Michel Barnier has thrown down the gauntlet with an article in The Telegraph (HERE no £) which has a rather provocative title, given by a sub-editor I assume: We will only start work on alternative arrangements if the current deal is ratified. It is not a long piece but sets down with admirable clarity (something sadly lacking on our side) where we are now. The headline makes a claim which is not quite supported by Barnier's words.
The paragraph that spawned the title is this one:
"The new UK government has asked us to change what was agreed. The EU had already committed itself to working with the UK, during the standstill transition period, on alternative arrangements that achieve the same objectives of the backstop. We are ready to start this work immediately upon ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, in parallel to finally creating clarity on our future relationship."
"The new UK government has asked us to change what was agreed. The EU had already committed itself to working with the UK, during the standstill transition period, on alternative arrangements that achieve the same objectives of the backstop. We are ready to start this work immediately upon ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, in parallel to finally creating clarity on our future relationship."
It is not quite so emphatic as the sub-editor seems to think, but close enough. The EU chief negotiator does not do 'own label' stuff so you can be sure every word has gone through the EU capitals for confirmation and approval. The final bit is the killer:
"The Prime Minister has said there will be no more extensions beyond the end of October. Therefore, the UK has now come to a moment of truth and it must decide if it leaves the EU with or without an agreement. If it chooses the latter, it means that there will be no transition period and no so-called 'mini-deals', as the EU will only act to protect its own interests.
"The Prime Minister has said there will be no more extensions beyond the end of October. Therefore, the UK has now come to a moment of truth and it must decide if it leaves the EU with or without an agreement. If it chooses the latter, it means that there will be no transition period and no so-called 'mini-deals', as the EU will only act to protect its own interests.
"n case of 'no-deal', all the UK’s financial and other obligations from its past EU membership will continue to exist, as well as obviously the international obligations it has to protect the Good Friday Agreement, in all its dimensions.
"The EU cannot prevent the UK from choosing a 'no-deal’ scenario. I would fail to understand the logic of that choice though, as we would still need to solve the same problems after 31 October."
The choice that Mrs May could not get MPs to make and which Johnson has refused to make so far is coming up very soon. The moment of truth as Barnier calls it. Johnson thought he could somehow avoid it, that the EU would blink if enough pressure was applied. He has invested so much political capital in building pressure that he can hardly climb down just yet, but, red in the face from effort and embarrassment, climb down he must. Barnier is daring him to throw himself off the cliff edge and pointing out that if he does - and survives - it will change nothing. He (we) will still face exactly the same problems but now with shattered limbs, covered in blood and in agony.
It is not only Barnier who would fail to understand it. About 80% of the UK population wouldn't either
Now to other matters.
I am very grateful to the person (he knows who he is) who pointed me to this BBC programme from October 2016. Jacob Rees-Mogg is debating with Ken Clarke the next steps in the Brexit fiasco process. I've edited out a short (108 secs) clip where Rees-Mogg is asked by Jo Cockburn which EU laws he wants to repeal after Brexit, a question which Clarke himself has asked a lot since 2016 without getting a satisfactory answer or indeed any answer at all usually. Rees-Mogg does give one but it's quite surprising, at least to me.
We are apparently on the verge of crashing out without a deal and the government's own internal Operation Yellowhammer leak shows food, fuel and medicine shortages are expected along with civil disorder and God knows what else, so it's helpful to know what matters of grave importance these huge sacrifices are in aid of.
The top thing in Rees-Moggs mind is getting rid of the three crop rule - something which I know is in all our thoughts most of the time. Down at The Wheatsheaf we talk of little else.
Next, is the EU ban on the use of neonicotinoids on certain crops. Again, most of the nation was wringing its hands over this one but Rees-Mogg's arguments obviously were not that persuasive for his Brexiteer colleague Gove who was DEFRA Secretary at the time. Lifting the ban wasn't at the top of his list of priorities - or even the bottom, in fact rather than lift it, he actually supported extending it in 2017.
The working time directive was next - although anybody who is desperate to work themselves into an early grave can opt out if they want. Jacob isn't bothered about those who voluntarily opt out, he wants to force people who don't to work 16 hour days. For the right honourable member for the eighteenth century this is par for the course. We'll soon have those kids up chimneys again doing proper work.
Ken Clarke pointed out we lost the argument against the WTD because it was the Victorians who cut the working week on health grounds. We apparently argued it wasn't a health related issue which just shows you how little we've progressed - or how little Rees-Mogg has progressed anyway.
The ability to set our own fishing quotas was another benefit, although these are set on scientific grounds which I assume cannot be that different whether we are in or out of the EU - unless we do it on political grounds instead.
Finally, and perhaps most stunningly, he wants a return to light bulbs "that work" by which I suppose he means filament bulbs. In the R-M household I assume for entertainment they can watch the electricity meter whirling round like a Catherine Wheel as the 200 watt bulbs provide both heat and light as well as searing the irises of everyone in the room. The fact that you can buy LED bulbs consuming about a twentieth of the power doesn't seem to trouble the multi millionaire climate change denier. I wonder why that is?
So, as you engage in a tug-of-war or worse with your neighbour over the last loaf or cucumber or kumquat in your local Tesco, or an elderly relative dies through lack of medicine or flu vaccine we can all be certain it's in a good cause.
