Why the UK's Brexit proposal falls short for the EU
By John Chalmers
BRUSSELS, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Britain's latest proposal for an
agreement on the terms of its divorce from the European Union
has been widely rebuffed in Brussels because it does not meet
the objectives of the so-called Irish border backstop.
Below is an explanation of the backstop Britain agreed with
Brussels in 2018, the new plan proposed by Prime Minister Boris
Johnson and why EU officials think it falls short:
WHAT'S THE BACKSTOP?
Now, there are no border checks or infrastructure between
the UK province of Northern Ireland and Ireland as both are in
the EU's single market customs and regulatory arrangements.
The backstop in the 2018 Brexit deal was designed to prevent
a hard border being introduced on the island of Ireland when
Britain leaves the EU - whatever trade deal was eventually
agreed between London and Brussels.
It envisaged that the United Kingdom would remain bound by
some EU rules if no other way is found to keep the border
between the British province and Ireland invisible.
Maintaining a frictionless border was a key part of the 1998
Good Friday agreement between London and Dublin to end 30 years
of violence in Northern Ireland.
WHY DIDN'T THAT WORK?
Pro-Brexit lawmakers objected to the 2018 deal, saying the
backstop would tie Britain to the EU come what may, leaving the
country overseen by EU judges and preventing it from striking
trade deals around the world. Parliament's rejection of the deal
forced then-Prime Minister Theresa May from office.
WHAT'S THE NEW PLAN?
Johnson's new proposal is that after Brexit, Northern
Ireland would remain aligned with the EU's single market rules
for trade in animal, food and manufactured goods.
But the province would leave the EU's customs union, along
with the rest of Britain, so the country as a whole could strike
new trade deals.
The proposal also says the legislative assembly in Northern
Ireland would have the right to decide every four years whether
it wants to continue to abide by EU rules on traded goods.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
The plan would effectively create two borders.
First, there would be a regulatory border in the Irish Sea
between Northern Ireland and Britain. Goods from mainland
Britain would need to be checked to ensure they conform to EU
standards, given Northern Ireland would be still be part of the
European single market.
In addition, there would be a customs border between
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Checks would be
needed to ensure duties and taxes were paid on goods moving from
Northern Ireland to within the EU and to prevent smuggling.
The British proposal says there would be no physical
infrastructure along the 500 km (300 mile) border.
WHAT'S THE BORDER ISSUE?
According to Irish and EU officials, there are several
issues with the plan proposed by Johnson, who is determined for
Britain to leave the EU on Oct. 31, with or without a deal.
They say there would inevitably have to be some form of
border checks to preserve the integrity of the EU single market,
and that would end frictionless trade on the island of Ireland.
"Any form of controls and checks in and around the border
would signify the end of frictionless trade and as such would
harm the all-island economy as well as represent a serious risk
to the peace process," European Union lawmakers said in response
to the UK plan.
Britain has proposed only having physical checks on a very
small proportion of traded goods at premises or designated
locations anywhere in Ireland or Northern Ireland - to avoid
having a physical hard border.
The arrangements would be supported by measures such as a
trusted-trader scheme, simplified customs procedures, monitoring
technology and exemptions for smaller business.
WON'T THAT WORK?
EU officials say the proposals wouldn't provide enough
reassurance for Ireland and other EU members that their single
market was protected against price dumping, unfair competition
and smuggling at the border's roughly 270 crossing points.
And if Ireland fails to check goods coming into the EU from
Britain, it could raise questions as to whether Irish exports to
the bloc should remain free of checks at their ports, even
though it will remain in the customs union.
"It's hard to see the substance of the customs proposal
working for the EU side. It creates regulatory friction with
Britain and customs friction with the EU," said Mujtaba Rahman,
managing director for Europe of the Eurasia Group.
ANY OTHER ISSUES?
Another major sticking point is the proposal that the
Northern Ireland assembly can review its membership of the EU
single market every four years.
The EU worries this would give the regional authority an
effective veto over the bloc's own affairs, and a rejection of
regulatory alignment could trigger a return to a hard border.
"It's basically an exit clause with the keys given to the
DUP," said a senior EU official, referring to the Northern
Ireland unionist party that says maintaining the economic
integrity of the United Kingdom is sacrosanct.
Under the original backstop, the EU would not allow Britain
to withdraw from the arrangement unless it was satisfied any new
trading rules would not result in the return of a hard border.
Britain has proposed that value-added tax and excise duty on
goods moving between Ireland and Northern Ireland should not be
paid or accounted for at the border. EU officials say this
cannot work if Northern Ireland is still aligned to the bloc's
single market regulations.
CAN THE GAPS BE CLOSED?
The British government has billed its proposals as a "final
offer" but Johnson said on Wednesday it was a "broad landing
zone" and signalled a readiness to have intensive discussions.
"Boris Johnson was clear ... there is scope for movement,"
said Eurasia's Rahman. "But the UK position will have to move
very far for there to be an agreement."
(Editing by Gabriela Baczynska and David Clarke)
© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. Reuters content is the intellectual property of Thomson Reuters or its third party content providers. Any copying, republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. "Reuters" and the Reuters Logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters and its affiliated companies.