Brexit Betrayal

[chopper]

Are you saying that some unelected person is trying to demand how Britain should be run?

Well, I suppose he's elected to the European Parliament, so only natural that he'd be demanding how Britain should be run!

[BlasterBates]

Relaxed. Right.

For all May’s faults, she’s fairly straightforward. Reread Lancaster House and Florence carefully. It’s been clear for a long time that she and the EU are both heading for a bottom-up (CETA-style) deal. DD explicitly called for it on Marr last week.

FWIW, James Forsyth of the Sun/Spectator is about the best for inside info. on current Cabinet thinking, and the direction of travel has been clear for a while. Gavin Williamson has joined the divergers, along with the usual suspects. That’s a majority of the inner Cabinet. Even Hammond is reportedly willing to accept some divergence, inconsistent with EEA/EFTA (he alluded to this in the Autumn Budget).

My only quibble is that they aren’t likely to get much more than CETA fullstop, but especially before late 2021, which is the realistic deadline for our actual departure. The real question is whether the Tories can hold together come March 2019, when there’s little more than a political commitment to CETA on offer. It’s also quite likely that the EU will overplay it’s hand and want that agreement to come with a greater commitment to alignment than CETA, which is quite likely to split the Tories and produce a messy exit. This will come under the guise that negotiating the mechanism for divergence is too complex within the time available. Forget about the current goodwill, WTO remains a likely outcome from all this (which I’m not advocating, incidentally).

You assume if the Tories split, this leads to a WTO. If the Tories split it leads to a GE and Corbyn, who will form a government with the SNP and go for a soft Brexit. Even if Labour wins an outright majority, since most of their MPs are pro-European they'll end up in some sort of Soft Brexit.

WTO is the least likely outcome, basically the choice is a Tory Soft Brexit or a Corbyn Soft Brexit

[jamesbrown]

You assume if the Tories split, this leads to a WTO. If the Tories split it leads to a GE and Corbyn, who will form a government with the SNP and go for a soft Brexit. Even if Labour wins an outright majority, since most of their MPs are pro-European they'll end up in some sort of Soft Brexit.

WTO is the least likely outcome, basically the choice is a Tory Soft Brexit or a Corbyn Soft Brexit

No, on the contrary, I've said numerous times that Corbyn is your best hope for a "soft" Brexit . It isn't going to happen under the Tories (unless you call CETA "soft"). It's ironic, because Corbyn is a hardcore Brexiteer, not a moderate, but he's got his eye on the bigger prize. If the Tories split, what follows would be highly unpredictable (ordinarily, it wouldn't be an election, because the Tories are ruthless with leadership transitions, but it would have to be an election with WTO). In those circumstances, Corbyn must be a realistic outcome. But, let's face it, Corbyn (or, rather, McDonnell), would make WTO look like a cakewalk.

[meridian]

You assume if the Tories split, this leads to a WTO. If the Tories split it leads to a GE and Corbyn, who will form a government with the SNP and go for a soft Brexit. Even if Labour wins an outright majority, since most of their MPs are pro-European they'll end up in some sort of Soft Brexit.

WTO is the least likely outcome, basically the choice is a Tory Soft Brexit or a Corbyn Soft Brexit

At this point it doesn’t matter if it’s Tories or Labour, we’re being locked in to a time bound process. The big variable is whether or not the government seeks an extension to A50 to push it out from March 2019, but assuming not then we can see that the EU (and ultras in the UK) will be seeking a fixed transition period.

Hitting March 2019 means we’re out, and it doesn’t matter who’s in charge after that, there’s no pulling back without major concessions to the EU and losing all the opt outs that the UK have gained over the past 40 years.

A fixed transition period means either the UK sucks up an easy trade deal like CETA, or if the UK wants more than this then we fall out of the transition period with no deal and onto WTO rules. Either way though there are going to be serious concerns over the Irish border and maintaining alignment there - I don’t think anyone has any idea yet how this can be mutually compatible.

[darmstadt]

At this point it doesn’t matter if it’s Tories or Labour, we’re being locked in to a time bound process. The big variable is whether or not the government seeks an extension to A50 to push it out from March 2019, but assuming not then we can see that the EU (and ultras in the UK) will be seeking a fixed transition period.

Hitting March 2019 means we’re out, and it doesn’t matter who’s in charge after that, there’s no pulling back without major concessions to the EU and losing all the opt outs that the UK have gained over the past 40 years.

A fixed transition period means either the UK sucks up an easy trade deal like CETA, or if the UK wants more than this then we fall out of the transition period with no deal and onto WTO rules. Either way though there are going to be serious concerns over the Irish border and maintaining alignment there - I don’t think anyone has any idea yet how this can be mutually compatible.

Surely the UK is already locked into a fixed time bound process in that they leave the EU at the end of March 2019? What the UK are looking for though is to extend that and it wouldn't surprise if the EU said no to a transition period, I mean once you give one extension then what is to stop the UK to continue to keep asking for further extensions. The EU might decide that the UK have had too many concessions of the years and now is time for them to put their foot down, they may also see it as a sign of weakness on their part by giving a further time period which could be exploited by other right wing leaning countries to leave the EU...What the UK negotiating team keep seeming to forget is that there are 27 countries of which it only requires one to veto anything the UK wants (and it only needs a ******* like Johnson to open his big mouth and annoy one of them, or the rabid eurosceptic press to print some more bollocks...)

[jamesbrown]

I don’t think anyone has any idea yet how this can be mutually compatible.

Agree with almost everything you say, although I suspect there are circumstances in which the EU would hold it’s powder. For example, if they saw a GE with a very strong prospect of a Corbyn victory, public opinion had shifted, and Labour was signed up to remaining in all but name. However, that’s a lot of “ifs” and, even then, they might not, given the volatile circumstances.

On the above, specific, point, I agree, which is why the EUs negotiating guidelines in March are going to be interesting to watch. They’re waiting for HMG to go first, but they’ve already hinted that a traditional FTA appears incompatible with the Phase 1 Agreement on the Irish border. So what might they offer that is compatible? This could come to a head well before March 2019; they’ve hinted that CETA is on the table (alongside EEA/EFTA), but is it? If it is, they’re most likely willing to offer May what she wants, i.e. on the border, a UK-wide sectoral alignment on the minimum necessary to sustain the GFA, with the ability to diverge in other areas, subject to trade impacts (in those areas that impact trade). This is what I would call a CETA+ pattern, but I’m skeptical it will be offered. It would be saleable to both sides of the Tory party because the ability to diverge would be a theoretical one, until Parliament decided in future. In short, we probably wouldn’t diverge much or quickly in those areas that impact trade.

[BlasterBates]

Agree with almost everything you say, although I suspect there are circumstances in which the EU would hold it’s powder. For example, if they saw a GE with a very strong prospect of a Corbyn victory, public opinion had shifted, and Labour was signed up to remaining in all but name. However, that’s a lot of “ifs” and, even then, they might not, given the volatile circumstances.

On the above, specific, point, I agree, which is why the EUs negotiating guidelines in March are going to be interesting to watch. They’re waiting for HMG to go first, but they’ve already hinted that a traditional FTA appears incompatible with the Phase 1 Agreement on the Irish border. So what might they offer that is compatible? This could come to a head well before March 2019; they’ve hinted that CETA is on the table (alongside EEA/EFTA), but is it? If it is, they’re most likely willing to offer May what she wants, i.e. on the border, a UK-wide sectoral alignment on the minimum necessary to sustain the GFA, with the ability to diverge in other areas, subject to trade impacts (in those areas that impact trade). This is what I would call a CETA+ pattern, but I’m skeptical it will be offered. It would be saleable to both sides of the Tory party because the ability to diverge would be a theoretical one, until Parliament decided in future. In short, we probably wouldn’t diverge much or quickly in those areas that impact trade.

The EU are actually flexible they're waiting for the UK to set their priorities, but it's clear that a CETA deal doesn't go far enough as the volume of trade between the UK and the EU is far higher than with Canada and the UK has integrated supply chains with the EU. Probably what will happen is that as the negotiations proceed, point by point, the FTA will begin to look more and more like the Swiss-EU FTA. What we've seen since the referendum repeated over and over, is chest thumping from Brexiteers and then a climb down as the UK government caves in.

[jamesbrown]

The EU are actually flexible they're waiting for the UK to set their priorities, but it's clear that a CETA deal doesn't go far enough as the volume of trade between the UK and the EU is far higher than with Canada and the UK has integrated supply chains with the EU. Probably what will happen is that as the negotiations proceed, point by point, the FTA will begin to look more and more like the Swiss-EU FTA. What we've seen since the referendum repeated over and over, is chest thumping from Brexiteers and then a climb down as the UK government caves in.

Negatory.

Where they've caved is on the superficial things. The Gove's and Johnson's aren't going to die on a hill for transition or money. They're going to die on a hill for the ECJ and maintaining control over our laws in the long-term, which includes the capacity for divergence (which should be uncontroversial in those areas that don't impact trade, unless the EU doesn't want an FTA at all). This may not be representative of leave voters more generally, but it doesn't matter. You have to understand that the ERG of the Tory party is highly organised and they know precisely when to pull the plug on May. It isn't yet. They've waited 40 years FFS. Any sign that we're heading towards an EEA/EFTA arrangement, and they will pull the plug. Indeed, many Tory remainers would make the same argument against EEA/EFTA (and I would agree with them): what is the point of Brexit with EEA/EFTA? There isn't one, as May said outright at Lancaster House and in Florence.

[BlasterBates]

Negatory.

Where they've caved is on the superficial things. The Gove's and Johnson's aren't going to die on a hill for transition or money. They're going to die on a hill for the ECJ and maintaining control over our laws in the long-term, which includes the capacity for divergence (which should be uncontroversial in those areas that don't impact trade, unless the EU doesn't want an FTA at all). This may not be representative of leave voters more generally, but it doesn't matter. You have to understand that the ERG of the Tory party is highly organised and they know precisely when to pull the plug on May. It isn't yet. They've waited 40 years FFS. Any sign that we're heading towards an EEA/EFTA arrangement, and they will pull the plug. Indeed, many Tory remainers would make the same argument against EEA/EFTA (and I would agree with them): what is the point of Brexit with EEA/EFTA? There isn't one, as May said outright at Lancaster House and in Florence.

Well the Swiss aren't subject to the ECJ for disputes, they're resolved in committees between EU and Swiss officials, the second fact is that the Swiss are not subject to EU law they have to pass their own laws, but on certain areas they agree in the FTA to harmonise regulations, similar to the agreement the UK has already signed up to for Northern Ireland without any resistance from Gove or Johnson. Even on immigration they have control too. I always had to apply for permission to reside in Switzerland.

A government can easily sign up to a Swiss style deal and not cross any of the red lines Theresa May outlined in her Florence speech. It won't be the same as Switzerland just very similar. Gove will still be able to argue the UK can "theoretically" diverge regulations

[jamesbrown]

Well the Swiss aren't subject to the ECJ for disputes, they're resolved in committees between EU and Swiss officials, the second fact is that the Swiss are not subject to EU law they have to pass their own laws, but on certain areas they agree in the FTA to harmonise regulations, similar to the agreement the UK has already signed up to for Northern Ireland without any resistance from Gove or Johnson. Even on immigration they have control too. I always had to apply for permission to reside in Switzerland.

A government can easily sign up to a Swiss style deal and not cross any of the red lines Theresa May outlined in her Florence speech. It won't be the same as Switzerland just very similar. Gove will still be able to argue the UK can "theoretically" diverge regulations

First, the EU doesn't want a Swiss deal, even with the Swiss. The myriad bilateral treaties are a nightmare. They most certainly don't want to propagate the Swiss deal. Second, any EEA/EFTA arrangement would be incompatible with "taking back control", particularly on immigration, because the degree of control afforded to the Swiss is illusory. Look at the embarrassment the Swiss faced recently in backing down from their referendum on FoM. There will be absolutely no negotiation on FoM, because the four freedoms are insoluble, as far as France and Germany are concerned.

Here's Barnier today on a bespoke agreement:

They have to realise there won’t be any cherry picking. We won’t mix up the various scenarios to create a specific one and accommodate their wishes, mixing, for instance, the advantages of the Norwegian model, member of the single market, with the simple requirements of the Canadian one. No way. They have to face the consequences of their own decision.

He also makes the point about the transition and the MFF:

Prime Minister May has stated it should take two years—it cannot last longer for legal reasons.

Your prediction about an indefinite transition is clearly a marginal view, because neither side can accept it. Your prediction about an EEA/EFTA-style arrangement is also a marginal view, because the UK won't accept anything that looks like FoM, and the EU won't accept anything that doesn't look like FoM.