The Telegraph are now saying (HERE) the EU could reject Britain's latest customs proposal, the so called time limited goods agreement. I don't believe there is any "could" about it, they almost certainly will. The reason given is that apparently the backstop clause agreed last December only applied to Northern Ireland and not to the whole UK. This was because regulatory alignment was only to apply to the six areas covered by the Good Friday Agreement and not the entire acquis.
Paragraph 46 of the Joint Report (HERE) is clear enough:
The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland.
The EU see Mrs May's proposal as wanting regulatory alignment only in limited areas and this is the pre-determined "cherry picking" they want to avoid.
If all this is true - and I assume it is - the prime minister's options are very limited and none are palatable.
1. Build the hard border in Ireland that we have consistently ruled out and risk a border poll returning a majority in favour of a united Ireland. For Mrs May this would be a disaster. I assume it would cause such a row that we are unlikely to get a free trade deal with the EU for years, if ever.
2. Build a wet border down the Irish sea. In other words accept the backstop clause's legal text. Something she said no British prime minister could ever do. The DUP would probably end the confidence and supply agreement and she would find getting the Withdrawal bill through parliament much more difficult, perhaps impossible. Of course, the DUP might continue to support her for fear of letting Jeremy Corbyn in but who knows?
3. Remain in a transition for a longer period, assuming the EU will agree to it. We will need to continue to make budget contributions probably without a rebate and her party would implode and almost certainly try to unseat her. A risky general election may be required but the Tories might find that useful since it would take us into a new five year parliament and over the dangerous election due in 2022 when we may still be locked into vassal status. And with this option there is no guarantee a new technological solution will be any more ready at the end of the extended transition than it is now. A new extension may then be needed.
Even trying to abandon Brexit is difficult since the clock is ticking and nobody knows if a legal mechanism to stop it is available. There would certainly need to be a new referendum, the outcome of which would be uncertain, perhaps even the same as 2016 and we would then still face the same problem afterwards anyway. We are in a real pickle.
The Telegraph elsewhere (HERE) says if we "agree to more than just matching the EU’s customs regime then it will run up against another problem - close regulatory alignment, a customs union, and frictionless borders, but no freedom of movement sounds rather a lot like “cherry picking” from the single market.
"That’s why Brussels, and Michel Barnier, want to pursue a solution exclusive to Northern Ireland and legally separate from any future trade deal. If that trade deal were to negate the need for the Northern Ireland deal, no problem, but the other way around wouldn't be permitted. Hence the original backstop".
I'm not sure if the writer actually understands the problem. The only way the trade deal would "negate" the need for a hard border is if we agree to complete regulatory alignment and a customs union. There is no other alternative.
In 2016 Ian Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and the Legatum Institute published a series of essays by Brexit's leading advocates. You can see it HERE. These were supposed to be the leading lights of Brexit. IDS, Bernard Jenkins, Peter Lilley, John Redwood, Bill Cash, etc. The Irish border gets just two mentions in the entire 63 pages and only in connection with EU immigrants requiring a work permit (pages 8 and 17). Nobody gave a second thought about the Good Friday Agreement or goods traded across the EU's border in Ireland - or indeed who was an EU immigrant and who wasn't.
The brightest sparks had no idea about a central issue that threatens to bring the whole shambolic mess to a shuddering halt. What else didn't they think about?
Think of the humiliation when we have to ask the EU to let us extend the transition and carry on as we were for a year or two more. We will look like a wayward teenager who stormed out of the house saying they're leaving and will never be seen again - only to shamefacedly pop their head round the door a few hours later and ask if they can have their room back! How we laughed!
Many of us thought Brexit would indeed be a national humiliation but I didn't think it would happen so soon.
Great article in GQ magazine (HERE) on this topic.
Just glancing through the CSJ essays that I linked to above, I note there was a lot of breezy optimism in October 2016 and I might do a post at some point on how the ultras saw things eighteen months ago - and what has actually transpired.
Great article in GQ magazine (HERE) on this topic.
Just glancing through the CSJ essays that I linked to above, I note there was a lot of breezy optimism in October 2016 and I might do a post at some point on how the ultras saw things eighteen months ago - and what has actually transpired.
