Can someone explain the current backstop position

[Bearbehind]

Because I'm confused!

I thought that TM originally proposed a backstop of NI remaining in CU/SM, the the DUP immediately vetoed that so we reverted to saying the whole of the UK would remain aligned with SM /CU wrt issues affecting the border.

Barnier said in his speech they never wanted to create a border in the North Sea either.

So WTF is TM on about now saying the EU need to 'evolve' on the backstop?

This has been agreed already.

What am I missing here?

Bearbehind

This is what happened:
In December EU (inc Irish) agreed Backstop with the UK.
It meant that NI would have to remain aligned with EU regulations (i.e. single market) and Customs Union to prevent a border.
DUP threw a hissy fit if you remember and UK agreed a clause in the backstop that Britain (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales) couldn't diverge from the rules in NI as that would create a border in the Irish sea.
EU didn't agree to this - they said that was an internal matter for the UK.
About February time the EU presented the Legal text for the backstop.
UK threw a hissy fit saying they couldn't accept that (though it was agreed in December) as it would break up the UK.
Then in March the PM confirmed in writing that she was committed to the Backstop but not the legal wording.
EU said "fine, we're open to discussing the legal wording, what do you want". UK has yet to respond.

UK have tried to get whole of the UK into the backstop but EU are refusing saying that the backstop situation is only available for NI due to it's troubled history and circumstances.

Thanks rdoo

That still doesn't tie in to TM completely dismissing the backstop now though.

Barnier specifically said today that they didn't want a sea border either.

Where does the fact the UK wanted to put a time restriction on the backstop, thus making it no longer a backstop, come into it?

That still doesn't tie in to TM completely dismissing the backstop now though.
Yes, she has reneged on her previous agreement it would seem.

Barnier specifically said today that they didn't want a sea border either.
He's trying to soften his language to try and sell the backstop.

Where does the fact the UK wanted to put a time restriction on the backstop, thus making it no longer a backstop, come into it?
That seemed to be David Davis little ploy a few weeks ago. What's the point in having a time limit backstop? None. The Irish were very quickly to say they wouldn't accept a time limit.

Thanks rdoo so the crux of it is we aren't even honourable enough to stick to what we've already agreed and nothing we say now makes any sense.

Marvellous!

Thanks rdoo so the crux of it is we aren't even honourable enough to stick to what we've already agreed and nothing we say now makes any sense.
Yes, and that's before we even consider the damage being done in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement.

we agreed we needed a backstop in December, we did not agree what it was - TM has always said NI will not be treated differently to mainland UK.
Hard, unmanned, border is only solution and not a big issue - we already have a hard unmanned duty border (tobacco, alcohol and fuel) - this is little different.

Read everything and it seems to me that the vicar's daughter is going back on her word therefore cannot expect 27other Countries to think she and her dysfunctional government will honour any agreement

we agreed we needed a backstop in December, we did not agree what it was

We did though.

That was when TM originally said NI could remain aligned and she had to backtrack and say the whole of the UK would remain aligned because the DUP went bat shit crazy.

Hard, unmanned, border is only solution and not a big issue - we already have a hard unmanned duty border (tobacco, alcohol and fuel) - this is little different.
What is a "hard, unmanned, border"?

By the way - if you don't know what was agreed in December, here's it written down.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665869/Joint_report_on_progress_during_phase_1_of_negotiations_under_Article_50_TEU_on_the_United_Kingdom_s_orderly_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union.pdf

I think the agreement was 'in principle', not legally binding, so although it may be bad form to go back on it, it's allowed

Rdoo It is the same as the one currently in NI for duty.
It is similar to the Norway/Sweden one (which is manned in places, but not all road crossings), the Switzerland and the EU (often unmanned) and the US/Canada one, with 100 checkpoints for 5,500 miles of border.

There are also hard duty borders between all countries within the EU

Rdoo It is the same as the one currently in NI for duty.
It is similar to the Norway/Sweden one (which is manned in places, but not all road crossings), the Switzerland and the EU (often unmanned) and the US/Canada one, with 100 checkpoints for 5,500 miles of border.
There's no physical border in Ireland. I'm from a border area and let me assure you that a manned border (even, just in places) or any infrastructure would not be accepted.

Which countries within the EU have hard duty borders?

Rdoo that is my point - there is a legal duty border, with different rates payable to different governments on either side, but no physical infrastructure - a trusted trader scheme.

Peregrina

All of them - see rules

Different duty rates apply in each country and is due to the country, not the EU, which is different from import duty. Movement by business requires paperwork. Customs officers check and track down evaders through cross country co-operation. There are, however, no border checks.

Hard, unmanned, border is only solution and not a big issue - we already have a hard unmanned duty border (tobacco, alcohol and fuel) - this is little different.

What? No, sorry, this is bollocks.

Firstly, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are both currently in the EU. Free movement of goods means that any goods which are in free circulation in one member state may move freely to another member state. End of story.

Secondly, tobacco, alcohol and fuel are all permitted in both countries.

Chlorinated chickens and shoddy electrical goods which don’t conform to EU safety standards are not allowed in the EU. If Northern Ireland is no longer in the single market and customs union the border will have to be policed to make sure that such goods cannot get in via Northern Ireland.

Free movement of people wouldn’t be such an issue for the EU because Ireland isn’t part of the Schengen area. (Although anyone in Ireland could get into Northern Ireland if they wanted to, so the risk of illegal immigration into the UK via Ireland would be slightly increased, although like Trump and his wall I think we’re being a bit arrogant assuming that everyone will want to come to the UK.)

If there are no border checks, is it a border, especially a hard duty border?

Reading the rules is quite enlightening. It's not talking about customs posts and vehicles being stopped -it's talking about different VAT rates and which country's rates you have to pay.

Peregrina It is not just VAT rates, but also duty rates. Why do you think there are so many rules on moving tobacco across borders in the EU? Borders don't have to be policed to make them borders. The NI and Irish customs police work closely to detect and prevent illegal cross border transit of dutiable goods without the relevant paperwork.
Manned borders don't stop illegal smuggling (people, drugs etc), and unmanned borders do not make most people into criminals. Companies moving goods around know the law and obey it.
See unmanned borders in Norway/Sweden as an example.

Norway is not a sensible comparison, carol.

If we were going for a Norway model all these issues would be a lot easier to resolve.

And as I have already pointed out, a few packets of Marlborough lights or bottles of whiskey are not the same as chlorinated chickens or goods which don’t meet EU safety standards.

Pics of Norway / Sweden border and Swiss / Italian border. I suspect these would not work on the island of Ireland

I think you deliberately misunderstood, caroldecker. The sort of border I am talking about is like the two above, of the Norway/Sweden and Swiss/Italian, all BTW in Schengen i.e. a physical infrastructure, not reams of paperwork.

I will add one of my own with a non EU Schengen/Non EU Non Schengen country.

I do remember seeing border posts along the Franco-Belgian border, with barriers in the up position rusted with disuse and the border huts being taken over by vegetation.

its all going to be Selective pictures are the refuge of a scoundrel - most Norway/Sweden border crossings have no physical infrastructure, as I mentioned upthread. I did not say none existed.

You can have a physical infrastructure, but there is no need for it. The EU gets by quite happily without them, as discussed upthread.

Cigarette smuggling is so serious, the big manufacturers are paying €2.15 bn to the EU to fight it.

My point is, manned borders do not prevent smuggling and unmanned borders do not create it. The EU has precedent for accepting unmanned borders in its territory, so should suit for the Ireland issue.
Manned borders would exist between the UK and France

As far as I'm aware this is what has happened. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The withdrawal agreement needs to contain a backstop, a guarantee by both the EU and the UK on how they will uphold the GFA which states no border in NI in the event that either we don't come to an agreement or the agreement does not prevent a hard border.

The backstop we agreed to was that NI would essentially stay in the single market, with a border within the Irish Sea. So if we diverge from EU standards sub standard products cannot enter the EU. This is only to be activated if we come to no deal or a deal that requires border checks.

The DUP objected to this as it created a border between NI and the rest of the UK. So we decided that having agreed to it, we would change it so that the backstop position of single market access would apply to the whole of the UK.

The EU then said that that wasn't what was meant, as it would then give the UK access to the single market without any of the responsibilities, and without free movement, which would be unfair to all the member states who balance the benefits with the responsibilities.They were willing to extend this to NI only, purely to uphold the GFA and in light of the history of NI.

The arch brexiteers didn't want this either, as it would mean that there would be less chance of the hard brexit they want, after all if we can retain all the benefits of the single market without the responsibilities, what incentive is there for us to strike a deal. Also it would make it impossible for us to deregulate any of our industries as we would still need to align with product and safety standards set by the EU. The hard brexiteers would rather break the GFA than stay in any way aligned to the EU, as they want deregulation and trade deals with countries such as the US, who have lower food standards for example.

So TM is trying to find a way to not crash out of the EU by agreeing a backstop, but because of her lack of majority in the house of commons is reliant on both the DUP and the arch brexiteers, neither of whom want a backstop that keeps any part of the UK aligned with the EU. Which is the point of the backstop.

Caroldecker
What you actually said was:
It is similar to the Norway/Sweden one (which is manned in places, but not all road crossings), the Switzerland and the EU (often unmanned) and the US/Canada one, with 100 checkpoints for 5,500 miles of border.
There are also hard duty borders between all countries within the EU

Most of us will interpret that to mean a physical infrastructure with the examples you gave. When I asked where there were hard borders within the EU, I expected to see 'between x and Y. Not, I will now pretend that I said something different and start implying that those who say different are scoundrels.

No one, as far as I am aware has said that that borders do prevent smuggling - I am quite sure that smuggling went on between Western Europe and the old Eastern bloc, and of course, people went to great lengths to escape. But a hard physical border made that much more difficult.