Some things in life are best mused upon before an opinion is formed. Theresa May's deal with the EU is one such thing. A couple of days after her, quite surprising, trip to Brussels to confirm that everyone had apparently fallen into line and agreed that progress to the second round of talks could begin quiet reflection suggests that this is little more than a sham, but one that happens to suit all parties.
Let me be clear about what I think a sham is. Most simply stated it is something that is not what it purports to be. What I am saying is that only in the sense that this agreement allows progress to a second round of talks is it anything of use. To that extent there is a deal: otherwise everything remains on the table.
It is entirely true that the EU has revealed its own eagerness to reach agreement. To that extent alone May achieved a goal, and the EU did buckle. But, May conceded everywhere else.
She has conceded that if there is no agreement on the Irish border then the UK will, perforce, effectively stay in the customs union, at the very least.
And she has agreed to pay.
Whilst the continuing role of the ECJ has been conceded.
And the UK has had the letter of its new deal with EU citizens currently resident in the country spelt out to it, in great detail.
I am now not sure that any of these arrangements can be revoked. Most importantly, the agreement with Ireland, weak as it is, sets out terms for a future relationship that could only be ignored at great peril to any future standing that the United Kingdom might have with regard to international relations, let alone in Ireland itself. Whatever the Brexiteers may say, this concession guarantees that the UK will, in effect, stay in the customs union until such time as Ireland agrees otherwise. The scope for any alternative trade deals is now so limited as to be effectively off the agenda for good. Or rather, the agreement either says that or, alternatively, it is no deal at all. In other words, it might just be a sham, which is no deal at all.
And that, I think is possible. This supposed deal either says that we are in effect paying a great deal of money to continue just about all existing arrangements barring those on migration, where rights will be restricted at enormous cost to the UK, in which case it is a sham of an exit deal (which I think the EU knows, and is happy about because it knows that in practice the UK will have to relax those restrictions in any event because it cannot survive without EU migration) or it is a complete sham that will reveal just how inadequate the UK's negotiating skills are, and just how treacherous its position is, because to secure agreement from the Brexit lobby every one of the commitments now made will have to be put back on the negotiating table to secure an eventual deal to which they will consent, meaning it was no deal at all.
I strongly suspect that this 'deal' was a charade that suited both sides. The UK has been forced into a corner by the EU, but in the terms of its continual games of compromise that are how it makes progress it thinks that this deal is something it can build on because it has won on all major points , whilst the UK thinks it has got 'one over' the EU by saying all negotiating points remain on the table in round two of the talks, which can now begin without any meaningful expectation that they will deliver anything like the Brexiteers want, but which from their point of view prevents this being realised before the alternative of crashing out in March 2019 becomes an inevitability.
And since I believe the two sides really do not understand what the other thinks it has gained this is a sham, because the deal is not what it purports to be. And in that lies its danger, and why this is not something to celebrate. David Davis says this deal makes it harder for the UK to crash out of the EU. I am not at all sure I agree. By suggesting there is agreement where I am not sure any such thing exists it may be very dangerous indeed.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Good thinking. But I think that the “deal” does tie the UK in with the Irish Republic – potentially in the customs union and the single market or shadow versions of them. ( Of this I approve.) The Irish Government, backed up by the EU, effectively has a veto. The EU and the Irish Republic have negotiated well. (Good luck to them.) The final trade deal could take years and years. It has to take account of the 3-way trade and shared matters between the Irish Republic, N Ireland and the rest of the UK. If the Irish dimension breaks down, the UK may end up with a Canada-type agreement, which will not meets its needs.
I suspect the Brexiteers will seek to renounce all this – hence the sham on their part
It is certainly a fudge, and possibly a sham. When you say that the EU were eager for an agreement; they were, but I do not agree that they conceded anything of substance. The payment, the ECJ involvement for years ahead: these are both clear British concessions – ask the hard Brexiteers. The Irish border issue is covered by para.,49 which is a clear undertaking by Britain not only to respect the needs of all sides, but to fix the issue on terms within EU “alignment”, even if there is no agreement. This is a huge commitment made by Britain alone. Why wouldn’t the EU agree to it, for it requires nothing of the EU, or anybody else? Britain is on the hook.
I think the journalist Faisal Islam captured the essence of this supposed brilliant last minute manoeuvre by Downing Street, intended to impress a (presumably thought gullible) British public with the brilliance of May’s decisive negotiating. In fact it was a fudged concession by Britain, to itself, to pluck survival out of the jaws of disaster:
“Over the past week the UK was quite literally negotiating with itself amid talks in Whitehall between the UK Government and Northern Ireland’s DUP.”
This ‘negotiating’ has been bordering on the very edge of farce, and the EU has accommodated the British, simply to have someone to negotiate with; presumably because they hope that eventually the British will come to their senses and begin negotiating in good faith.
The British negotiate with themselves because the Brexiteers are more afraid of the British public than of the EU – that is why there are no impact assessments, no plans, no direction, no information (the public would be ‘spooked’ if the consequences of Brexit were quantified); and, even more fundamental, the hardline Conservative Brexiteers do not care much about reaching any deal at all with the EU.
I do believe that there is a large clique in the British Conservative Cabinet and Party that still has the ambition to achieve the Brexiteer Conservatives idea of Utopia: a ‘no deal’ Brexit. They do not know how they are going to achieve it; it terrifies many Conservatives, and even the clique are reluctant to force the matter; either because they do not believe they have sufficient support, or they really do believe everyone, everywhere is going to cave in to British demands in Phase 2. They believe there is going to be a bespoke British deal that is effectively ‘free trade’ with the EU, special privileges for the City of London, and all for nothing (without even needing to shadow EU regulations).
All these chickens, however will come home to roost; in Britain, and for Britain alone to fix. I am still trying to understand how the British Government could possibly ‘get off the hook’ for the undertaking in Para.,49, if negotiations go horribly wrong: not only shredding any political credibility with the other participants in Brexit (I shudder to think of the consequences), inside and outside the UK, before or after Brexit; but critically for Britain’s prosperity in future, it shreds Britain’s reputation as a viable or trustworthy trading partner with all the countries around the world with whom we are supposedly going to fix ‘free trade’ deals in future. Would you? Would anyone?
I agree with a great deal of what you say
And I agree – the EU gave vastly less than the UK
All the EU gave was the veneer of a deal
I think though this might have been an error: I wish the crisis had been now
I think the concession has actually made hard Brexit more likely and with it, as you say, resulting chaos and a shredded reputation for the UK
I am certain that you are right: they will renounce this; but I am fairly optimistic that the Brexiteers will fail to make it stick.
Even in failing, they will do further damage to the UK’s interests – not least, to our credibility – and they will probably precipitate the disintegration and demise of the Conservative Party in its current form.
It will be ugly: there will be actions calculated to anger EU citizens and further alienate us from the EU 27 governments; and there are *already* well-organised campaigns of ‘attack ads’ running on social media against Remainer MPs.
I agree: it will be ugly
The Guardian website is now reporting that, Downing Street “advisors” (whatever that identifies) have told Cabinet Ministers that: “promises around full regulatory alignment were ‘meaningless'”.
This follows David Davis earlier today suggesting that a ‘statement of intent’ is all that has been agreed, and this is not legally enforceable. Well, that will certainly work – if Britain was buying a can of beans.
Davis really knows how to beg the question and completely miss the point, and the political implications of the ‘intent’ (and he is supposed to be in charge of negotiations). I think we can safely say that David Davis is out-of-his-depth. In addition the Guardian reports that the PM has written to Conservative MPs to say that until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed.
Well , that didn’t last long …. ….
As I suspected
John S Warren says:
December 10 2017 at 5:37 pm
“It is certainly a fudge, ……”
Is that two fingers of fudge or just the one to swivel on I wonder. 🙂
“this deal makes it harder for the UK to crash out of the UK.”
OK I know that was a typo, but the UK building up expectations that Scotland will, one way or another, be effectively in the SM and CU via the UK could prove to be a nail in the coffin of the UK, if nurse does actually produce something worse.
Corrected
Thanks
If the Brexiters really just want a UK tax haven is this sham not playing into their hands?
I actually doubt they can deliver that
And the EU made that clear last week
I am pleased that you think they will fail. I do so hope so.
Whatever David Davis says expect the opposite…
Conveniently, he can usually be expected to voice the complete opposite, in short order too 🙂
It seems to me that May and Co would paint a rosy picture in the hope that they can blame the EU if we crash out.
I have seen the BREXITERs doing this in various interviews. The UK will be portrayed as the reasonable party in the affair and the excuse for crashing out will be EU intransigence.
As for the EU, maybe they still hope that we will change our minds? You say that neither side understands what it has gained but maybe the EU does and is really just trying to spin this out in the hope that it is stopped.
It has to show how reasonable it can be given that if it gives in to British demands, other states will start agitating for the same. The way it deals with the UK especially with the growth of nationalism and the Catalonian question has to be hard but measured – extremely measured. To be seen to sabre rattling and beating up soon to be ex-member states will only add to anti-EU fervour in the EU zone.
The EU’s approach does seem like the iron fist in the velvet glove. It will not yield – it cannot yield – otherwise the whole treaty will start to fragment.
We know why the EU, the treaty framework etc., were created. They was created and sustained because of hard learnt, rational reasons.
We also know that BREXIT is a far from rational. It is also unnecessary and probably anti-democratic too. It is being used by the Tories to bolster their vote but like the untameable tiger it is it is also savaging the very party wanting to bring it about.
What a mess. Anything can happen now I feel.
Another thing is that Barnier is very trusted by Fine Gael in complete contrast to the UK Brexit team. Many many years of interaction in the European Parliament builds trust and friendships. The Irish question has been written into strand 2. It’s kicking the can down the road but the UK is not off the hook. Definitely on probation. Too much history and would you trust Boris, Fox and Davis? The Irish certainly don’t.
“And since I believe the two sides really do not understand what the other thinks”
I disagree I believe the EU knows pretty well what the UK thinks but not visa versa. The EU has Oxford trained people of the quality of Chris Kendall http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/brexit-negotiations-how-is-the-uk-doing and watches the UK press like a Hawk.
Historically there have been three peripheral powers on the edge of Europe: Russia, Turkey and Britain. The EU doesn’t want a full flush so to speak and is being kind to May. I think it worries about disintegration. The UK is nor strong economically but is still a military presence
That’s made me think….
Thank you Mr Danaher. Everybody should read that article. Everybody.
Sean says: “…..The UK is not strong economically but is still a military presence…..”
I’m wondering what significance you think the ‘military presence’ might represent. I can’t see it being particularly useful/applicable.
The Irish Stew – Scotland, Wales, England and N Ireland (UK) and Eire (EU) – but what about that Isle of Man dumpling? Is it just too hot to digest? Shall the negotiations proceed without it and its peculiarities being determined too?
Mike
Nothing really happens in the IoM
Rather like Jersey
Richard
That’s just what Lewis says so he bought his own jet to be able to move around and he has a friendly neighbour in Monaco who can supply him with cheap BHS trousers from his IOM registered yacht.
Jersey has much more to answer for
There are 2 ways (and possibly more) to look at this.
1/ You can negotiate in conscientious manner, attempting to govern and reach compromise in a responsible manner, according to your personal beliefs (and I fear we are all trying to interpret Westminster activities through this lens)… or
2/ we can put ourselves in the shoes of the – over 70% – millionaire MP’s and look at the ‘screw you, I’ll be alright Jack’ element of a Brexit which severely damages (and at the same time dismantles public services) the UK economy (hard or soft, fast or slower) and provides them with 2 fantastic opportunities
a) carve up and gobble up public services – particularly the NHS
b) whatever else the deal ends up being – make sure your out of the reach of the EU legislation clamping down on tax dodging/trust funds (worth trillions).
I think the above is their game plan. All else is smoke and mirrors.
Thanks for the blog – very informative in a time of … hmm, well, fill your own adjectives.
Thanks
I agree that all along this has been about money, the rich protecting themselves from EU tax dodging legislation while increasing their chances of profitting from opportunities that will become available when the UK is out of reach of EU human rights and environmental legislation and any other laws that can be renounced for profit.
See my “slightly” lighthearted blog from a few days ago.
https://angryweegie.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/all-for-brexits-wedding/
“…..The UK has been forced into a corner by the EU,……” Not sure about that, Richard. I think nearer the mark is that the UK has painted itself into a corner.
I suppose that amounts to splitting hairs, but either way it’s not clever.
“I suspect the Brexiteers will seek to renounce all this — hence the sham on their part” (Your response, Richard to David Harries) Yes, I’m sure you’re right that the Brexiteers word on anything is worthless – ‘nothing settled ’til it’s all settled’ which means anything is deniable as simply having been part of the negotiating game and offered only for discussion.
I’m inclined to think that a Phase One Agreement is in the realms of oxymoron. It doesn’t augur well for the opening of phase two, let alone its conclusion.
On Progressive Pulse http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/report-on-the-united-kingdoms-orderly-withdrawal-from-the-european-union-and-staying-in-the-single-market
I suggested in similar vein:
If this is a real agreement, then the legal dispute will be with the WTO.
If it isn’t and there is still no hard border in Ireland, then there is no hard border with the EU. If there is no hard border with the EU there is no need at all for a future free trade agreement because we’ll be already in one. It will be called the EU.
And David Davis can come home for good.
In the end future discussions come down to either Ireland (together with the Good Friday Agreement) loses or the Bexiters do.
With Ireland likely to have 26 allies the Brexiters have only to decide if they still want the Good Friday agreement. Ironically – not to do with Brexit at all!
The end result will, I’m sure, go to prove the old hybrid expression:
People do not see the writing on the wall till they have their backs to it…
I thought that the completion of Phase 1 was to be ratified by the EU 27 this Thursday / Friday. What chances of them saying ‘not now’ after Davies’s comments?
Real, I think
I believe conditions could still be attached
There is another perspective: what if the Government’s intention has always been to talk a hard Brexit and secure a soft Brexit, almost despite itself?
I am not sure that hard Brexiters are really a veto player. If a deal is negotiated that takes the UK down the road of a soft Brexit, how willing will they be to risk the collateral damage (in party political terms) that would result from derailing a deal further down the road? You can’t assume that they would win support from the electorate.
I can imagine a scenario where a Norway deal wins broad acceptance on the grounds that the UK is ‘out’, irrespective of the reality.
I am sure the population would agree
But not the Brexiteers
I really do think the want to crash out
And I also think this will divide our society for decades and we have not seen the worst by a long way as yet
“She has conceded that if there is no agreement on the Irish border then the UK will, perforce, effectively stay in the customs union, at the very least.”
Barnier was specifically asked about this in the Q&A session and said that isn’t what the text means. Quite what it does mean is anyones guess.
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I148266&sitelang=en&lg=EN
If it does not mean that then it’s meaningless
David Davis back-pedalling furiously.
(World at One Monday)
Claims to have had his remarks taken out of context ….. What exactly does he think the context of an interview with Andrew Marr on a Sunday politics programme is? A bloody cocktail party?