Thread by @AnnaJerzewska

A longish 🧵on the "Northern Ireland Protocol: the way
forward" which could also be referred to as NI Protocol: an afterthought

As always focus on customs and border solutions.

/1

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

The first part is a long explainer of “how we got here” where the UK Gov attempts to explain and justify the circumstances that led it to sign an international agreement that it now wants to change.

/2

The second part "how the Protocol is working" is where the Gov expresses its surprise with the fact that putting up a customs and regulatory border leads to an additional, significant burden for traders and trade diversion.

/3

Let me be clear, many of these points are valid and significant.

It's just strange to read given that the document is published by the same Gov that only a few months ago dismissed the same concerns put forward by trade/customs/logistics ppl.

Like word for word...

/4

Section 3 tells us that Art 16 is not the right way forward (bit of a cliffhanger that one).

And part 4 is where we finally get to what the UK Gov is proposing.

/5

The most important thing to note is that it's no longer only a few technical details - the “overarching institutional framework put in place by the Protocol" is up for review.

This is important (int agreement, signed by this Gov etc)

/6

Here is the core:

Only goods destined for ROI should be subject to customs and SPS processes.

Note – not checks this time. Processes, meaning formalities.

/7

This is big as it means an overhaul of the "at risk" definition. You know, the one that the JC spent a year working out.

It also (I think) requires tweaking of Art 5.2 of the Protocol as it doesn't seem 100% consistent with the definition there.

/8

BUT new procedures to deter anyone in NI from exporting goods which do not meet EU standards to ROI.
Notice the language- export! Don’t know if it's intentional. The point of the Protocol was that NI-ROI movements remain movements and not imports/exports

/9

Part 5 provides further details. Importantly it's not a proposal. It's an option.

On one hand very late in the day for "let's talk about it" type of solution.

On the other, maybe it's for the best given what apparently happened to previous proposals.

/10

Meaty part again here:

The current at risk definition would be replaced by self-declaration by the trader of the final destination of the product (NI or ROI) at the time when it enters NI.

/11

As a reminder, the entire concept of goods at risk was created because it is generally:
1⃣ impossible to know where the product will end up at the time of import
2⃣ impossible to track, verify and enforce

/12

But fair enough, for some of the goods it would be clear (transit, end-use).

This would be underpinned by a light-touch customs scheme (Trusted Trader) which is a topic in itself.

/13

A light-touch scheme that provides Gov with “complete transparency of their supply chains to enforcement authorities” is a big task!

Would require some serious thought on how to design it so it's not too burdensome for traders but does the job (plus an IT solution)

/14

Risk and intelligence-based checks are always the right way forward but require there to be a robust risk analysis system in place, based on trade and shipment data (I'll come back to trade data).

Again – a lot to do to get this right.

/15

Same logic for most SPS products (self-declaration and procedures based on the destination).

With the exception of live animals and certain plants/plant products where the current check would be maintained.

Again risk-based.

/16

An optional SPS agreement which says (partial) equivalence without mentioning equivalence.

/17

Very vague statement on VAT and excise with the flexibility to set rates.

Given the changes to the EU's VAT system, this would really need to be carefully worked through by a group of VAT experts.

Hoping for some comments from @angelafearns1de and other VAT gurus.

/18

Dual regulatory and labelling system. Dual systems are of course every trader's dream solution.

And changes to the governance structure that makes dispute resolution independent from ECJ.

/19

Lastly, on trade data.

It's not significant but I'm glad the UK Gov is finally acknowledging that collecting trade data is difficult.

And that despite trade being about "just a form" there is a bit more to it.

Cause I've been trying to explain this for years.

/20

So to summarise.

1⃣ This is not a fully worked-out proposal.

2⃣ What is there would require a lot of work. Even IF the EU was to go for it tomorrow it would be months/years

/21

3⃣ Many parts of this proposal have already (repeatedly) been rejected by the EU. This is bound to raise some eyebrows.

Or maybe the EU is just as tired of discussing the NI Protocol as I am and will just give up and give in?

/22

Sorry everyone - this ended up being rather long.

Thanks for your patience.

/end