Does Boris actually have a proposal on Irish border - apart from "absolutely no backstop" ? It seems to be an intractable problem - given that Brexiters want to assume some kind of technical solution that doesn't exist today.
BTW, this thing has dragged on for so long, I doubt the international markets even care about what happens to Brexit anymore.
There's signs of this in in the UK property market. After deferring decisions for a couple of years, people are now just cracking on with life and there's been an increase in supply and demand in the London market since March.
On the Irish border, for the initiated, the Good Friday Agreement worked because of its deliberate ambiguity. It allows Unionists to still live life as part of the UK and Republicans to live as though they are part of a unified Ireland, with power-sharing in Belfast over devolved issues. There's been a Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland since 1923 and goods can move freely between North and South because both the UK and Ireland are part of the Single Market and Customs Union, with common tariffs and regulatory alignment on goods and standards.
So what's the problem? A core driver of the Brexit vote was for the UK to regain sovereignty over trade policy, which hence means it cannot be part of the same customs territory as the EU (i.e. it must leave the customs union). To stay in the customs union but leave the EU would in fact be to forfeit democratic sovereignty over these areas, versus the status quo where sovereignty is pooled. This is because the UK would have no say in rule setting or trade negotiations but still be subject to standards and EU tariff / quota policy.
The "backstop" was particularly reviled in the UK because it essentially sought to keep the UK in the customs union but with no unilateral exit mechanism. It's not liked in a lot of European capitals because they think the UK gets a free lunch, getting unimpeded access to the European Single Market while not having to make any budgetary contribution or allow freedom of movement for European citizens.
So the problem statement for the UK government is how to achieve an independent UK trade policy without a) having customs checks at the Northern Irish border, which would upset Republicans, or b) Northern Ireland having a divergent trade and goods standards policy from the UK, which would upset Unionists. In fact, both a) and b) are almost certainly in legal breach of the Good Friday Agreement.
The UK government's solution is on the face of it then a pragmatic one that relies upon two pillars: 1) that smuggling is a criminal activity and hence only performed by criminals, of which there are few, and 2) that smuggling itself is a crime for which there is an existing and reasonable level of tolerance, especially if a zero tolerance approach instigated civil violence.
By value, North - South Irish trade is performed by a relatively small number of companies (I once read 100 were responsible for something like 80%?), which can be regularly audited to ensure they are not cheating any divergent tariff arrangements. Sample spot checks can be done away from the border where tensions are lower. SMEs would register as Trusted Traders and would self-declare, on the basis that people are trusted in most other areas of life not to be criminals. Income tax statements are a self reported activity for the self employed. Why should tariff liabilities for small business owners (i.e. a trade tax) be any different?
Some people would cheat the system and import goods from one area to the other depending on the beneficial tariff arrangement. They are criminals that no doubt already illegally exploit the differential VAT and Duty rates between the UK and Ireland. I'd venture too that there is quite high correlation between these criminals and the criminals that have said they would commit murder if border posts were reinstated.
There's other bits and pieces to tidy up too. For example the sensible resolution to the issue of food safety and animal health is through a common agricultural area on the island of Ireland. It's most appropriate that there's democratic accountability for this to Northern Irish citizens through the power-sharing Belfast government, though the situation is not helped that this hasn't sat in 2 years. In the meantime, this must regrettably be owned by Westminster.
If you're still with me, by now someone will be jumping up and down and going mad asking about the World Trade Organisation. You can't just have leaky borders and expect that to fly, it's against the global trade system! To which the answer is, well ok then, let's implement the above solution and wait and see if anyone sues us. A slightly imperfect border solution that does an effective enough job of protecting different customs territories, while maintaining the peace in a long disputed territory? A small amount of low grade tariff smuggling in a small island of 6 million people hardly seems worse than the flagrant and severe breaches of the global trade order that multiple states have got away with in the past two decades, be it steel dumping, cheating on environmental and workers right standards, theft of IP, denial of perfectly safe agri products on concocted health and safety grounds etc...
What I get personally sick of hearing is that seemingly the only priority is to "protect the integrity of the European Single Market". Sure, I get it. But any solution must also protect the integrity of the UK Single Market, which is after all almost two centuries older and far broader and more deeply embedded. How about acting with goodwill on all sides, to find a democratically sound and practical solution, in the name of maintaining good relations between the UK and its neighbours and keeping the peace in Ireland? To which the answer of a large section of the UK population now is: because many in the UK Parliament and European capitals have had an incentive to weaponise this issue to try and a) overturn Brexit, or b) cause punishment/humiliation to the UK for leaving the EU.
