Do we have the technology for "alternative arrangements" instead of the Irish backstop?

Let’s deal with this “Alternative Arrangements” question.

Is the technology available or isn’t it to deal with the Irish border without erecting a hard border in the case of a hard Brexit (leaving Single Market and Customs Union?

There is a very simple answer to this but no-one seems to be saying it or acting on the basis of that knowledge.

SUMMARY:

• Do we have the technology? We have the components but not the system
• How long would developing the system take? You need a Feasibility Study with a business model. Until you have that, let’s guess many hundreds of millions cost and 5 to 10 years. More guesswork below.
• Can the UK develop this? Maybe, but we don’t have a good track record.
• Should we have started this in 2016? Yes, if we knew what the future relationship would be, but unfortunately Leave campaigners were saying many different things about that.
• So why do we need a backstop – can’t we rely on alternative arrangements? The arrangements aren’t really alternative – the technology is needed for the system, and the backstop is needed (if we exit Customs Union and Single Market) to show what we would do until we were ready.
• Can the Feasibility Study be done in 4 weeks? No. 

Do we have the technology?

The “technology” to solve this would be an information system implemented jointly on both sides of the border for all organisations doing business across the border, meeting all legislative requirements, presumably with a substantial internet component, and substantial in-house systems interacting with that for relevant users, and administration of this by the legislative authorities.

Is it feasible to construct and implement such a system for an economically viable cost? Personally I would guess the answer to be “yes”, but the professional way to answer it is to undertake an appropriate feasibility study. I would expect such a feasibility study to take some 6+  months if there was political stability and support – i.e. we know what the future relationship is and can plan on that basis. That’s after probably 6+ months to define and procure the study. It could be longer if the business model negotiations proved tricky (see below)  In the event of political stability, it could take forever.

Could the system be implemented ? Well the feasibility study would give us the answer, but I would expect yes, with a timescale of 5 to 10 years; again, the degree of political stability and commitment would be a major factor. Procurements would take a year or so, and would be sent ‘back to start’ if the political solution changed.  International suppliers would be involved and they would not want to contract in sterling. If you want to be very ambitious and suggest that it could be done in 3 years after the feasibility study then I respect your view but I think you’re being very brave.  Allow another year for procurements up-front.

What would it cost? Again, you need the feasibility study. If you ask me how much to put into long-term planning, in advance of the knowledge of what the Feasibility Study would tell us, I would suggest we are talking hundreds of millions (dollars / pounds / euros – you choose which currency is the most stable). A business model would be needed establishing who pays and on what basis.  Again, please suggest your estimate if you have a better view.

What is “the technology” ?

So the technology all exists if you mean bits of hardware – scanners, chips, PCs, internet, servers, possible interfaces with government systems.

When Sajid Javid solved this problem in the leadership debate by saying “We’ll pay for all the technology” , that told us that he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. On both sides? For all the exporters? Where was his costing? Ah yes, the Tory Fantasy Fiscal Forest to the rescue.

But the technological solution does not exist and – to put it mildly – needs work. Which has not started.

Now, all I know about this is that I’ve had a successful and profitable career working with organisations up to Board level on complex systems over several decades, and have manged a team dealing with a nationwide logistics solution involving scanning every parcel by tailored information systems in about 2000 organisations up and down the UK and including international shipping as well, in order to achieve throughputs of up to 50,000 parcels per hour.  I’m not referring to Customs enforcement here, but I do know something about the management of complex multi-player logistics systems.  I accept that Boris Johnson will know much more about this because he knows about the Congestion Charge, but he might want to consider the above points as well.

Is it certain we could develop “the technology” ?

Is the UK Government promising to develop such a system.
What would the chances be of reasonable success?

Probably about 25%, as a rough estimate. judging by Government track record across all Information Systems.

But then let’s factor in that no feasibility study has been done yet.

Let’s make that 5%. That’s generous.

And people question why the European Union wants a back-stop against the possibility that the system is not developed ‘in time’?

Should we have started already?

We now have to consider the practical consequences of what was described in the Leave campaign. The internet is awash with Johnson, Gove, Farage, the Adam Smith Institute, Daniel Hannan and others extolling the virtues of the Single Market and/or the Customs Union.  .But it doesn’t matter whether they all agreed with a Single Market and Customs Union solution; the point is that if there was a serious possibility of this, then the system and indeed the feasibility study is not needed, so why waste the money?

Once Theresa May declared her personal red lines, then the Feasibility Study could have started on some serious work. If there had been a settled view on the future relationship it could have been done by now.  I see no published evidence that any professional work has been done on this. I’m not criticising the Civil Service; I expect they have not been asked to tackle this.

What is the backstop for?

There was always a view that “The problem could be solved with technology”

Well, that’s fine , in that case run the Feasibility Study that would tell us this – or do whatever else would provide confidence that the solution will be available for cost $X and by time Y.

The EU 27, mistrustful doomsters that they are, wasn’t absolutely certain that the UK  Government could do all this within 2 years with a little more fruit picked off the Magic Money Tree. Yes, I know, they are supposed to be our friends, why can’t they trust us?

The UK Government proposed the backstop so that full exit from the Single Market and Customs Union is delayed until we are ready. That’s all.

If we now propose that we can have ‘alternative arrangements’, that’s nothing new. But we haven’t done the work. The backstop was agreed so that we knew what would happen in the remote possibility (sorry, certainty), that we wouldn’t have the system in 2 years time. This isn’t  doom and gloom – some things take time. I know Boris knows better, but you can’t get together 9 women to make a baby in one month.

Given our progress of zero towards the UK Government defined goal in 3 years, the EU are sceptical as to whether we could complete the whole in 2 years more. What rotters!

I have no idea what could be worked out in 4 weeks. I wouldn’t take on that brief, because there will be tears and recriminations at the end of 4 weeks.

Does this help with understanding some of the nonsense that is being discussed about alternative arrangements?