By contrast, the EU had clear positions, written mandates, and access to real experts. They didn’t indulge in wishful thinking. What was a surprise is that in the first phase, 2016 to 2019, Barnier’s team was no more than 60 strong and at the outset, just twelve. I checked and can see that the department Mrs. May created, DEXEU, had over 700 under Steve Barclay. Let that sink in.
We made proposals that we then resiled from before finally agreeing to them anyway. We signed agreements that we later rejected altogether (on the level playing field for example) and the change of prime minister resulted in a total volte face. Our position was chopped and changed constantly.
May was prepared to comply with a lot of single market rules and remain in the customs union in order to preserve as much as possible of the supply chains that had built up over 40 years. She prioritised market access in exchange for a loss of sovereignty. Johnson, on the other hand, prioritised sovereignty and didn’t give a damn about market access (f*** business), the depressing results of which we have seen over the last two years.
There were occasions when ministers in London were saying one thing while British negotiators in Brussels were working on another. At one point (page 148) when he was Brexit secretary Dominic Raab traveled all the way to Brussels to tell Barnier that he would “block any idea that postponed the introduction of an independent UK trade policy as part of the backstop and disassociated himself from what Barnier had worked on for day’s at the instigation of May’s team.”
He went on to tell Barnier that “as a cabinet member he had to protect the prime minister, he said, and therefore he disagreed with what she was trying to do.”
De Rynck seemed exasperated by it all, because as he explains, “Barnier himself had just spent days cajoling several people in the EU to move towards what May wanted, while May attempted to bypass him in EU capitals.”
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
And at least one puzzle is answered. Anyone who thought Frost had undergone some kind of transformation into a mad Brexiteer after his period at the head of the Scotch Whisky Association will note that is wrong. He was known to have been a lifelong Eurosceptic when he was a diplomat (page 160).
He was only pretending to be a remainer when he appeared before a Scottish parliamentary committee in 2015 and later wrote a section of a pamphlet in early 2016 declaring how damaging Brexit would be for the UK. This is about the only time he was right.
When in 2018 we put forward a three-page summary of a 'maximum facilitation' proposal for an invisible Irish land border which was said to be of "bewildering complexity" it was shown to Robert Lighthizer, Donald Trump’s trade supremo, who was vastly experienced in the WTO. Having read it (page 99) and concluded it made no sense, he asked Michel Barnier, “How do you deal with these people?”
How indeed.
Frost is making a fool of himself in the Telegraph again this morning. He says "we can all see the problems. The country’s productivity has been woeful since 2008. British state capabilities are withering away – health, law and order, border control, excessive devolution – and there has been a sustained attack on our history, on our ability to govern ourselves as an independent country, and even on obvious truths such as the definition of a man and a woman. Worse, Conservatives have been in power while all this has happened."
This only skims the surface of our national malaise, as he probably well knows, but don't worry he thinks "if we can bring back the spirit of change that came with Brexit and make an offer that Conservatives want to buy into." Good luck with that.
The country, according to Frost has "vacillated uncertainly and failed to explain what voters could expect once Brexit was done."
This is nearly seven years since the referendum was announced and we are still talking about it but those at the top (him) have failed to explain what happens after Brexit!!! Some Chutzpah.
And oddly his own recipe for success hardly includes anything that Britain couldn’t have done inside the EU. The only thing he mentions is “some Brexit reforms.” Everything else is what any EU member state can do now. Some things (the NI protocol) are a direct result of Brexit for heaven's sake. No wonder ministers are failing to explain what to expect once Brexit is done.
This is Frost:
"What would this approach look like in practice? For growth, we need a credible programme of tax and spending cuts; some Brexit reforms; a net zero rethink, pushing back the deadlines on things like air pumps and electric cars; an NHS open to reform, with more private provision; more houses built; and an end to the attacks on private transport.
"For a stronger nation, we need to reverse some aspects of devolution; fix Northern Ireland properly; credibly reduce legal immigration and end illegal Channel crossings; act on serious crime and anti-social behaviour; protect freedom of speech properly; reform the Equalities Act; spend more on defence; get proper control of the government machine; and, crucially, have government itself defending Brexit more robustly."
Note that he either can't or doesn't want to actually spell out what these 'reforms' are.
We are more or less in the same position as we were back in June 2016, having persuaded a majority of voters to support something which has still not been defined but increasingly looks like a disaster.
