01/05/2018
No matter how important the "Windrush" issue may be to the individuals concerned, the political drama attendant on the resignation of Amber Rudd is a distraction. In terms of its effects on the nation, on individuals and our politics, Brexit is still way up front, and it must remain so until matters are resolved.
You would hardly realise that, though, from the excitable squeaking of sundry television journalists who collectively are conspiring to make television news unwatchable, whatever the channel. Their priorities and interests are no so far from any idea of what I might consider of vital importance, that the set is increasingly remaining off during news broadcasts, or tuned to general interest channels.
Despite the single issue obsession of the broadcast media hacks, however, some print journalists have found time to report on
Michel Barnier's speech at the 4th All-Island Civic Dialogue, delivered in Dundalk yesterday (pictured arriving, with Irish foreign minister Coveney).
The oddest thing about that is what he had to say was hardly news. It was basically no more or less than he has been saying for months â the simple litany that we've heard so many times before: if there is no settlement of the Irish question, there will be no withdrawal agreement and if there is no withdrawal agreement, there will be no transition period.
The
Guardian got the message â well enough to headline its report "Michel Barnier: Brexit talks at risk of collapse over Irish border". The only problem is that you have to go way down the paper's website, and look for the small print before you see the story. High profile, it isn't.
Far higher up the agenda is the Lords' latest defeat for the Government, with the paper
parading the headline: "Fresh Lords Brexit defeat for government makes 'no deal' less likely".
Clearly, the Barnier story hasn't registered because, if his warnings are not heeded, there will most definitely be a "no deal" â hitting us on 30 March 2019. That would make the Lords vote completely irrelevant (if it isn't already). But, to the London media, Westminster events will always trump what the EU's chief negotiator has to say.
As for the
Telegraph, it regards Barnier's words as "inflammatory", even though he is indeed saying nothing very much that he hasn't already said before. But then, this paper lives in a land populated by "Euro-bullies", so anything a Brussels official says has to be treated as if it's some kind of demonic threat.
But, while the
Telegraph is downplaying the speech with its headline declaring: "Michel Barnier calls for British-Northern Irish border checks after Brexit", at least
The Times gets the message, reporting Barnier as saying that the Brexit talks "are at risk of collapsing" over the Irish border question.
Actually, you won't find those precise words in Barnier's speech and he goes out of his way to emphasise how much he is looking for a solution. But, for all that, the steel is there as he tells his audience: "we need substantive progress on the backstop before the June European Council".
This rather puts Barnier at odds with the insouciant Davis who is quite obviously working to an October timeline. But David Davis is a man who quite evidently (from his
oral evidence to the Brexit committee) believes that we will have the "substantive" details of a trade deal in place by October. And with that sort of confidence, it hardly seems possible that we can fail on something so slight at the Irish question.
As to what might be on offer, Bloomberg
is offering some hints as to what the government might be proposing for the next round of talks.
The UK's current toolkit includes, the Agency says, "a sweeping new free-trade agreement and customs deal with the EU to avoid the need for tariffs and goods checks at the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland". This "preferred solution" is known as Option A. Option B is the "magic thinking", which relies on technological solutions and "trusted trader" schemes to minimise checks on goods at the border.
Since neither are in the least workable, there is now talk of combining A and B in some unspecified manner which, if it is to work, will need the all magic of medieval alchemy, turning base metals into gold in hitherto undreamed of quantities.
In fact, if there was really anything that has the slightest chance of breaking the deadlock, it would doubtless have been leaked to the media and have been all over the Sunday papers. As it is, all we are getting is vague talk of "hybrids" which are unlikely to meet the EU's expectations.
That still leaves Wednesday scheduled for the Brexit cabinet committee discussions, but it looks as if the only thing new on the table might be Leadsom's version of Hannan's Swiss option. She can regale her colleagues about his "largely unmanned and invisible" borders, which must be just the job for Northern Ireland.
That fantasy aside, in his Dundalk speech, Barnier stressed that, unless and until another solution is found, Northern Ireland "will maintain full alignment with the rules of the Single Market and the Customs Union which support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy, and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement".
But he then spelled out the reasons why the EU was insisting on its "backstop" to cover the absence of an agreed solution. It was needed, he said, "to respect the integrity of the Single Market and the EU's Customs Union".
Some people, he added, "think that we could have two different sets of rules on the island of Ireland and still avoid border checks. But Ireland is a member of the EU - and a proud member, I add. It is an active player, active, very active player, in the Single Market".
Almost in Janet & John terms, he went on to says that goods that enter Ireland also enter the Single Market. "It is", he said, "called the 'Single' Market for a reason".
So, he says, "since we all agree that we do not want a border, and since the UK agreed to respect Ireland's place in the Single Market, then that means goods entering Northern Ireland must comply with the rules of the Single Market and the Union Customs Code. That is our logic. Simple as that".
Actually, the overt rhetoric on Customs Union rules is new. Up to press, it's usually been about the Single Market, but the issue hardly raises any additional burdens if the UK agrees a tariff-free deal, keeps up the existing trade deals and maintains parity with the EU's external tariffs.
The issue is and always has been about maintaining alignment with Single Market rules, including enforcement structures and supervisory arrangements. And, if there is to be alignment on the ground in Northern Ireland, it follows that either the rest of the UK must be similarly aligned, or there must be a new border drawn down the Irish Sea.
We have been round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this ever since day one, and are no further forward than when we started. But as we now move into May, we have less than six weeks to resolve an issue which has eluded the UK government from the very start of the negotiations.
Perhaps then it would help if tomorrow the cabinet took a really long, hard look at the Swiss option. With more than
a hundred manned customs posts for a country that has no borders with non-EU countries (apart from Liechtenstein), a proper study would show that it will take far more than a network of bilateral agreements to secure an invisible border.
If the cabinet starts thinking straight, there is a
solution to hand. but it means abandoning the magical thinking that has been dominating the government's approach to this issue.
We should be under no illusions though. If this matter isn't settled, neither the Lords nor the Commons will be voting on a deal â there won't be one to vote on. And we also need to shed any illusions on the fate of the UK without a deal. This is something no sane person would willingly embrace. Sanity, therefore, must prevail.
