What is this government up to? Brexit Johnson and his spokesmen demand a Canada style FTA but set a totally unrealistic time limit for achieving it. By turns they complain Brussels is welching on earlier pledges, threaten not to implement the NI protocol and warn that WTO terms will damage the EU far more than the UK. Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former Australian trade negotiator, makes a pretty good fist of trying to pick out something that resembles a coherent strategy, in a Twitter thread yesterday.
1/ Thread to get me yelled at by pretty much everyone:— Dmitry Grozoubinski (@DmitryOpines) February 26, 2020
The UK negotiating position and posture in the EU FTA actually makes perfect sense from the government's perspective.
But I'm still not sure it's the right one.
You can read the whole thing on Threadreader HERE. Essentially, he argues there might be method in the madness if you assume two things. First, that the government actually believes it's own dodgy narrative about how the WA negotiations went, that Johnson did indeed face down an over-mighty EU and got them to make concessions that Theresa May could not get. Second that they want to remain in power for as long as possible.
On this second point, he claims the government strategy of aggressive, often misleading, and exclusively domestically focused, communications actually make a lot more sense. Threats of leaving without a deal only work if the British public are convinced that:
A) EU requests are unreasonable.
B) UK tried its best to be fair
C) No-Deal is fine.
D) Any hardship is patriotic suffering in the face of EU regulatory colonialism.
Hence the entire output of government is majored on these things. If the EU concedes that's a win and if they don't that's a win too. For Brexit Johnson it's a win-win situation.
Gozoubinski is sceptical that the EU will make anything like the concessions needed and that leaving on WTO terms in December would have "consequences both practical and real" - whatever that means. I am quite certain the EU will not make big concessions and therefore it's possible that talks will not only go down to the wire, they will go beyond it. We may have to leave and suffer the consequences with the EU simply waiting for the UK government to collapse. As Sir Ivan Rogers said last year, "not least because they [the EU] are very confident that if [the UK walked away], it would be have to be back at the negotiating table within weeks with its chequebook open, desperately seeking a preferential deal because WTO terms are so unpalatable".
As we wait for the UK's mandate to be published later today one tends to think that in the annals of trade negotiations, none can have started in quite so toxic and bellicose an atmosphere.
A Times editorial yesterday warned Johnson not to renege on what he has already agreed with the EU in the NI protocol. National trust is at stake. But this is apparently precisely what he is about to do. The editorial board says:
"That would be a mistake. First it would inflict further uncertainty on Northern Ireland at a time when it needs clarity and it would also reignite destabilising fears of a hard border on the island. Second it would further undermine EU trust at a time when Britain is demanding that it be trusted not to lower regulatory standards. That could make a trade deal even harder to agree. Third, and most damagingly, it could harm Britain’s reputation globally as a country whose word can be trusted. That could make it harder to strike any deals with anyone at all."
Bad as that is, last night The Independent was reporting that the government is also intent on stepping away from the political declaration, using the Tory manifesto as an excuse. The suggestion being that the electorate gave him a new more aggressive mandate. If so, it is going to make a bad situation even worse.
As we wait for the UK's mandate to be published later today one tends to think that in the annals of trade negotiations, none can have started in quite so toxic and bellicose an atmosphere.
A Times editorial yesterday warned Johnson not to renege on what he has already agreed with the EU in the NI protocol. National trust is at stake. But this is apparently precisely what he is about to do. The editorial board says:
"That would be a mistake. First it would inflict further uncertainty on Northern Ireland at a time when it needs clarity and it would also reignite destabilising fears of a hard border on the island. Second it would further undermine EU trust at a time when Britain is demanding that it be trusted not to lower regulatory standards. That could make a trade deal even harder to agree. Third, and most damagingly, it could harm Britain’s reputation globally as a country whose word can be trusted. That could make it harder to strike any deals with anyone at all."
Bad as that is, last night The Independent was reporting that the government is also intent on stepping away from the political declaration, using the Tory manifesto as an excuse. The suggestion being that the electorate gave him a new more aggressive mandate. If so, it is going to make a bad situation even worse.
Robbie Gibb was a former director of communications under Theresa May. He also worked for the BBC as head of its political programming. Those who felt the BBC's output in the recent past was less than impartial may not be surprised by the fact that he is also a long standing Eurosceptic. He has now outed himself as a raving Brexiteer with an article for The Telegraph which you can read via his tweet below:
In the article he carries on the work of David Frost as in his speech in Brussels on the 17th of February. To suggestions we are intent on slashing environmental and employment regulations to gain a competitive advantage he says:The EU still seems to treat the UK like an exiting country trying to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal. It has not quite clocked the UK has already left. We are a third party wanting to do a deal with the EU, not applying to remain in its legal orbit - in tomorrow’s Telegraph pic.twitter.com/0153GvknjC— Robbie Gibb (@RobbieGibb) February 25, 2020
"Nothing could be further from the truth. The government could not have been clearer that it has no intention of lowering standards in either area".
But as several people, including Barnier, have pointed out this should mean we have no difficulty in agreeing to abide by lower EU standards, but no, we kick against it as if our lives depended on it. Of course, Gibb is not alone, half the government - Patel, Raab and Kwarteng in published book form - have said cutting regulations is a central theme of their political philosophy. No wonder Brussels is sceptical. He goes on:
"The EU should dispense with the pretence that it is trying to safeguard our environmental standards and worker's rights - we have those covered. This is about safeguarding its own institutions and principles. It is a political choice by the EU to try and gain a competitive advantage"
Gibbs assertion might have been even more plausible if David Frost hadn't already boasted about, "looking forward, we are going to have a huge advantage over the EU – the ability to set regulations for new sectors, the new ideas, and new conditions – quicker than the EU can, and based on sound science not fear of the future."
It's OK for us to gain a huge advantage over the EU but when they do the same we squeal about it.
As a warning, Gibb concludes:
"Time is short and the EU should not waste it pushing bogus arguments and creating pointless hurdles. They will not be able to run down the clock - the prime minister has been clear he will not extend the transition period".
He is only kidding himself - and Telegraph readers. The EU will run down the clock because it is to their advantage.
