Boris Johnson has offered so many hostages to fortune on the 31st October deadline that fortune must be struggling to put them up. Presumably, they're all chained to the wall in a cellar somewhere. The latest two were his claim that we will leave on Halloween 'do or die,' (HERE) followed by an open letter to Jeremy Hunt challenging him to do the same (HERE).
This will either prove his undoing or both his and ours, depending on the value he places on his own ego and face. Either way it will not be an Old Etonian doing the dying. It never is, is it? He is the ever cheerful and optimistic General Melchett from Blackadder sending men over the top to 'do or die'.
Remainers have an unlikely ally in Liam Fox who has rubbished Johnson's claim that we could continue trading, in the event of a no deal Brexit, on exactly the same basis as now under GATT Article 24. Fox joins BoE governor Mark Carney and the head of the WTO in trying to convince BoJo he's wrong but it will take more than that I think. Johnson has a Gove like disdain of experts.
Lord Kerslake, a former head of the civil service says you should never enter a room unless you're sure you can get out. He describes Johnson as like an escapologist, a failed one I assume, who has padlocked the door, donned a strait jacket and turned on the tap (HERE).
I daresay that never in our history have we been in such a position where both candidates to be our next PM are threatening serious disruption and possibly irreparable economic damage as their flagship policy, egged on by their own party and a good chunk of the population. It is quite bizarre and utterly insane.
Talking of insanity, I have been idly flicking through the executive summary (still 19 pages) of the Alternative Arrangements Commission's interim report released yesterday. It's hard to know who it's aimed at. Is it to convince the Brexiteers in parliament that the Irish backstop isn't something to fear because it will never be used?
Is it to encourage the EU and the Irish government to drop the backstop altogether for the same reason? Or is it a serious and objective piece of work to reassure businesses and communities on the border?
Whatever it was, I am afraid it fails on all three. Apart from anything else it focuses almost entirely on how legitimate, honest businesses might manage the border after Brexit. Smuggling is to be encouraged. The key findings and admissions for me are these:
Firstly, despite both Boris Johnson and Theresa Villiers (NI Secretary at the time) saying during the 2016 campaign that nothing would change on the Irish border, the Executive Summary (page 7) shows what a hollow promise it was:
"While our objective is to ensure that the lived experience of the border communities changes as little as possible, the UK is leaving the EU and some change is inevitable. The goal is to make those changes have as little impact as possible".
So what does 'some change' mean? The report talks of Special Economic Zones, based on relevant WTO exemptions, a multi-tier trusted trader programme for large and medium sized companies, Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) checks carried out by mobile units away from the border using the existing EU Union Customs Code or a common area for SPS measures plus 'new technology' to support the future policy.
But smuggling is the real issue and on that the report is remarkably complacent. The answer? See this on page 12:
"Smuggling and fraud occur presently at the border and will likely continue in the future. There is significant smuggling at other EU borders (both external and internal) and so the fact that smuggling may exist on the border after Brexit cannot be used by the EU as a reason not to contemplate alternative arrangements. Ultimately smuggling into IE (which is what the EU will be concerned about) can be limited by legislation and market surveillance, neither of which is controversial in IE".
In other words, it's fine. What the report doesn't say is that these 'other EU borders' are hard ones with checks but even then there is significant smuggling. The AAC's plan to counter it is to throw open the borders altogether and turn a blind eye. What their proposals amount to is more or less the legalising of smuggling in Ireland. There will be no border checks and the risks of getting caught will be virtually zero.
"A general exemption from customs procedures and reporting for economic operators trading at levels below the VAT reporting threshold, currently set at UKP 85,000 per annum, would also relieve smaller traders in NI and IE of the need to comply with such formalities. This would also significantly reduce the need for customs controls for trade in goods at the border given the low risk arising from small cross-border transactions".
I assume if implemented, there will soon be fleets of vans carrying signs declaring 'Goods Smuggled overnight - 24 hour service guaranteed' buzzing across the border. It could rejuvenate the NI economy but at a huge cost to HMRC.
The EU will never accept this, not least because other countries with whom they have a border will ask for the same treatment. As for a 'common area for SPS measures' - well - surely that's what the EU is now, isn't it? Try getting that one past the ERG.
The interim report is 104 pages and on the Technical Panel are Shanker Singham and Graham Gudgin, two of the most ardent Brexiteers we have ever had. Shanker is frequently referred to as 'Snake oil' Singham by the way. But I am afraid it will all be to no avail.
The circle remains a circle, it has not yet been squared by the AAC's efforts.
