The ERG have published their answer (HERE) to the Irish border issue, challenging the need for the backstop at all. They are clearly getting panicky and seeking to pressurise Theresa May into trying to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement talks. It's hard to up keep with the number of papers churned out by pro leave groups to somehow prove that the backstop section of the agreement isn't needed. This issue occupies a huge part of the 585 pages and has taken almost a year for the brightest and best minds on both sides of The Channel to find an agreement. Not once did the negotiators say it wasn't needed, but the ERG are now claiming it isn't.
"The border is regarded as the thorniest unresolved item in the negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement. There is no case for this, given that...." and they go on to list the reasoning they use.
But their own document rather undermines their case. If "frictionless" trade - in other words as it is at the moment - can be maintained after we leave the SM and the CU, using smart technology and a border no harder than it is now, as their paper alleges, why not accept the backstop since it will never need to come into force?
It's all very technical but Richard North at the EU Referendum blog (HERE) has done what he does very well and exposed the false assumptions and what he bluntly calls "lies" that allow men like Peter Lilley to argue the impossible and even challenge the BBC's fact checker, Chris Morris, live on air. Dr North's detailed knowledge of the reality of these EU cross border issues is unrivalled I think. This is what he should do more of.
That Lilley was wrong can be assumed, as I say, from the fact that very clever men and women have been wrestling with an intractable problem for months is testament to how real and difficult it is. But North's detailed rebuttal is a great and reassuring read.
To believe the problem doesn't exist you either need to be extremely deluded or Peter Lilley and the ERG.
