THE 'CONCRETE' PROPOSALS ARE LEAKED and it turns out they involve a lot of concrete

The man who told us in February 2016 that the Irish border would remain "absolutely unchanged" is now proposing a "string of customs posts along both sides of the Irish border" according to the Irish broadcaster RTE who have seen one of the non-papers submitted to Brussels by the UK government. This is part of the revised backstop plan to be presented tomorrow apparently. The 'concrete' proposals are actually just that, proposals for concrete infrastructure.  I wouldn't bother myself, the Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney has already dismissed the idea as a "non starter".

Let's not forget that Johnson was a member of the cabinet that agreed the Joint Report in December 2017 which said explicitly (paragraph 43):

"The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls."

  

Johnson remained a member of the cabinet as Foreign Minister for eighteen months whilst the Joint Report was the basis of the EU negotiations and apparently never questioned how the solemn commitments we made were to be implemented.

He now wants to build a string of customs clearance sites 5-10 miles each side of the border. This is essentially building two new borders and the implementing of related checks and controls. We are going backwards.  Not only does the plan involve infrastructure and a hard border, but goods being transported across it would move from a clearance post on the Northern side to a similar site in the south, the goods would be monitored in real time using GPS via mobile phone data, or tracking devices placed on trucks or vans. We have a surveillance society thrown in.

The costs in time and inefficiency alone should rule it out.

I think what the UK plan does do is to end once and for all the fantasy that there are genuine alternative arrangements that could replace the backstop and be invisible and workable without any new infrastructure. There are not.

Once this 'plan' is formally rejected by the EU we are left with the exactly same problem that Mrs May faced earlier this year.  No deal is out of the question (and now illegal) and the WA will probably not get through parliament - assuming Johnson wants to attempt it.

A People's Vote is inching ever closer.

I should add that Johnson is quoted by RTE this morning as saying their report is "not correct" although being checked for accuracy by Boris Johnson will be a unique experience for most journalists. We shall see.

There is still much talk of Johnson having found a way to circumvent Benn's law so we leave without a deal on October 31st. I think this is again all bluster designed to convince the EU we will actually topple over the edge if they don't give us what we want.  Lawyers do not believe there is such a loophole anyway.

Even if there was, I don't believe they would try it. It would almost certainly be challenged in court and found illegal.

But think about this. If we do leave without a deal the consequences are, even on the government's own yellowhammer predictions, going to be pretty bad. Disruption of a length and scale that nobody in the western world has experienced in a couple of generations as Sir Ivan Rogers has said.

This situation would be brought about not by unforeseen or uncontrollable events but deliberately and willfully by our own government. More than this, it will have to break its own law to do it!

How would that go down?

Johnson and the new chancellor keep announcing and re-announcing spending plans which total £50 billion so far but it will it will weaken their own electoral arguments.  If spending is suddenly good they will have the devil of a time trying to outspend Labour. In fact they will never do it. But any charge that Corbyn and McDonnell are being reckless with the public finances will sound pretty hollow when the Tories are doing precisely the same.