EU’s backstop stance on the Irish border is ridiculous – no one wants this Brexit barrier
The EU will rather see all sides suffer than watch a post-Brexit Britain succeed and find an outcome that works
IT should be a no-brainer. Is the EU really going to give up on an orderly Brexit for the sake of a backstop Dublin, London and Brussels all insist they don’t want or expect to come into force anyway?
Will Eurocrats cause needless disruption just to make a point? Would they rather see all sides suffer than watch a post-EU Britain succeed?
If so, what would it say about the organisation we are leaving?
Let’s take a moment to recap.
Immediately after the referendum, EU officials declared they would not talk to Britain about a long-term relationship until we first agreed withdrawal terms, including a “divorce payment”, rights for EU citizens and the Irish border.
Britain foolishly agreed. It was particularly silly to discuss Ireland before the main trade talks, since the obvious way to prevent a hard border on the island is through a deep and comprehensive trade agreement between the UK and the EU as a whole.
That, though, would have given Ireland a strong incentive to get the best possible terms for the UK, and for itself.
So instead, at the end of 2017, the EU suddenly came up with the idea of an “Irish backstop”.
It wanted Britain to promise that, unless it came up with a long-term trading relationship that satisfied Brussels, it would stay in the customs union and leave Northern Ireland under EU regulations.
Stupidly, British negotiators accepted the backstop. Wisely, our MPs did not.
The backstop would mean Brussels continued to control Britain’s trade deals with non-European countries after we left.
It would mean placing part of our country under permanent EU jurisdiction.
MPs threw the deal out. Then something sensible happened.
Leavers and Remainers began to talk directly to each other and hammered out a deal that both sides could live with.
There were lots of aspects of the withdrawal agreement that Eurosceptics resented.
They didn’t like being non- voting members for another 21 months.
They didn’t like Euro judges continuing to rule here even after we had left.
They didn’t like forking out more than 39billion quid in exchange for the better part of bugger all.
But they were ready to make compromises. If the Irish backstop were removed, they’d swallow the rest of the withdrawal terms.
On Tuesday, the House of Commons adopted this position. The EU responded with a theatrical snort of indignation.
“We stand by the agreement that we have negotiated,” said Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s negotiator.
“The withdrawal agreement is not renegotiable,” said Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission.
But hang on. Juncker is simultaneously telling us that if we alter our red lines — by, for example, agreeing to a permanent customs union — then the agreement could indeed be reopened.
So there is plainly no technical or legal reason why the backstop could not be removed or at least time-limited.
Nor, by the way, is anyone still pretending that, without the backstop, there will be checkpoints in Londonderry and Crossmaglen.
The Irish government has confirmed that, if there is no deal, it will not place any infrastructure at the border.
The British Government has been saying the same all along.
Barnier says there would be ways to carry out necessary checks away from the frontier.
In other words, the whole row is about a border that no one is going to build anyway.
It’s surreal. There is plainly no way the House of Commons is going to accept the backstop.
It also became clear on Tuesday there is no majority for a second referendum, because the last thing Jeremy Corbyn wants is to have to come down on one side or the other.
That leaves only two options. Either the backstop is dropped but everything else is agreed, or the backstop is lost and so is everything else.
From the EU’s point of view, it must surely be preferable to agree the bulk of the Withdrawal Agreement, including reciprocal citizens’ rights and the £39billion payment, while finding an alternative way to guarantee the Irish border stays open.
From Dublin’s point of view, the logic is even stronger.
Insisting on the backstop risks, if not a hard border, certainly more dislocation between the Republic of Ireland and the UK — the very thing the backstop is supposed to prevent.
The EU has calculated the cost will be worse for Britain than for Continental states, since cross-Channel trade is proportionately more important for us.
But, by that measure, it is more important still for Ireland.
In private, some Continental politicians are pushing for a pragmatic outcome — one that minimises disruption and preserves the long-term alliance between the UK and its neighbours.
You especially hear these arguments in countries that trade heavily with Britain, such as Denmark and the Netherlands.
You also hear them from governments that want to ensure the rights of their citizens in Britain are guaranteed.
But for Eurocrats, in particular the anti-British Martin Selmayr who has seized control of negotiations, this isn’t about finding an outcome that works.
If it were, the EU could have signed a continuity deal with Britain easily.
MOST READ IN OPINION
The truth is many Euro-fanatics are happy to inflict pain on the EU 27 provided they inflict even more on us.
If their view prevails over that of the pragmatists, then Britain has no option but to leave without an agreement. It is never sensible to give into blackmail.
If the choice is between No Deal and surrendering part of our country, we will choose No Deal.
The only surprise is that anyone in Brussels is surprised.
- Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South East England