Raoul Ruparel is a former Brexit adviser to Theresa May. He is a Brexiteer who famously couldn’t name a single sector of the UK economy that wanted Brexit when interviewed by Gary Gibbon on Channel 4. That was all about trade of course.. He has now written a piece for Politico about the problems surrounding the NI protocol, suggesting ways to ‘improve’ it to ease trade by reducing SPS checks. Ruparel claims the two proposals suggested so far won’t work but his is even less likely to work.
He tweeted a link to his article:
Ahead of today's committee meeting I’ve written for @POLITICOEurope putting forward two proposals which could help ease challenges faced in implementing the NI Protocol when it comes to checks on food products between GB and NI. Thread explaining 1/ https://t.co/7UcoH5RVVQ
— Raoul Ruparel (@RaoulRuparel) March 26, 2021
Ruparel says the first of two existing option being proposed is an SPS agreement similar to the one the EU has with Switzerland but Britain won't accept it and the EU won't offer it, as he readily admits. Next is a veterinary agreement like the one the EU has with New Zealand. But he says this "would not fundamentally change the major burdens on business in NI given that they arise from the nature of the checks and certification needed, and not just their volume."
So, what's his 'plan'. He says what is needed is "a novel SPS agreement based on managing divergence to try and limit the need for any checks or certification."
This means essentially a sort of unspoken mutual recognition of standards where things would carry on as they were before we left, but if, for example, Britain lowered its standards the EU could take some "rebalancing" action - banning the import of something or slapping on tariffs. He says the concept has already been agreed in parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) and this is true.
But, I can't see the EU accepting this since we don't need to reduce our standards for the whole thing to fall apart. All we need to do is become lax at applying the existing standards. The EU would then have no enforcement powers to come after UK companies who flout the rules.
If the EU reject his first idea, he suggests a narrower option applying to NI only. This might have a bit more potential. Essentially, it would extend the concept of goods being deemed “at risk” of being sold in the EU. If there’s no risk goods will be sold on, they would be exempt not only from tariffs and quotas but from agri-food requirements as well. There is still no agreement on how 'at risk'goods are to be identyified. Ireland is notorious for smuggling so I wouldn't put too much store on it.
Anyway a lot of these SPS checks are about preventing disease being spread so it certainly wouldn't stop a lot of checks.
He says something I have commented on before, that we are now in the worst of all worlds when it comes to SPS regulations, aligned with the EU while being treated entirely like any other third country with near maximum trade barriers. But this is a consequence of Brexit and the Canada style deal the government asked for.
We shouldn't forget that all this flailing around is taking place when the SPS checks are not really operational, the UK having unilaterally extended the grace periods for six months. Wait until the government start to apply them, even in a limited form if some concessions can be agreed.
At the end of his Twitter thread (although not quite as explicitly in the article) he says:
All that said, I don't have high hopes for either side adopting these more novel approaches. It would require them to break out of their rigid thinking. But it highlights that if they can do that just a little there are already precedents in the TCA which can be built on 15/
— Raoul Ruparel (@RaoulRuparel) March 26, 2021
This is just another attempt to find another solution to a problem to which there has only ever been one solution and that is for the UK to rejoin the single market and the customs union and then perhaps, the EU itself. In other words the one solution known to work is the one they steadfastly refuse to contemplate. We are caught on a hook and can't seem to wriggle free of the idea there must somewhere be a solution other that the one we don't like.
How long this will go on is anybody's guess.
But in 2024 the NI Assembly will be asked to give consent through a mechanism determined by the UK government. The WA itself doesn't specify how it should be done. The government has set out a process for the consent mechanism in a unilateral declaration which means consent can be given if a simple majority of the Northern Ireland assembly (MLAs) vote in favour.
If consent is not given, the protocol will cease to apply after two years. During that period the Joint Committee established under the Withdrawal Agreement will make recommendations to the UK and the EU on "alternatives for avoiding a hard border" and protecting the Good Friday Agreement. What options are available will depend on the nature of any EU-UK trade agreement in place at the time.
In other words, the only option if consent is not given, is trying some other weird and wonderful mechanism to make a sea border more acceotable. A land border will still be out of the question, not least becasue the Americans won't allow it.
Would MLAs in the assembly want to open up another four or six years of argument and debate about another untried system just as likely to end up with one side or the other opposing it, all with the risk of violence starting - assuming it isn't already under way?
I am not sure they would. NI is probably going to have to live with the protocol (difficult for unionists to accept) or consider unification (even more difficult) or rejoing the SM and the CU.
The only good option, guaranteed to work, is the one Brexiteers have turned their face away from. Crazy or what?
