,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A stripped back backstop by definition won't cover everything the current one does. Therefore it will be a downgrade to the current solution.
But does the backstop have to cover 100% of the issues? Is there a sliding scale where 90% or 80% is better than no deal? 1/
But does the backstop have to cover 100% of the issues? Is there a sliding scale where 90% or 80% is better than no deal? 1/
If the question is: What alternative can we have that does the job of the backstop? The answer is NI-only covering agri, industrial goods, VAT and remaining in the EU's customs territory - i.e. the EU's original proposal.
That might not be the question put to Ireland tho. 2/
That might not be the question put to Ireland tho. 2/
Assuming a deal strategy is pursued by current Gov. It needs a solution that allows both Johnson to say the backstop has been removed (with some exceptions that were simply practical measures,) and the EU to say the UK has accepted the backstop (with some minor adjustments) 3/
One of these things can be closer to the truth than the other but they both need to be based on something. The upshot of it is that probably means a solution that is worse than the backstop but still better than no deal 4/
On a sliding scale you could have everything except NI remaining in the EU's customs territory (allowing Johnson to say UK remains whole), or you could try just keeping VAT and Agri alignment.
You would still have some costs imposed but it is not the same as no deal. 5/
You would still have some costs imposed but it is not the same as no deal. 5/
The sticking point here is its not just about the cost, its about whether the new regime could be politically sustainable. A large proportion of the populace won't accept the legitimacy of any border however invisible. 6/
Under Faull's proposal traders would face a heavy legal deterrent for failure to comply. Does it really work to criminalise moving goods across the border on current terms? What if you end up having to jail people for non-compliance? It would make it a political act. 7/
There are lots more criticisms. But even the current backstop is a sub-optimal insurance policy that probably isn't sustainable. If you insist on an insurance policy that deals with 100% of the issues you could get nothing and bring about what you're trying to insure against 8/
The caveat is it's not clear whether this Government is genuinely pursuing a deal, and whether there is any deal that can pass Parliament. You could also argue that Ireland's best strategy is to see if another Government that recognises the importance of the backstop emerges ends
