Key quotes from MEP on EP Brexit steering group, synopsises EU position:

“The EU’s current backstop proposal contains the minimum level of controls necessary to protect the integrity of single market and some precise procedures related to customs, fiscal and regulatory control.”

https://twitter.com/danutahuebner/status/1044614476832624640

2) MEP on Brexit steering group continued:

“Some of these procedures have been used for years between Spain and the Canary Islands (which are outside the EU customs territory), and have nothing to do with potential emergence of a new border in the Irish Sea.”

I wrote a paper about Thatcher’s Bruges speech (around its 10th anniversary 🙀), for a course on British politics during my MA @SAISHopkins

My vague memory of my conclusion was that:

She worried the EU would leave the UK, but the UK would never leave any top European table.

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1044461741567037440

That should say “she worried the then-EEC” of course not EU, since it didn’t exist in 1988 :-)

NI-GB: “Of the four most relevant types of checks – on customs, standards, VAT, SPS – only the last, for which infrastructure already partially exists, explicitly needs to be carried out in ports rather than online, in distribution centres or on ferries.” cer.eu/insights/after… “Other nations manage similar arrangements with little fuss: the Canary Islands are outside the EU’s VAT area, despite being a constituent region of Spain, which necessitates checks. Indeed, having a foot in both camps could be to Northern Ireland’s economic advantage...”

1/3 A crude backstop hunch: legal text will have two components (UK-wide CU, NI-only SM). Perhaps how “temporary” UK part is, and how “permanent” NI part is, can be spun politically - but both will be legally bound together, so legal result will be same if/when backstop kicks in. 2/3 That offers a political way out, so that May can claim a “concession”, but I think the EU might go for that if certain conditions are met on oversight, court, VAT etc, which is still politically difficult for May, but perhaps can be overcome with fact of finally having a deal

It will be interesting to see what HMG proposes as an alternative backstop text, as re-promised by UK PM May yesterday. A key debate may be developing a UK-wide component.

Interestingly, in the Sept 9th Mail on Sunday, B Johnson said HMG agreed to seaport checks last December. In case of interest, here is a link to Boris Johnson’s article, from which the quote in the tweet above is taken: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6…

Again.

“But over the coffee the prime minister dropped a bombshell...Six months after promising to come up with a fix that would avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in all possible circumstances, the British appeared to be stalling for time again”theguardian.com/politics/2018/… “Macron told his fellow leaders that [May] should not be allowed to drag her heels...May was to be set a threshold that she would have to reach if she wanted a deal. The EU’s leaders were instructed to increase their preparations for a no-deal Brexit.”

Which is essentially already the case, as HMG paper stated in Aug 2017:

“Barnier said that only live animals, animal-derived goods and food products would need to undergo physical checks at the actual ports in Great Britain and then in Northern Ireland.”

rte.ie/news/2018/0919… Barnier plan:

“The first category was customs, which is seen as the most sensitive.

According to the note, customs declarations could be filled in in advance. The only physical check would be the scanning of a barcode on a container.”

(Have you advised them @karl_rieder? ;-)

Is NATO ready for a no deal Brexit?

If UK exits EU without a Withdrawal Agreement, political relationships between European NATO allies will be extremely strained:

Would NATO remain “Brexit-proof”?

Would UK public support for defending EU allies fall?

What should NATO do? In March 2017, before the UK activated the article 50 process, I suggested that France, Germany, and the UK would have to work hard together to ensure Brexit did not disrupt European military cooperation. But a no deal Brexit will make that very difficult: research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/hand…

Lord Ashcroft polling:

“In the Republic of Ireland, more than seven in ten voters said they were unhappy that the UK was leaving the EU. Three quarters thought the country had made the wrong decision, even according to its own interests.” lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/06/brexit… Ashcroft poll, Ireland:

“More than half thought Brexit would make relationship between IRL & NI more distant, and two thirds thought same of IRL’s relationship with UK. Three quarters said they felt positive about Ireland’s EU membership, and 80% would vote to remain [in] a ref”

Thread:
Many of the responses to my tweet below Iain's have focused on the word "reprimanded" in the Guardian report that I cited. This, of course, does not mean Barnier actually "reprimanded" Raab, albeit he may have complained. But some responses I have received are revealing.

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1039570020530040833

2) Indeed, many responses are un-re-tweetable, due to their vehemence of personal attack on Barnier himself. However, the bigger point is what this vignette reveals about the Brexit negotiations. At the very least, it suggests that HMG is confusing tactics and strategy.

Agreed, the EU has always wanted a deal. No one on the EU side has ever said “no deal is better than a bad deal” (even though that is true for the EU, but not for the UK). Trying to help HMG conclude the withdrawal agreement with a flexible future framework is not the same thing.

https://twitter.com/jennifermerode/status/1039130592795930624

Also as @JenniferMerode says:

“No reason not to take them at the word on this.”

A constant among some Brexiteers has been to simply not to believe what the EU side says, or assume ulterior motives. Is it that some Brexiteers don’t listen, or is this a form of projection?

A few initial reactions to Boris Johnson’s article in the Sunday Daily Mail, beyond the outrageous metaphor.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6… This is clearly the start of the pure or hardline Brexiteer “backstop attack” campaign, mainly coordinated by the ERG group of MPs. Johnson is crystal clear that the backstop is the only, and silly, obstacle to the ideal “Canada-style” free trade agreement with the EU.

George Hamilton, Head of PSNI:

“There’s a feeling that as regards the Troubles and the conflict, Northern Ireland is sorted and we don’t need to worry about it, when actually we’re working flat out 24/7 to keep a lid on it,”

thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/p… PSNI chief:

“Any physical infrastructure or border officials would become targets for dissident Republicans and require police protection, he said...”That was done during the period of the Troubles rather unsuccessfully, and was sadly the subject of attacks and many lives lost”

The paradox of “pan-European” extreme populist nationalism. There is a nationalist/patriotic case for European cooperation, indeed some would say that EU has been all about reinforcing nation-states. This other extreme version of nationalism only leads to trouble in today’s world

https://twitter.com/CarolineGruyter/status/1038391261902905344

For example, if one considers the “Europe des patries” vision of de Gaulle, which Thatcher also essentially adhered to. Usually prefers cooperation, and wariness of “integration”, meaning centralisation of competences via the Brussels institutions, but does not exclude it either.

A key point in @nealerichmond’s excellent op-ed in the UK @Telegraph: UK-Ireland relations will require much greater bilateral investment after Brexit.

A point also made in very good @CommonsForeign report on UK diplomacy after Brexit: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cm…
cc @TomTugendhat The Senator, who is the Seanad Spokesperson on European Affairs, also rightly dismisses those who think that the Irish border issue is being used as a ploy to force a certain kind of Brexit on the UK. Rather the backstop is about protecting the Good Friday Agreement settlement:

Given what Boris, JRM and other ERG-ers have said about the Irish border so far, presumably they would not accept a backstop and try to railroad Ireland, hoping the other EU26 pressure Dublin into a deal? If so, that would be very unwise...unless they really want a no deal Brexit

https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/1036669466606792706

Or, if they wish to have a deal with the EU in the end, would the ERG-ers decide that Northern Ireland is not "as British as Finchley" after all, and do a "Nixon to China" on the backstop, clearing its passage through parliament?

Short thread on Brexit:

1) These remarks by ex-UK Brexit Secretary David Davis reveal some core intellectual flaws at the heart of some Brexiteer thinking. Not only related to the Irish border, but also in HMG’s general approach to negotiating with the EU over the last two years

https://twitter.com/AgataGostynska/status/1036366367166017536

2) For example, the problem with the Irish border issue was not that it was "over-emphasised", as David Davis puts it. It was more that HMG didn’t take the issue seriously for much too long.

Stark, but well worth reading new ⁦@UKandEU⁩ report on a no deal Brexit:

“There would almost certainly have to be a “hardening of the border” between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, including some “physical manifestation” theguardian.com/politics/2018/… @UKandEU on no deal Brexit:

“Food supplies could be temporarily disrupted – the beef trade could collapse, for example, as Britain is heavily reliant on EU imports, and would be forced to apply tariffs, in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.”

A headline to cause some Brexiteers to shout “It’s happening!”

https://twitter.com/FT/status/1036112330143281152

PS in case of any doubt:

“German business leaders have raised the alarm over the state of Brexit negotiations and are urging *the UK government* to soften its position ahead of make-or-break talks with Brussels in the coming weeks.”

*my emphasis

Please note: the UK is not being “barred from Galileo”, it can still use the system after Brexit, including the secure signal. But EU rules (which the UK pushed for) limit the industrial participation of non-EU members. That is the nub of the issue: nothing more, nothing less.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1035579890035318784

So when some UK commentators like @fromTGA say things like:
“The exclusion of Britain from the high-security development of the Galileo system (Europe’s alternative to GPS) was a quite gratuitous slap in the face” - this is a gross misreading of the issue. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Interesting, and perhaps what Raab was referring to yesterday. Afaict, since backstop is meant to protect an existing peace settlement (and an EU member is co-guarantor), from disruption due to the UK’s withdrawal, hence it is 1 of 3 withdrawal priorities - thus art 50 applies.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1018873838464065536

Cc thanks to @cellsatwork for reminding me of this excellent thread by @pmdfoster from July.