UKICE have always been clear they think negotiations with the EU are going to be slow, take years and achieve little in the way of practical benefits. Menon is simply repeating that belief. He says:
"Negotiations, then, promise to be tough and not all of them will succeed. And for what? When all is said and done, the economic impact of what is being proposed will be relatively modest. Mutual recognition will make it slightly easier for professionals to ply their trade, but will certainly not remove most of the barriers to services provision imposed by Brexit."
I have written a few posts on this blog about the fruitless search for a ‘Goldilocks’ position for Britain. The illusion that somewhere between full membership and where we are now is a perfect place for the UK, neither too close nor too distant.
A lot of European countries have different relationships with the EU of course. The 27, a majority, are full members. Others, like Norway and Switzerland are rich enough to plough their own furrow and are either in the SM or EFTA or Schengen, which is pretty close to membership amyway. We now stand alongside Russia and Belarus as the only European countries totally outside the bloc. It is not a comfortable place for this country, as Stamer is about to discover.
Negotiations are a feature of international affairs in a modern inter-connected world, particularly one where the balance between trade and security are at the forefront of everybody's mind. EU countries are in permanent negotiations, not just about new EU legislation but the updating of old ones and reviewing the latest changes to see how things are working out.
And then there are the external negotiations with third countries over matters of trade.
I think Starmer is quickly going to learn the difference between the two. The central objective of EU officials and diplomats is the preservation and strengthening of the EU. During internal negotiations, strenuous efforts are made to accommodate national politicians. It's rare for serious rows to break out because every member knows their biggest concerns - assuming they have any - are being taken seriously. A concession here is met with a compromise there, and so on. Things are always tricky as in any democratic body where disagreements are common but in general, it works.
The focus of the Commission is on internal matters because that's what keeps Europe unified. Brexit happened because Tory politicians were unable to compromise. They wanted everything their own way, all the time. Even the odd occasions when we were outvoted were too much for them to swallow.
So, now Labour are trying to reset things and get a 'better deal' from the outside and will soon discover how difficult it is. The EU are going to drive a very hard bargain because they can.
In negotiations, BATNA is the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It refers to the relative strength of each side and the willingness of one side or the other to abandon talks for the status quo or the best alternative to getting an agreement. It doesn't take a genius to see who has the whip hand.
Brussels has not come knocking at our door since 2020 to ask for a better deal mainly because they think, rightly in my view, that they already have the best deal anyway. They don't need Britain and wisely they have made no secret of it, preferring instead to carry on as before, negotiating with other prospective members to expand the bloc eastward.
Michel Barnier isn't a genius or a man who wished to punish the UK. He got the better end of the deal negotiating with hardened Brexiteers like Frost and Gove, simply because Brussels knew it was always going to win. All Barnier had to do was remain cool and wait for the beads of sweat to appear on Johnson's forehead.
If the Tories, who advocated Brexit, believed in Brexit and were backed by an 80-seat majority of MPs who demanded Brexit couldn't get a good deal, what chance does Labour stand?
Starmer doesn't believe in Brexit and his cabinet and the party behind him would rejoin in a heartbeat.
He will get whatever it is that the EU want to give and you can be sure the benefits of any new agreement(s) will simply add to the advantages they already enjoy. Why should they offer us any more than they need to? We are not going to get one over on Brussels you can be sure.
All of this is going to take time, years perhaps, and all the while the EU will be moving on, requiring more negotiations to try and agree opt-outs to whatever dynamic alignments we have signed up to but don't like. British diplomats will be in never-ending negotiations and governments of both colours will always be trying to 'reset' the relationship, one way or the other with Britain constantly running behind like a bothersome, demanding puppy.
How many years will it be before a UK prime minster comes to the conclusion that we are better off as a member than as third country trying to pick 'n mix the benefits of membership, or struggling to decide exactly where we want to be in relation to the EU?
