To paraphrase George Orwell, every Brexiteer is deluded but some are more deluded than others. In the delusional stakes Dominic Raab, MP and former minister, is a front runner. He has the kind of delusions that most Brexiteers can only dream about, the sort of person they can look to for inspiration when their own earthly delusions seem pale and insipid.
Writing in The Independent (they were obviously looking for a short comedy piece) Raab says that he is more optimistic than ever after the leak about the disastrous Downing Street dinner (HERE) and is actually "buoyed up" by it all. He seems to think it shows the Commission is in a weak position and that they "fear a sensible deal" with Britain. He says, amazingly "Brexit is not all about us". I am mystified by that one. He thinks the Council and the Commission are divided and points to three things to back up this claim. He is demonstrably wrong on every count.
First the Commission's "inflated and skewed calculus for any exit fee was avoided in the council guidelines". But the Council decision (HERE) sets out (one of the bullet points under item 4) one of the negotiating matters is a:
Single financial settlement related to the Union budget and to the termination of the membership of the United Kingdom of the institutions or bodies established by the Treaties, as well as to the participation of the United Kingdom in specific funds and facilities related to Union policies;
The decision comes with an Annex with guidelines for the first negotiation phase (HERE) and there is an entire section, III.2, on how to go about the methodology. It is true a calculation wasn't included but it wasn't in the final Commission guidelines (HERE) either or even in the leaked draft guidelines (HERE) so I am not at all sure what he is talking about. No split there at all.
Secondly, "The council also rebuffed any suggestion that the exit deal has to be agreed before we get onto talking about our future post-Brexit relationship on trade and security". But the Council decision explicitly on page two explains that there will be a "phased approach to the negotiations, as set out in the European Council guidelines" and annex - paragraph 19 clearly states: "As soon as the European Council decides that sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase". Precisely the same position they have always taken, so no split there either.
Finally, he seems to think the Council's proposals on the ECJ has changed. "The EU council rejected the commission’s insistence that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) should have jurisdiction over disputes arising from the “exit deal”, let alone EU nationals living in Britain after Brexit", he claims. But is that true? The Annex item 17 has these words:
The Agreement should contain provisions relating to the overall governance of the Agreement. Such provisions must include effective enforcement and dispute settlement mechanisms that fully respect the autonomy of the Union and of its legal order in order to guarantee the effective implementation of the commitments under the Agreement.
The Commissions final guidelines (item 17) said, "The withdrawal agreement should include appropriate dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms regarding the application and interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, as well as duly circumscribed institutional arrangements allowing for the adoption of measures necessary to deal with situations not foreseen in the withdrawal agreement".
And the leaked draft guidelines (item 8) said, "Lastly, the Agreement should contain provisions relating to its overall governance. Such provisions must include effective enforcement and dispute settlement mechanisms that fully respect the autonomy of the Union and of its legal order in order to guarantee effective implementation of the commitments under the Agreement."
I don't see the Commission ever argued that the ECJ should have jurisdiction over the withdrawal agreement as Raab claims in his article. So, actually not one of the points he uses to prove his claim stands up to ten minutes scrutiny.
The problem with these deluded Brexiteers is they don't bother to read the documents and they think no one actually checks what they write.
