Saturday 26 September 2020

Progress? What progress?

An article in The Times by No 10s favourite conduit, James Forsyth, yesterday has set a few hares running. The title and sub-title was: "A Brexit deal is within touching distance. In a boost for Johnson, breakthroughs on Northern Ireland and trade look set to remove key obstacles to an agreement."  The piece was , I assume, dictated more or less word-for-word by Cummings since Forsyth isn't known for independent journalism but for writing exactly what the PMs senior adviser wants to 'leak' into the public realm.

It begins:

"There is cautious but growing optimism in Whitehall that there will be a Brexit deal. At the beginning of this month the mood was grim. There was a feeling that the talks weren’t getting anywhere. This frustration contributed to the Internal Market Bill’s rash commitment to disapply parts of the withdrawal agreement. But there is now a more positive attitude, a sense that things are moving and that a deal is coming into view."

On Northern Ireland, Forsyth said the 'threat to blockade' NI "was made by one EU figure but calmer heads have prevailed" and the UK is now 'confident' of getting third country status. He goes on to say, "progress on Northern Ireland has been matched in the broader trade negotiations. The British side now view the remaining problems as being more about process than substance."

Sounds promising?  There is no mention of level playing fields and on fish, Forsyth seems to start putting the blame on president Macron for a climbdown on our part, at least that's how I read this:

"There is no good deal on fishing for the French fleet; it would come out badly from any compromise. What worries some in the government is that this might deter Emmanuel Macron from getting involved in the search for an agreement."

Anyway, whatever the runes say, it has all been greeted by bewilderment in Brussels. Katya Adler at the BBC tweeted:

Her contacts are I think mystified about "progress" and say it's either a signal that the UK is willing to compromise or a PR exercise to imply we are being flexible only to be rebuffed by the EU who can later be blamed for collapsing the talks by making 'intolerable' demands.

The NI 'progress' seems to be in our own mind, nothing more.

No less than three Guardian reporters worked on a story which "punctures optimism that a deal is in sight".  They say Barnier told ministers from the 27 member states this week that there was “a more open atmosphere at the negotiating table”, according to diplomatic sources in Brussels. But he had also emphasised that “substantial differences of opinion remain, particularly on a level playing field”.

They added:

"With the UK government yet to offer a way forward on the most contentious issues, and trust in Downing Street at a low ebb, senior EU officials treated with scepticism reports that the UK could see a way to secure a deal."

Anton Spisak, former civil servant on Brexit in the Cabinet Office and now at the Tony Blair Institute. Trade, tweeted :

Spisak's thread seems to suggest it is more of a PR exercise. He says on the deal with the EU, "the [UK government] view is that the UK needs to be seen to want a deal, but a deal is possible only if a) the EU drops its state aid ask and b) legal text can be done in the next few wks. There's a push for negotiating tunnel to demonstrate determination for a deal."

It's a question of being seen to be reasonable.

He suggests No 10s latest line on state aid is that they need time to consult business before decisions about future regime can be made It's apparently used to support their argument in the negotiating room that 'we can't pre-empt outcome with binding constraints in EU FTA'. Alok Sharma the Business Secretary met with business this week to talk about it.

I can't see this cutting much ice with Brussels. We have had four years to consult business and we set the timetable.  If we can't formulate a state aid regime in time that's our problem and as Spisak says Barnier doesn't have the mandate to agree to anything less than the UK signing up to a domestic state aid regime with independent enforcement. Neither No10 nor the Business Department are ready to commit to this right now.

I really think this is all of a piece to make the EU think we've all gone mad over here. You cannot set a tight artificial timetable, refuse to extend it when you had the chance and then blame a lack of time to consult others as a reason for being unprepared. It's crazy.

However, I don't think any of this will affect EU thinking which really hasn't shifted in nearly four years. Barnier's mandate hasn't changed one iota, while we have swung wildly between May's deal and none at all.

I still believe the UK will not leave without a deal. Unemployment is set to soar in the last three months of the year as furloughing ends and compounding that with avoidable job losses from a no-deal exit and paying out billions to support jobs would be seen as sheer insanity. Especially when the government will be wrestling with the coming second covid wave, drowning in debt and managing food shortages as the gateway to Europe is clogged up with 7,000 trucks waiting two days to make the 90 minute crossing. We also learned yesterday that the infrastructure on the Irish sea border will not be ready in time.

What I do think is that the next week would be an ideal time to call Johnson's bluff. If I was Barnier I would hint that the EU are likely to call for an end to the talks unless Britain stops playing games.

Forsyth has this in his article: "A deal would cement Brexit, making it nigh-on impossible to imagine it being overturned at some later date."

This tells me two things - (a) there will be a deal and (b) they are worried that Brexit is only a temporary status - and they're right about both.

I read elsewhere yesterday that Johnson is not deeply involved in the talks and leaves it all to Cummings/Oliver Lewis/David Frost - but unfortunately can't find the piece now, It fits in with his general attitude to everything. Spisak said the NI Protocol served as a warning to No10 because "Johnson signed up to it last autumn under pressure to get the WA over the line and to save his political future, but Art 10 of the Protocol seen as a big mistake."

It looks almost as if Cummings is now blaming the prime minister for getting involved only at the last minute and misunderstanding the details!

Posted by at