Showing posts with label No Deal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Deal. Show all posts

Friday, 11 September 2020

Brexit mess, part 998

 And so it continues. 

The divorce of the UK from the EU is getting very messy. I am concerned the Brexiteers believed their own hype when they were saying things like easiest deal in history. 

The EU were always going to make this painful, to make sure no one else followed us out of the door. The issue for the UK being even when optimistic brexiteers like Michael Gove took over planning, they soon realised no-deal was an economic disaster in the making and the kind of economic self-harm no good government could ever sign up to. 

The EU know this too, which is why at the end of the day it was always going to be a very tough negotiation. 

The latest tactics, trying to unilaterally undo the withdrawal agreement in small parts, really is not cricket. The EU have spotted yet another chance to grandstand and make out how they are the injured party when in fact they are being equally, if not more, intransigent than the UK. 

Overall, what a mess. I never wanted a no deal brexit, together with Covid-19 it will be a economic bloodbath for the UK if this comes to pass in January. 

Boris needs to earn his corn here, in reality he can sign any deal with an 80-seat majority and as the leader of brexit if he says it is the right choice most Brexiteers will go along with him. But actually letting the country fall into a no-deal scenario will be the end of him and with it any right-wing Government at the next election. Instead, Remainer leader Starmer will be banging the drum for rejoin at that point.

An unending political mess awaits if Boris cannot lead. 

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

Dominic Cummings speaks

So, Dominic Cummings has decided to try and game the coming General Election by releasing a statement to The Spectator. it is very rare I would post like thism but given the state the Government has found itself in, this is quite some statement. Read it for yourselves:

‘The negotiations will probably end this week. Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.
There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.
Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.
If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.
So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.
We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support  delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.
We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless.  They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.
‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.
Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.’

So basically, Cummings has gone BDS to denying the EU want a deal which they really do and instead now moving to blame everyone else for No Deal. Whilst there are elements of truth to this position re Varadkar, the threatening of EU members who will or won't entreat with us is just mad. After a No Deal Brexit the only thing on the Government's agenda will be seeking a deal to mitigate the downsides - blasting your future negotiating partner like this is very poor strategy. Yes we all know the Mad Parliament has created this situation unnessecarily but this is still not the only way out of the situation. 

Monday, 9 October 2017

Planning for No Deal is nearly as hard as trying to negotiate a deal

So, after a long-time trying to negotiate with the EU, the intervention of Macron and Merkel over the weekend has seemingly woke-up the British Government to the reality of its situation.


The EU is asking the impossible in return for a deal, extra-territorial rights for it citizens, a united Ireland in effect and a huge cash bribe. None of this is either desirable, or frankly, even deliverable by the UK Government. The UK had been patiently waiting for the German and French elections in the autumn of 2017 in the hope that the crazy demands might get watered down.


Predictably, this has not come to pass. The EU needs to try to save itself from further break-up and dis-order and is in no mood to accommodate the UK. Plus there is finally a chance to put one over on a trade/power rival - they have not gotten very far with Russia to date, nor America, after all. Let's not even start with China....


So, the problem is that No Deal is in fact a really bad place to start. It was always going to be this way, but with only a year to plan, it is hard.


Let's just take the WTO-rules. We are not really a member of the WTO, votes are required by all members to make this happen - this sounds a lot like negotiating with the EU 27. In fact, the most likely route is that we do not join the WTO but become and 'Observer' this way we can sigh trade deals.


Also, collecting tariffs, a net benefit for the UK, also requires customs points everywhere- real ones. These now need to be built and a eighteen months is a tight schedule.


Then there is air travel, this needs some sort of agreement to continue the status quo as a minimum. These discussions need to start.


Euroatom is another one, though over-hyped. Who is going to come and switch off-off our nuclear plants in reality?


Then there is the status of EU citizens, again, actually this is quite straight-forward if we just offer them all the right to remain, but there is a lot of paperwork for a lot of people. Plus we will need to decide how many visas to offer so that we do not get a cliff-edge employment scenario.


Of course, taking this route will also drive the remainers insane. they are going to go to court, demand referendums and crazed attempts to undermine the Government. It will be a rocky road. Business too will freak and we will have to start dealing with some tantrum moves by international companies and City businesses, as well as some actual needed ones from supply chain companies.


Overall, the big challenge to me is that No Deal requires some very different conversations with the EU as compared to 'Deal' conversations. Due to their nature, we can't really do them in parallel, this means that if it is to be no deal then the Government needs to announce this by the end of the year.