The European Commission’s messaging about the Irish border is both illogical and contradictory
Derek Epstein writes:
The Irish say the backstop is essential because they think that, without it, there will need to be a hard border. But there doesn’t need to be – as Michel Barnier has now admitted.
What are the EU afraid of?
Soft border controls are in use now at the Irish border – a combination of administrative cooperation, whistle-blowing, auditing and site raids by customs, tax and regulatory enforcement officials, all supplemented by occasional random spot-checks on roads leading up to and cameras at the border. The thoroughness of such controls is a matter of degree. No border is fool-proof as only a very small proportion of cross-border consignments is ever physically checked, even at hard borders.
By the end of the transition period, the Irish border could be controlled by the system of checks by then developed and, if either party considers that more robust controls are required, the nature and timing of such further improvements could be settled by agreement or arbitration.
A no-deal scenario would remove that head start, but the same evolution process would apply. It is only the nature of the goods and produce crossing that border that can be of relevance
Other aspects of the Free Trade Agreement, such as access to fisheries, have no relevance whatsoever to agreeing appropriate controls on movements across for the Irish border.
Currently the UK is in full alignment with EU standards