The Times reported (paywall) this morning that:
Negotiations on Britain's future trade agreement will continue only if last week's withdrawal deal is quickly turned into a legally binding treaty, European Union leaders will state.
A text to be agreed by them this week calls on Theresa May to “start drafting the relevant parts of the withdrawal agreement” into law.
In language aimed at David Davis, the Brexit secretary, they will warn that any attempt to backtrack on last Friday's agreement would result in the EU halting trade talks.
EU officials and diplomats were irritated by Mr Davis's remark at the weekend that the withdrawal agreement was just a “statement of intent”. “It's not helpful if people cast everything into doubt 24 hours later,” one source said.
And why not?
First, there is the perfidious Mr Davis to consider.
Second, there is the fact that no British parliament can bind another, but a Treaty can, and that matters when commitments for up to eight years are being made to secure a deal for EU citizens which are otherwise worthless.
Third, there is the Irish situation to resolve. Many Brexiteers are now saying 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' but this is simply not true. The agreement with the EU says:
That is in complete contradiction to the claim made by May and others: as a result in the case of Ireland this commitment is binding, and not now a choice, whatever she says:
And if I was the EU, and Ireland, I'd be saying put that in both law and a Treaty or forget moving on.
To put it another way, it's time to stop kicking this issue into touch and for a decision to be made. I sincerely hope that in the light of UK comments since Friday that now happens.
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:
This proves what has been stated repeatedly in recent weeks (from many corners): “The current British government is not to be trusted on ANY aspect of its negotiating strategy”. It also proves that the EU is being extremely canny in having an ear to the ground of the British tabloids/digital media.
The only thing in the Tory “strategy” that they have been consistent in is the ideology of party over country.
Given that the EU have needed to write this down (specifically mentioning David Davies) I for one would love to see the EU enact rules which puts your idea of People’s QE, along with Universal Income, an end to (UK) Tax havens (amongst other ideas) at the forefront of the rules to be implemented (without argument?) during the transition period.
They could also use the opportunity to push for a fully-funded set of public services (NHS, Rail, etc. if it was tied to a minimum % of GDP expenditure) along with the foundation of a ministry of tax to “help” large corporations/individuals with their payments etc.
Granted, my knowledge of our European cousins and their economic strategies is scant at best, so a lot of the above ideas probably wouldn’t fly with them, but a man can dream.
I’m also not fully versed on whether, as a result of our Article 50 notification, that we lose our veto within the EU – recent events would seem to say that we have. (IF only that through the government focusing (or not) on Brexit that they appear to have forgotten about any other legislation currently on the cards.)
I wish much of that were possible
But the reality is that we are dealing in lowest common denominators
The Telegraph website is reporting the Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt, who is the European Parliament’s chief negotiator, as saying the following:
“I’ve seen a hardening of the position of the Council and there will be a hardening of the position of the Parliament.
Verfostadt went on to criticise Davis’ appraisal of the Phase One agreement as only a “statement of intent” as a comment that “really undermines trust” between the EU and London.
It is really astonishing that Parliamentarians (Remain Conservatives and the Labour Party) are prepared to go on supporting this embarrassing, witless wreck of a Brexit negotiating team to continue in power or office. Corbyn is, frankly, failing short – badly. It is time it was said.
The referendum was called by Cameron, the team “negotiating” is Tory yet you still choose to call out Corbyn. He has a difficult hand to play with many Labour voting areas having voted to LEAVE. I would say he isn’t doing too badly so far, moving as public opinion shifts to at least try for a very soft Brexit as a minimum, and with luck given a bit more time for the lunacy to sink in for the public, he might suggest the whole thing comes to an end.
I criticise where I think it appropriate
I criticise the Tories a lot here but have always been quite happy to criticise Labour and anyone else when they are not, in my opinion, stepping up to the mark and Labour are not
Their policy is still that which Andrew Fisher (Corbyn Policy Chief) described ti me in March 2016, which is let the Tories squabble over this and Labour will win from it
Well it isn’t winning from it
And this is more than just an argument with the Tories
I think Labour has a duty to lead and it is, from behind
And I don’t think that is good enough
And I will say so and will not be constrained from doing so
The problem with modern politics is that it wholly driven by “moving as public opinion shifts”. It is all too shifty for me.
I understand Richard’s position but also Labour’s on this one.
It just goes to show you what a toxic situation it is. Labour is just like one of the families who will be feeling the divisions this Christmas. It’s almost like a civil war – Reds versus Yankees; Royalists v Roundheads.
There is merit in watching and waiting.
We know now that those Brits who want to leave will not be encouraged to change their mind until they feel the consequences for themselves. And even then they might end up blaming anything and anybody rather than BREXIT.
But then again whilst it may be is wise to be quiet domestically – what about our reputation on the international scene and with trading partners? With recent developments what is needed is a English voice of reason to restore faith in the negotiations.
If I were in Corbyns’ shoes I would be making those overtures to Europe informally. But would the Leavers in his own party let him get away with it?
If Labour are the party of the hard pressed, then surely they realise that the hard pressed are going to be squashed as a result of this most caustic of situations. Labour needs to start to do something.
I suspect Corbyn’s silence might have something to do with him wanting to get elected and an awareness that a significant number of voters are so ill-informed they’ll blame all ills on immigration and anyone who appears to support it. However, getting back to the topic at hand, perhaps a mini-treaty is called for and should be being called for, one dealing solely with the Irish question and incorporating those commitments above.
May and Davis have been equally guilty of this forked tongue performance and though Davis’s bluster was the louder, May’s letter and answers in the House are much the more serious; this is, after all – all incredulity aside – the Prime Minister speaking. If the Council does let the Phase 2 start they will be making a grave mistake, for their warnings will have been seen through the habitually arrogant lense of May as not serious, not really meant. Your suggestion that the EU could still halt Phase 2 – put it into cryogenic storage – until a legally binding treaty was signed would then be the EU’s last chance. Otherwise the maniac tendency will only look on all of this as a strategy for eventually flouncing out – the absolute worst of all possible worlds – for everyone. The EU need to listen carefully to Ireland, who surely know the faithless people with whom all of Europe is now having to deal.
Um, so you want the EU to defend it’s tax havens from Brexit?
Agreed
Both Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney seem very competent. They have also secured universal backing across the Dail for their position and in the absence of SF they are looked upon as almost never before by the NI nationalists as people who are fighting their corner. Sadly the English havn’t covered themselves in glory this week, they were looked upon as “incompetent clowns” but have now moved down one notch to “dishonest incompetent clowns.”
I wonder if DD is suffering from some early onset dementia? This Hansard entry seems very sensible https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htm
David Davis: “There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee–who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister’s heroes–famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.”
I would add Helen McEntee to the list of these seeming to do well
How can Ireland get competence when we cannot?
She came across very well on the channel 4 news a week or two ago https://www.channel4.com/news/helen-mcentee-td-return-to-hard-border-in-ireland-would-impact-peace
Agreed
I saw that
Agree. David Davis used to be an intelligent Tory – indeed even took his own government to court and resigned over civil liberties. The EU pressure must have overwhelmed him at the very least because there are 59 impact assessments in excruciating detail to start and then nothing at all in fact. So he has certainly misled Parliament. In any coherent or competent government he’d have been sacked!
Everything the Tories do concerning BREXIT smacks more and more of self-destruction, self-harm. Except of course that all of THEM will come out of it rather nicely and it is us who will face destruction.
The allegation that they just want to destroy our economy and institutions and remake them for the 1000 Libertarian Reich is becoming more tenable.
The pickle did indeed just get pickler.
Somebody will let that Manx cat out of the bag soon….https://youtu.be/oCXxhkWr7KY
“…there is the fact that no British parliament can bind another, but a Treaty can…”
Richard, your suggestion of a National Government was one thing, but with this EU Treaty proposal I am beginning to actually question your commitment to democracy!
Some of the aspects of EU Treaties are utterly egregious and undemocratic, and their inertia is what makes EU reform extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Every UK parliament should have the ability to change any legislation that its predecessor enacted.
In the UK’s current politically weakened state, I doubt any EU Brexit Treaty negotiated now would be in the UK’s future favour.
I’m not in any way changing my commitment to democracy
I am committing to the integrity of that democracy and the commitments it makes to others who must rely on it
And that matters, a lot
What seems laughable is that somehow the EU is considered to keep its binding commitments.
Does no-one here remember the Fiscal Responsiblity that limited the amount of borrowing of a nationa stae in Europe. With huge fines if disobeyed. Well France and Germany ran a coach and horses through that and guess what neither of them go fined!! I am sorry but there is no bigger commitment broken than that.
Then there is the stopping of the referendums voting for the creation of the political union that was decisively rejected democratically by EVERY country that it was put (albeit Ireland had to be forced to rerun their no vote on the political back corridor Lisbon Treaty). Ha the democratic will when it suits them. The EU Article 50 is what the EU is breaking as it gives the requirement to settle the future trade relations with a leaving member. So the EU are currently breaking that one ho ho ho waould say father Christmas although legally they could start the trad talks 1 second before the end and shred all credibility for an organisation with the outdated prejudices and outdated assumptions embedded in 1960’s instead of 2017.
Barnier and co are trying their hardest to avoid Trade talks because the 27 heads of the EU cannot agree that let alone the Luxembourg Tax committee!!! How the EU are conducting their talks and their broad inception of the UK using all nations is worthy of Russia’s finest.
Good luck to all those who pay the ferryman before they get to the other side – the water can be freezing in the middle of the river.
The EU is not faultless
But your world view offers an isolationist nightmare
Trade comes well before the politicians pronounce the deals when they visit. The world is integrated as never before and somehow I don’t expect that to change. Or as Ex Deputy Minister Lord Hesletine said what would the EU do if we broke their laws send gunboats up the Thames?
I’m a pragmatist with more than one model that I use in my analysis, dissection and summarys both quantitative and qualitative.
Rules and regulations require humans at the moment to make the orders and transactions. Given the growth in corporate governance rules together with in the UK ever more Corporate Governance failings causing egregious outcomes there would be an unsatisfactory correllation for those making the rules.
Enron (bankrupt) completely complied with the US tick box audit requirements but would of been caught with the “is this a True and Fair view of the accounts” principle based. Sadly the auditors mainly won with ever greater boxes to tick whilst is the Big fours accounting set up commonly considered a true and fair view of the business . . . . maybe not. . . although i expect the accountants an lawyers would vehemently disagree
I am sure you think there is a logic to what you said
But I can’t find it
Richard,
The logic is that for all the shouting and propaganda PR etc what matters is in the real world.
If the EU can break their biggest fiscal deficit and fining rules they why not others. What are the consequences and how could such a ruling be enforced. The judges rulings can only be enforced by bailiffs, police and finally by the armed forces as the ultimate enforcement mechanism. The same with taxes.
As to enforcement of regulations or accounting standards that are made up the general “true and fair view” is far harder to avoid or argue against than saying there was no regulation or rule that said I could not do that new accounting or linguistic trick therefore because it wasn’t banned it is permissible. The weakness of accountants putting numbers into different boxes and their training.
Hence the creation of a Shareholder Nomination to the AGM committee is the soft power that has the minds of all Directors because the members can put a resolution forward to the AGM to remove them from office and the company. That channelling of the Board of Directors minds means back to serving the business owners means that other technical measures adverse to shareholders can be changed by the boards new change of service mind.
Any clearer as to the logic?
A little