Saturday 27 June 2020

A bit of déjà vu?

There was a strange feeling of déjà vu when I read David Sassoli's interview (HERE) following his virtual meeting with Boris Johnson last Monday.  He tells The Guardian that he is "very worried because we don’t see great enthusiasm from the British authorities and we don’t see a strong will to get to an agreement that satisfies all parties." This is almost exactly what he said last October after meeting Johnson in Downing Street.  Johnson told him then we would leave on October 31 with or without a deal.

We all know what happened then.

And the Guardian have also been speaking to Mrs Merkel who, far from being panicked by Brexit or feeling under pressure from German car companies seems extraordinarily relaxed about a no deal Brexit.

Guardian. A no-deal Brexit is looming at the end of the year. Would that be a personal defeat for you?

Merkel. No. It would, of course, be in Britain’s and all EU member states’ interests to achieve an orderly departure. But that can only happen if it is what both sides want. What matters is not our wishes but only the reality before us, in other words first of all what Britain wants. With Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the British government wants to define for itself what relationship it will have with us after the country leaves. It will then have to live with the consequences, of course, that is to say with a less closely interconnected economy. If Britain does not want to have rules on the environment and the labour market or social standards that compare with those of the EU, our relations will be less close. That will mean it does not want standards to go on developing along parallel lines.

We need to let go of the idea that it is for us to define what Britain should want. That is for Britain to define – and we, the EU27, will respond appropriately.

She is still sticking to the EU position that the 27 have set out the conditions of trade with the UK for a close relationship, if that's not acceptable, then it is Britain's choice to walk away and use WTO terms. The time for eating and having cake is over. We need realism now.

Contrast Johnson's apparent firmness with EU leaders with Gove's actions in the last couple of weeks. Larne is told it will need to become a Border Control Post and build parking for customs on fourteen acres of land in or near the port. 

Dover, Folkestone have been given an extension until 1 July 2021 because we are not prepared for the seismic changes to come and traffic from the EU will simply be waived through. Meanwhile France and Holland will apply all the normal EU border checks to UK goods travelling the other way. It doesn't take a genius to see who needs who the most.

Our chief negotiator David Frost announced on Twitter that the next round of negotiations will start on Monday:

Anybody harbouring hopes that some sort of managed divergence process, as set out in The Spectator recently, will be agreed will not be encouraged by Frosts's final tweet in the thread:

"Finally, I want to be clear that the Government will not agree to ideas like the one currently circulating giving the EU a new right to retaliate with tariffs if we chose to make laws suiting our interests.We could not leave ourselves open to such unforeseeable economic risk."

The idiocy of his position is that rather that "leaving ourselves open" to such a risk we will accept 100 per cent of the consequences from day one. It makes no sense, especially when, as Sam Lowe points out below, we will be expected to accept similar conditions from the USA:
Several sessions are given over to the problem areas, Fisheries, LPF conditions and governance. It remains to be seen if any progress is made. Most people - Barnier included - don't think there will be until October.

Only then will the full political consequences of leaving without any arrangements in place become clear to Johnson and other cabinet ministers. I do not expect the EU to bend or blink because to do so would be to set a precedent for all future negotiations with the UK. It would be a sign of weakness in the face of an obviously smaller partner. 

What signal would it send the USA or China if one country could dictate terms to a much larger and more powerful bloc of 27?  What would it mean to some of the smaller members of the 27? They joined the bloc to avoid being pushed around so to find that the EU "buckles" when confronted by a former member would surely be unthinkable.  Brussels knows we will be the hardest hit. They know they hold all the cards. Why make concessions?

I am still confident we will leave with a deal - one that means we will adopt a close relationship. The disappointment and fury will be on the side of the ERG when they finally see what Brexit means.
Posted by at