How To Lose The Backstop

The Brextremists are insistent that to support May's Brexit deal, it is necessary to lose the backstop, which ensures that Britain's international treaty commitment to an open border in Ireland, set in the legally binding Good Friday Agreement is kept.  The Brextremists say that if Britain crashes out of the EU with a No Deal Brexit, it would automatically mean that the backstop did not exist, and, it would also mean that a border would have to be erected, as Northern Ireland would no longer be in the Single Market.  That is true, but it would also mean, therefore, that Britain had breached its commitment to a legally binding international treaty.  That does not seem to bother the Brextremists who also want to breach Britain's other legally binding commitments to pay the €39 billion, which cover Britain's already accrued bills from its 47 year membership of the EEC/EU.  Britain could decide to renege on its bills and legally enforceable treaties, but to do so would put it in a similar league as other pariah states, which flout such international laws and obligations.  It would hardly be a propitious start for a British state seeking to attract new international partners to do business with it!

There are a number of ways that the Backstop could be removed legally, and thereby prevent Britain from becoming a pariah state after having reneged on its international commitments.   The Withdrawal Agreement sets some of those out.  It would require that Britain and the EU, come to an agreement, which means that Britain and Ireland are able to engage in frictionless trade in the same way they do now as members of the EU.  The Brextremists are right to baulk at this provision, because whatever fantasies May on the one hand and Corbyn on the other may try to purvey, such a solution does not exist.  Or, more precisely, it could only exist if Britain were to agree to remain indefinitely inside the EU Single Market and Customs Union, and were to sign that into international law, via a legally binding treaty.  That is precisely what the Brextremists object in regards the backstop.  Moreover, realistically, any such arrangement could only be a temporary stage prior to Britain rejoining the EU, because no government in its right mind would agree to be permanently bound to abide by the rules and regulations of a Single Market and Customs Union, of which it had no right to a say in determining those rules and regulations.  The EU is not going to give that right to non-EU members, because to do so, would mean destroying the entire basis of the EU itself.

Moreover, the experience of the last two years of the chaos and incompetence of British negotiators, who have shown they have absolutely no idea what they want, let alone how to get it, demonstrates that any possibility of reaching a deal on Britain's future relationship with the EU, will not be arrived at any time soon.  Even if it were possible to arrive at a deal that made the backstop unnecessary, which it isn't, it could not be negotiated for at least another ten years, and the Brextremists have no intention of waiting that long to ditch the backstop.  Their latest ploy appears to be to follow the lead of Michael Gove, of accepting any Brexit deal, so long as it gets Britain outside the EU.  Then Gove's plan is to simply push British regulations ever further away from EU regulations, so that any deal simply quickly falls apart, allowing a Brextremist Tory government to push forward with its hard Brexit agenda, complete with its bonfire of workers and consumers rights, and environmental protections.  The Irish and EU politicians are undoubtedly aware of that plan, which is why they are insistent on the need for the backstop arrangement whatever Britain might seek to do after Brexit.  It is why any hope the Tories have of getting the EU to drop the backstop will be in vain.

May now, therefore, apparently seeks to modify the backstop so as to put some end date to it, and in order to assuage the Brextremists that date would have to be only a few years hence.  This is part of May's plan to pivot towards the Brextremist wing of the Tory Party, as she prepares to call a snap Brexit Election.  In that election, the Tory Remainers will be thrown under the ERG bus.  May will call the election on the basis of getting a mandate to push through a so called "Managed No Deal Brexit", which is what the ERG are pushing for.  That will require her getting agreement from the EU for a short extension of Article 50, to enable an election to be held, and for arrangements to be put in place for this illusory managed no deal Brexit.  Given that 80% of Tory members and voters back No Deal, it will unify the Tories around that idea, whilst it will leave Labour floundering to come up with some kind of unified alternative.

May could, of course, decide to resolve the backstop issue by agreeing with her Remainer wing, and agreeing to push for membership of the single market and customs union.  That would work, although as stated above why any sane government would agree to it, whilst having no voice in determining the rules and regulations is a complete mystery.  But, as I wrote recently, there is no chance that May will do that, because any hint of it would see her out on her ear, along with the other Remainer Tories, as the Tory rank and file ose up in rebellion.  They have already been told that would happen.

But, as I wrote the other day, any hope of resolving the border question in Ireland without the North being in a single market with the EU is forlorn.  It cannot work.  The ideas about some Canada plus style free trade agreement, as with talk about membership of a Customs Union, completely miss the point.  A free trade agreement or a Customs Union, is only an agreement to levy no internal tariffs or quotas on goods and services traded within it.  That does not at all mean that trade itself is frictionless within such an area, because for trade to be frictionless it requires a single market, where all of the goods and services within it, have to comply with certain rules and regulations in their production, and distribution.  The EU, for example has trade deals with the US, which allow certain goods to be traded between them, at either zero tariffs, or tariffs on which they agree that are different from what would apply under WTO terms.  But, that does not mean that trade between the US, and EU can be frictionless.  For on thing, the EU can block certain US products from coming into the EU altogether, such as GM crops, or chlorinated chicken.

To ensure that nothing coming from the US is in any of these banned categories, or that none of the products themselves contain, some of those banned products, it is necessary for the EU to have a border that can check such products, and stop them, where they do not comply.  An example of that can even be seen inside the EU itself.  The EU largely does not have a single market in services.  And, because it does not have such a single market, service providers, even in the EU, are not allowed to freely trade in them within the EU.  Travel around Europe, for example, and you will find that every so often your mobile phone pings, as it tells you that your coverage is now being provided by Orange or Bouygues and so on.  It's only recently that the EU has made some progress in providing the elements of such a single market in phone services by banning the exorbitant roaming charges that once applied, and which British travellers can now looking forward to facing again after Brexit.

There is another way that an end date could be written into the backstop, and that is to write in that the backstop will end, when Northern Ireland becomes rejoined with the rest of Ireland.  That would mean that Northern Ireland would then be a part of the EU, and its single market and customs union.  That eliminates the problem entirely.  The Tories cannot openly suggest it, because they are dependent on the DUP to stay in office, and their own Unionist hardliners would not stand for it.  But, if the Brextremists want an end point that is it.  In fact, voters in Northern Ireland voted 2:1 to Remain in the EU.  recent polls suggest that, faced with a No Deal Brexit, a majority in Northern Ireland would vote to unify with the Republic.   Simply on the basis of demographics, the largely Republican/Nationalist Catholic population is growing faster than the largely Loyalist Protestant population, so that eventually, there will be a clear majority for a United Ireland anyway.  And, indeed the affinity of non-Catholics in Northern Ireland with Unionism, is declining, as today's younger, better educated population,as everywhere, becomes less attached to religion, and the bigotries, and tribal loyalties that go with it.  So, trying to hold on to Northern Ireland, is itself time limited anyway, which makes any attempt to make it determinant for wider Tory policy, such as Brexit, extremely short-termist.