,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Pawel rightly points out there are issues with the SPS/mini-backstop. Impression is Member States would engage but by no means certain they'd sign it off. Concerns about smuggling, the integrity of the Single Market and the impact on the all-island economy would weigh heavily.
On smuggling, diplomats point out Britain's customs system is hardly trusted by the rest of the EU. Especially after it had to be ordered to repay 2.7bn euros by Brussels' anti-fraud office over a case involving cheap Chinese goods entering the Single Market through UK ports.
In terms of the Single Market, how does the EU stop countries (China especially) exploiting the Irish border as a back door for its exports? This concern has been heightened by the UK's intention to ditch Level Playing Field commitments and (maybe) diverge from EU standards.
Then there's the issue of tech solutions requiring checks away from the border. EU officials fear this would 'destroy all-island supply chains' and disrupt businesses. 'If checks have to be carried out once products are placed on the market it's no longer an integrated market.'
On top of that reopening the backstop could prompt fresh demands from some EU states - many were unhappy the current version doesn't address fishing. Plus would a mini-backstop deliver a majority anyway? The EU side would want proof before proceeding, having been burnt last time.
In summary, a mini or sectoral backstop is problematic but could be a basis for discussion with the EU in a way that just scrapping the whole thing isn't. It would need to be judged on whether it upholds Member States' interests, the Single Market and the Good Friday Agreement.
