EU don't like the backstop either: "It provides NI with economic benefits of the SM for goods" without UK being a MS. Subtext: quite unprecedented to grant a non-EU region access to SM. Had to get MS to agree to it. So EU also keen to find a solution.
5. Who knows what future holds: Pol declaration suitably vague to allow for all outcomes (FTA, close economic relationship). But "will consist of appropriate balance of rights and obligations". Subtext: No EEA-type market access with Canada style obligations.
6. A no-deal Brexit wd not make problem of Irish border go away. Impact of no-deal cannot be cushioned by "mini deals". Subtext: Focus shouldn't be on ditching backstop - but improving it. But need time. In absence of viable alternative, it has to stay. END.
