Declaration casts doubt on backstop
What does the “political declaration” on a framework for the future relationship between the UK and EU actually change? The document, published yesterday and hailed by No 10, contains some good things, some bad things – and a lot that is left up to the imagination. Supporters say the sunlit uplands are in sight: controlled borders and a deep trade partnership. Critics note that it demands a “level playing field” (ruling out much deregulation), an arbitration process that involves European courts, even a guarantee that the UK will defer to the European Court of Human Rights. Most importantly, the declaration is just a statement of intent and is not legally binding. The Withdrawal Agreement is. Any MP who was once against, but now is tempted to vote for the agreement because they like the sound of the declaration, must bear this in mind.
Either the boundless possibilities suggested in parts of the declaration are a mere fig-leaf to a bad deal, in which case they are best ignored, or they are options that are genuinely on the table, in which case they cast the agreement in a whole new light. Take the Irish border. If, as the declaration states, the UK and EU are to put in place all “facilitative arrangements and technologies” to ensure “the absence of a hard border”, then why is the backstop in the agreement?
Under the terms of the agreement, the backstop will be triggered in the absence of any solutions to keep the border as soft as possible. But if solutions can be, or indeed are, implemented, then why on earth is Britain signing up to entrapment in a restrictive customs arrangement in the event of a crisis that need not happen? No one wants a hard border: no one in this process has said they will impose one. So if this declaration truly reflects the goodwill between the EU and the UK then, as Iain Duncan Smith said in the House, why not revise the Withdrawal Agreement?
If the agreement remains as it is, parliamentary arithmetic still suggests defeat. If the numbers do not significantly change – if Theresa May cannot win over more of her own MPS – then a lot of what is published or said over the next few days is for the birds. It is therefore likely that the Government’s best course would be to tell the Europeans bluntly that the backstop, among other things, is unacceptable and needs serious renegotiation.