The Leader Column of The Daily Telegraph yesterday was a piece of masterly understatement. Britain and Brussels, it said, are united in their failure to take each other seriously. I am sure this is true, but the heart of it surely is the sheer irrationality of Brexit and everything that was ever claimed to be the benefit of it. The problem for the British government is that each passing day, as we hurtle towards our rendezvous with reality, that irrationality becomes increasing clearer.
The editorial is just a short one and this is, I think, the central thrust:
"The UK never imagined that countries like Germany, which runs a massive trade surplus with Britain, would be prepared to damage its own economic interests to maintain a united EU front. Equally, the EU is not taking seriously enough the desire of Mr Johnson to do a deal on new terms. The EU assumption that the Government is now wedded to no deal is wrong. The Prime Minister has said many times he wants an agreement".
The EU does not apparently take Johnson's wish to have his cake and eat it seriously or seriously enough. Even for The Telegraph this is surprising stuff at this late hour in the negotiation.
It is this fallacy in thinking that has beset the whole endeavour from the very beginning. Britain has always viewed the EU in purely mercantile terms, while the EU see the trade aspect as an essential stepping stone to a better world. Progress at the social level needs money and that money must come from economic integration and trade. The security aspect has also become increasingly important with the rise of China and Russia's failure to conform to normal standards of international behaviour. Not to mention Trump or climate change.
We genuinely thought that German car manufacturers would come to our rescue. Britain 'never imagined' they would damage their own economic interests - this as we are actively engaged in preparing to damage our own!
They talk of the 'self-defeating obduracy' on the part of Brussels to pretend the deal is the only one possible and seem to think only the EU and Ireland have a duty to avoid a hard border in Ireland as if the Good Friday Agreement had nothing to do with us.
This is the thought process of the would-be self harmer or potential suicide victim who cannot understand why everybody isn't desperate to offer them everything they want. It's a cry for help isn't it?
Unfortunately, for Johnson and his ex employer at 111, Buckingham Palace Road, his premiership has only made the need for the backstop greater than ever and it has probably increased the resolve of the EU27 not to make any concessions.
In The Guardian yesterday, Martin Kettle is suggesting some minor changes to the backstop would see May's deal through. I am not in the least convinced. Firstly, Johnson's resignation letter of July 2018 makes perfectly clear he wants the freedom to make wholesale changes our regulatory framework:
"Conversely, the British government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law, without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health - and when we no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made".
Paradoxically, this points to serious objections he has with the non-binding Political Declaration, something the EU have openly and repeatedly offered to renegotiate, rather than with the Withdrawal Agreement itself, which says nothing at all about the future relationship.
The problem is that the further we diverge from EU rules, the greater the need for a hard border and therefore the need for the backstop to prevent it. Apart from it being an insurance policy, the backstop is a clear, unequivocal signal that both sides recognise the ONLY KNOWN way a frictionless border can be maintained, as technology stands at the moment, is by close regulatory and tariff alignment.
Even if Kettle was right, and a time limit was applied, we know that Mark Francois and the ERG will vote down anything with the word 'agreement' in it so the prospect of getting a WA through parliament is the same as it was under Mrs May, i.e, zero.
On the same day the leader appeared in The Telegraph, someone named Madeline Grant writes in the same edition that hard line remainers are a bit like extinction rebellion protestors and are 'driven by their feelings, not facts'.
This will have many of you choking over your cappuccinos this morning I know.
The failure to confront 'facts' from the start has led us to our present crisis and now the government is peddling more myths about preparations for a no deal Brexit. They say everything is going to be alright with customs but Channel 4 has spoken to senior customs agents at Dover who say that they are "no way near ready for the additional mountain of paperwork that a no deal exit would trigger".
