To no one's great surprise, the talks in Brussels this week have got precisely nowhere (HERE). Barnier told EU ambassadors yesterday afternoon that the talks had been constructive (they're always 'constructive' aren't they?) but haven't produced a breakthrough. I assume Cox and Barclay actually tabled something although it's not impossible they just banged their heads against the wall for an hour or two. That might have been more productive.
They might have returned with something even if it was just a headache. Clearly, whatever was tabled on our side didn't produce a "crikey, why did we never think of that before moment" from EU negotiators. Barnier didn't rush out and proclaim the UK had come up with brilliant written legal proof that black was white or that permanent now meant temporary, with the Oxford English dictionary accepting the change, thus unblocking the talks, solving the backstop issue and protecting the Good Friday Agreement in one fell swoop.
Alberto Nardelli at BuzzFeed seems to be well connected and claims to have seen a diplomatic note circulated after the Cox-Barclay/Barnier meeting (HERE). He reports the EU saying the UK is still trying to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement but have proposed two new ideas:
"[The note] states that Cox, who is leading the talks for the UK side, presented the idea of an 'arbitration panel' that would determine if the two sides were acting in good faith and were being reasonable in their efforts to identify alternative arrangements to the backstop — the insurance policy that guarantees that there can be no hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in all circumstances.
"Cox also proposed the concept of a new 'mini backstop' that would limit the mechanism to only cover elements that relate to border infrastructure".
Both ideas were rejected by Barnier amid claims that what we are trying to do is find a "legal solution to a political problem."
Attorney General Cox (HERE) says "strong views" were exchanged which I take to mean there was a shouting match, sparked probably by the British habit on foreign soil of raising the pitch of the voice in direct proportion to the degree of incomprehension involved from the other side. And since the European incomprehension about all things Brexit is near total we can be sure the stentorian Cox put his baritone to good use. Strong views is diplomatic speak for what we used to call a right up-and-a-downer.
The BBC were claiming last night (HERE) and again this morning that we have been given what amounts to an ultimatum. Produce some acceptable proposals by close of play Friday or forget talks continuing over the weekend and with that any prospect of having something different for MPs to vote on next week. Unless Cox has a few more ready-made bright 'ideas' already agreed with May, her cabinet and the ERG you can forget the 48 hour deadline - as for the three 'tests' (HERE) don't even bother thinking about them.
The Telegraph (HERE) are reporting already the next meaningful vote (MV2) will be lost next week by up to 100 votes and Downing Street is preparing for MV3:
"One minister said it appeared 'certain' that the Commons vote on the Brexit deal will be lost, and that Mrs May’s next move would depend on the scale of the defeat".
Incidentally, the article ends with this:
"Mrs May is expected to make a final appeal to MPs to back her deal - arguing that the alternative is far worse - before Tuesday, with a speech pencilled in for Friday.
"Separately, economists from the Munich-based Ifo Institute for Economic Research have estimated that a 'hard but smart' no deal Brexit would cost Britain about 0.5 per cent of its GDP, with Ireland hit ten times as hard, with a 5 per cent drop in GDP".
It's very odd isn't it how the pro-Brexit press dismiss the Treasury's economic forecasts but are happy to quote private foreign forecasts if they look as if the EU (or Ireland in this case) are damaged more than we are.
To add to the PM's problems, yesterday the House of Lords voted through an amendment to the Withdrawal Bill calling for the UK to enter into a customs union of sorts with the EU after Brexit (HERE). This will become UK law unless the government can force enough votes to defeat it on second reading - and there is no guarantee that they have the numbers to do it.
And finally, a world first and possibly last - a mea culpa - from Dr Richard North this morning (HERE) who admits he didn't see a big VAT problem coming:
"There is also the issue which we all failed to address during the referendum campaign – VAT harmonisation. Even the systems prevailing in Efta/EEA states, and with Switzerland, would not ensure a soft border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We would need to sign up to a comprehensive VAT treaty with the EU, the extent of which currently does not exist outside the EU.
"Those who seem to take delight in picking holes in the thinking that has emerged on this, through the blog and in the different editions of Flexcit, need to remember that we recommended settling our post-Brexit relationship with the EU before making our Article 50 notification.
"I also suggested that it might be necessary to apply for a time extension before we even got down to the negotiations, with the suggestion that it could take as long as 20 years for us to finalise our trading relations".
Alas, there are more and bigger holes in flexcit than just VAT harmonisation but it's a start. As for settling our post-Brexit relationship before triggering Article 50, didn't the EU refuse to negotiate before notification? They're a bit too smart in Brussels to hand over all the cards before the game.
As for trade negotiations taking 20 years, I agree but again this wasn't in flexcit either. Get me a red bus and a sign writer quick.
