With more talks going on today in Brussels, I noted a tweet from Jennifer Rankin at The Guardian. She is their Brussels correspondent and usually has her ear to the ground on the state of the talks so always worth listening to. UK sources seem to think a deal can be agreed by September but the EU side are a bit more pessimistic with Barnier suggesting October. This is all very tight and I assume there will have to be another transition afterwards - a real one this time - to allow everyone to adjust.
The deal will need to be passed by EU27 legislatures and if it is deemed to be mixed - we still aren't clear about that - it may have to be approved by all of them and not just a qualified majority. In any case, to be sure it's ratified in time the deal is bound to favour the EU side simply because there are more of them, more local and vested interests to satisfy and more (if not all) legislatures operate on some sort of coalition so politically nobody will want to see industries or local communities disadvantaged. It's politically much easier to present it as a win.
On the other hand, Johnson has maximum flexibility with an 80 seat majority and no need to get parliament to approve it. This is why UK fishing communities will be sold out once again.
Anyway, Jennifer Rankin's thread is here:
Brexit talks are back.The UK thinks a deal “can be reached in September”. EU is sceptical it will happen that quickly, esp. w/o more movement from the British.Expect shadow-boxing and stalemate in August. Autumn deal? Let’s see - thread
— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) August 18, 2020
Frost seems confident a deal is possible by September which I assume means he is going to make the big concessions that will make it happen. Our negotiators think the level playing field issues are close to being settled but the EU are apparently not so confident:
"EU official: “On fisheries, it’s solvable. Maybe not this week, not maybe not next week but over the coming weeks…. Level playing field is so much more complicated.”
The EU seem to think the big fisheries problem is solvable and clearly see a route to an agreement which again, I assume means EU vessels having legal rights to fish in British waters otherwise the member states with fishing interests will never agree to it. Barnier knows this.
Ms Rankin also claims another EU diplomat told her, “On most topics we are not in proper negotiations. We are still talking about the framework. On no issue are we discussing text.”
This is amazing, the legal 'scrubbing' process often takes weeks or even months to make sure there are no problematic issues that might cause problems later on. She says the WA was settled in a few days last October but adds that anyone thinking we can do the same again is likely to be disappointed. The WA was just 177 pages and the bit that changed - the NI protocol - was only 63 pages and not all of those were altered. Plus, it is much easier to amend an existing text than draft a new one that both parties are happy with.
The EU draft treaty is the only basis for an agreement (a) because they published it first (b) it was pretty complete compared to ours and (c) the EU are never going to sign an agreement drafted by a third country. At 440 pages it was much bigger, more comprehensive and covered more contentious issues than the WA. It will by now be much bigger I imagine. Anyone who thinks this can be turned into agreed legal text overnight is deluded I think.
She is still of the opinion that a deal can be reached eventually because the no-deal cost for the UK is so high and because Boris Johnson "has form on dramatic u-turns that are dressed up as great victories." I agree with that.
The EU has signalled willingness to compromise on fisheries, although I bet it's nowhere near what we were seeking and Ranking doesn't believe there has been a big EU climb down on the role of the ECJ, The UK has hinted at a compromise on a single overall governance package and she says the EU is "ready to help with presentation." I take that to mean they will present things in such a complex and convoluted way that the strident elements in the British press won't understand what Johnson has agree to until it's too late.
But on the LPF issuse she thinks things are completely bogged down, the two sides are far apart on substance and there is a "very complicated legal document to be negotiated."
So, don't hold your breath this week.
On other matters, I downloaded the US Senates fifth and final report on Russian interference last night but at 966 pages it's a hefty document. What does come out of it is the forensic detail of the Russian hack of Clinton's campaign, how it was done, when, by whom using what methods and resources. It is clear that it was a long and expensive operation involving Russian "active measure" and a lot of different actors.
We know from the long withheld Intelligence and Security Committee report that the UK government made no effort at all to find out if the 2016 referendum, another great success for Russian foreign policy, had any Russian interference at all.
The senate report makes clear that the Russians were very good and it obviously took an awful lot of effort to uncover it all - but they did. On the other side of the Atlantic, we didn't even try.
What does this say about Conservative Brexiteers?
