There is only one news story this morning. It is as if the world has put all else on hold. Brexit is the issue of the day. All else can wait.
And wait it probably must, because we are dealing with Boris Johnson, of course, and he is not a decisive man. A prevaricator, maybe. An appeaser, definitely. But a man possessed of knowledge of his own opinion, let alone the reason for holding it? That he is not.
This matters. Even today, as fishing issues are resolved by allowing a seven-year transition to whatever the new rules might be, during which time I suspect all parties know substantial revision might take place, there remains the outstanding question of what might be called sovereignty. Or rather, there is the question of how sovereignty must always be compromised in the course of making any agreement of mutual benefit with anyone.
According to Robert Peston, who has a leaked government document on reasonable worst-case scenarios for the talks, the stumbling blocks are:
I suspect something like this may be true. If so, I have to (unusually) agree with Peston: what are the tasks now about? Indeed, what have they ever been about? It would seem that the entire reason for these talks has been misunderstood by the British team from the outset. They were always about agreeing how the sovereign right of a state to do what it wishes will be compromised in finding agreement with others.
This should hardly be a surprise. Just about every human interaction is about exactly that: the question we always ask of our partners, children, colleagues, friends and others is how we will compromise our right to do exactly what we like to co-exist in reasonable harmony with others? The proverbial joke about couples needing to agree how the dishwasher will be stacked exists for a reason: in some relationships this is the point where compromise is difficult. In others it is the lid on the toothpaste. There are ample other examples. Each is a metaphor for the stress of finding reasonably harmonious co-existence. And if the Cabinet has reached its collective combined age without realising this, and simultaneously having the will to impress on a prime minister always known for his inability to appreciate the needs of others, then we really do have to worry. Johnson was, of course, noted to lack this ability by a master at Eton. I suspect nothing has changed in his case. And that summarises the unpredictable question of fate that now hangs over us.
The required ability to make a deal with the EU is a simple one: it is that necessary to reach a compromise. If Johnson sits it out, demanding as the paperwork suggests has been the case to date, that he get things all his own way, then there is no deal.
And from a European perspective that will very obviously be better than a bad deal. It is clearly the case that if the UK wants to trade with the EU it must agree to do so in ways compliant with EU standards, determined not just by its legislation, but also its courts. That is a basic condition for a trade deal.
We can, of course, argue for divergence within the UK and no one would deny that right. But we have then to agree to border checks to detect that non-compliance with EU standards. That is the entirely fair price of divergent standards. That this creates internal borders for the UK because of the pre-agreed Northern Ireland protocol is one of those things that simply has to be embraced. And that is not unreasonable. It is just the price of compromise.
I am pessimistic. I doubt Johnson has the ability to compromise. I doubt he thinks he has the room to do so either. The red lines were drawn by May in absurd positions. Johnson has not moved them.
Candidly, all that time talking looks to have been utterly pointless. I could be wrong, but the basics for this agreement never appear to have existed and I am not sure I can see them materialising now.
The narrative of British exceptionalism giving rise to British entitlement has always underpinned the discussions. Without compromise it was also always going to kill them. And that's where we seem to be, stuck somewhere between arrogance and inability.
Wasn't this always the English way? Maybe that way has run out of road. Perhaps the realisation that we have reached the point where bombast does not work has arrived. But I seriously doubt it. I think some pain will have to be suffered first. The appreciation that England is nothing special after all will have to come at a price. My fear now is about just how big that price will be.
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:
Yes, Brexiteers have been confused from the outset by the difference between sovereignty and freedom. Sovereignty is the inherent right and power of states to make decisions (e.g. treaties), any of which might subsequently limit the state’s freedom of action but don’t ‘enslave’ it as the decision of a sovereign state can always be reversed. Hence Brexit i.e. the UK has remained a sovereign state throughout its membership of the EEC/EC/EU.
You perfectly correct about sovereignty vs freedom. Many Brexiteers (or Remainers, too) don’t understand the distinction but the Government surely does!
It is the arrogance of Johnson et al. that assumes that they can have all the freedoms they want without any constraints on their actions. Whether it is Johnson’s “love” life, Cummings Durham trip, Patel’s bullying (I could go on) they demonstrate an expectation of Freedom to act without Responsibility. It has delivered their personal “successes” – why would they change?
British exceptionalism
https://www.renews.biz/64898/bifab-board-backs-administration-move/
The toryscum gov and the tartan tories (=SNP) in Scotland decided that they did not want to keep this manufacturing facility going , even though EU state aid rules allowed toryscum gov financial support. Doubtless the workers at the yard will pass a very very worried Christmas — not that the toryscum gov cares.
Fish
Roughly 5 (or it might be 10 — the exact number does not matter) Toryscum individuals control all UK-owned fishing licenses — roughly accounting for 30% of the catch. The rest are owned by non-UK individuals/orgs. The fish is about ownership of a common resource and already very rich toryscum supporters want to own more of the common resource and thus become richer.
The fatberg and the toryscum gov have exactly zero interest in UK serfs and maximal interest in power and money. The two examples above illustrate this.
And for those with delicate sensibilities, I make no apologies for using the word toryscum, my preference is Bevan’s phrase “tories lower than vermin” but recognise that this could have unfortunate connotations — thus toryscum is a compromise.
For BBC viewers in Scotland Brexit will not be mentioned. Thank you for watching (I don’t).
The contents of this “leaked” document reported by Peston was reported on the front page of the Guardian by Carole Cadwalladr two weeks ago. Peston didn’t give a credit. Carole and other female journalists have commented on male tendencies in this regard, incl not retweeting women.
I was crediting the source I used on this occasion
I take your point entirely
You summed it up a treat.
And it is ordinary people who will suffer.
Well that leaked document is nothing more than a wish list. The fishing issue is a small one to be frank, based on the relative size of our fishing industry, much else falls on this deal.
The problem now is the so called “level playing field” issue which not unreasonably is about how to resolve differences in future legislation between the UK and EU. On this, the subject of state aid seems to be a big stumbling block, as well as safety standards, veterinary /phytosanitary checks and rules of origin for exported products. It was never any use just declaring “Sovereignty “and expecting the EU to roll over ,they cannot. Firstly the as a “third country” outside the EU the EU cannot give the UK any favourable conditions that is does not also give to other third countries….i.e the rest of the World outside the Single Market. If the EU did so it would soon find itself at the court of the WTO in breach of rules governing discriminatory exclusion of one importing nation over another, which is always enforced strictly. In addition the EU is a rules based club for all members of the Single Market that have to be adhered to be be part of that club. We are no longer in that club ,so making exceptions would also likely cause major internal issues within the EU as some will resent the UK getting priority access to the Single Market but being excluded from the rules everyone else has to abide by.
Boris and May before him, certainly made a major mistake in believing that this “entitlement ” would see us through. And the Canada deal is nowhere near comprehensive enough to use as a model for an EU-UK FTA ,(nor is the Australian deal) Mainly because they do not have over 50 % of their exports heading to the EU nor is is a particularly beneficial deal to Canada. This govt is about to get a rude awakening. But Boris will be long gone before the chickens come home to roost. They should have allowed us to stay in the EU until a FTA was fully negotiated ,probably in 15 years time which is the usual time these deals take. This would have averted the current crisis, in the rush to get out they have made an exceptionally expensive mistake.
Though he has managed to change one of May’s so called red lines. He moved the Irish customs border from the NI/Eire land border into the Irish Sea. Though once he realised that his oven ready deal was a time bomb, he tried to backtrack on the Withdrawal Agreement with the Internal Markets Bill and left us facing accusations of breaking international treaties….way to go Boris.
Fishing, big money for a few who are not averse to bending rules apparently.
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/uncovered-rich-list-codfathers-dominating-uks-fishing-industry/
I feel that each side should take moment of time to reflect here .
While principle and feeling may be running wild there are real economic long term issues here
As example document . Best I could find at short notice
Jobs in the EU which be lost if considering the economic trade that will disappear : https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/12181.jpeg
Job in the UK which will be lost if considering the economic trade that will disappear :
https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/9/1326130640691/UK-Trade-exports-graphic-001.jpg
While fish is quite a small issue and it is not consumed so much in the UK anyway.
Sometimes you just have to think big picture. The fish do not really matter.
I feel that saving the maximum number of job should be the primary consideration now in the closing movements of the Brexit process and not any politicians wild fantasies.
Both for the UK mind set and French mind set. The best politicians accepts and need to accept that they and their egos really do not matter. We can always find another politician.
Otherwise many UK & EU persons will lose their jobs and houses and this will be especially bad in the UK considering how poor and vindictively the UK welfare state works . Maybe that will change in the UK once many Tory party member persons find it hard to live from very small UK welfare payments and how mean and nasty the UK welfare system really is designed.
So if Boris fails on getting a deal he is saying good by a good factor of GDP within a few months in the UK. Each UK persons bank account/Pension they call their house price will drop by quite bit as a drop of this much GDP will not support the current house prices.
Taking the point about the bigger picture and jobs, it would seem obvious that in the short term jobs will be lost in the U.K.
In the medium term, what will happen to bring those jobs back? Will investment go into European countries with a far larger home market? Or to the UK on the strength of some anti-competitive bribes and tax breaks? Not as attractive to long term investors as people might think. We’ve already seen jobs start to leak away (eg finance) and investment slow (automotive and elsewhere). As far as growing new overseas markets is concerned such as China, European countries have been much more successful than the U.K. And don’t dismiss a degree of hostility from European customers towards the U.K. for the disruption and pain that the U.K. has caused.
I can only see the U.K. atrophying for the foreseeable future. European migrants will drift back to their home or other European countries where opportunities will be better. That will create shortages of skilled labour In areas such as health, academia, or engineering where the U.K. lacks the skills. There will also be shortages of less-skilled (or perhaps better called differently skilled), low paid jobs including crop picking, food processing, hospitality and care which British people for different reasons choose not to do.
It’s a grim picture but inevitable for an economy like the UKs that decides to isolate itself.
Today the Conservatives will present the Internal Markets Bill. The EU have said it will be a deal breaker.
Is this 1) a deliberate ploy to get the EU to withdraw so the Tories can blame them?
2- they don’t do joined up thinking
3) more exceptionalism and a belief they can just get away with it?
and all in the knowledge that every study shows a ‘no=deal’ is a significant hit to the economy .i.e people’s lives, businesses and jobs.
If these are the negotiating positions, It is not clear to me that there was ever sufficient common ground for a deal to be made. The integrity of the EU market is more important for the EU than its relations with third parties. The EU is not going to move from its position that the price of continued unfettered access to the EU market is compliance with their rules, now and in the future. The shenanigans over the UK Internal Market Bill underlines the absolute necessity for effective and binding dispute resolution.
If the UK is still arguing that it should have free access to the EU market without having to obey any of the EU’s rules – or at least, that we must have the ability to diverge, whenever we want, however we want, with no comeback – it is hard to see where the zone of possible agreement lies.
So we appear to be in the territory of “no deal”. That is bad for everyone, but remind me: what proportion of UK trade (goods and services) is with the EU, and what proportion of EU trade is with the UK? And have we yet reached agreement on other matters such as sharing of policing and security information, and on aviation? Will the existing arrangements all fall over at 11pm on 31 December 2020, or are we going to see a few “bare minimum” side deals while we continue to negotiate at leisure over the main deal?
Who knows?
The attitude to NI will be very telling
Agreed Richard, with just one small caveat; when you say ‘wasn’t this always the English way?’ in referring to British (i.e. English exceptionalism) it is certainly the way a lot (too many) of the English think, but remember there are many of us who don’t, and find English exceptionalism every bit as pathetic and infuriating as the Scots, Welsh and Irish do.
Although my mother was half Welsh, and I have (distantly) some Irish ancestry, and possibly some Scottish given my surname, I’m culturally and geographically 100% English. That doesn’t mean to say I’m unaware of the cruelty inflicted by the English on Ireland and Scotland in the past, or that I’m unaware of some of the many crimes committed by the Empire. And yes, I gave up wearing the poppy a long time ago since to me it has become too associated with an unhealthy obsession with warfare and the military.
I’m neither ashamed or proud to be English, any more than I am to be a relatively privileged white male. It’s just who I am, by accident of birth. And of course most of the contributors to this blog (not the trolls!) are probably very much like me.
You are correct that this wretched exceptionalism underlies much of Brexit, and the ridiculous desire of Johnson’s government that it have access to the EU market but not have to abide by their rules on standards and state aid. If the talks fail it will be down to this. It certainly won’t be the fault of the EU however much the Brexiters will try and blame it.
In fact, I suspect the government has never been genuine in its stated desire to get a trade deal. Why else would it reintroduce the illegal clauses to the Internal Market Bill today which it knows is completely unacceptable to the EU if it really wants a deal? I have emailed my Brexit supporting MP asking him not to support this, although judging by the grotesque drivel he used to justify their actions when I first raised it with him, he’ll support them again.
So in the middle of the worst recession for 300 years caused by C-19, after years of austerity, this atrocious government is going to inflict massive economic damage on us all. No Mike Parr, you are quite correct to call these people Toryscum. They are vile. Corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, arrogant, vicious (the loathsome Patel) and hypocritical…they are the scum of the earth. And traitors to boot, since they are not only causing great suffering to innocent people, they are also destroying the UK, despite their professed unionism.
Good explanation.
I just think that, whatever happens, the Quockerwodger (thank you, Susie Dent) and the rest of the cabinet will either lie about the impact and continue to lie even when the lie has been proved to be a lie or blame someone or something else be that Covid-19, the EU, ‘those who don’t believe in Great Britain’, ‘fake news’ etc.
They are probably lining up the candidates as we type.
But, they will never, ever, ever admit they got it wrong.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will suffer the impact some more than others.
Craig
Susie Dent is a great subversive
Absolutely right Craig, this government of worthless idiots and their supporters won’t accept any responsibility for the coming disaster. Listened to the today program this morning, and the Times has come up with a story accusing the EU of suddenly hardening it’s line last Thursday, apparently because Barnier was told by the French government tobe more insistent that Britain stick to the rules of the SM if it wanted a trade deal, and it wanted tougher mechanisms to enforce this. And this apparently is evidence of French perfidy.
What utter, pathetic rubbish. Exactly what you’d expect from a Murdoch rag I suppose. All the perfidy in Brexit has come from the UK ‘governments’ of the last few years, and the Brexiters. Signing up to a WA and then putting in clauses to override it, hence breaking international law, a few months later? Perfidious Albion indeed. And these ******* drag the rest of us down with them. Wellington’s infamous description of his own troops as ‘The Scum of the Earth’ has never been more appropriate.
Richard, there was never any intention to get a deal. Brexit has always been about removal of regulations. I find it laughable seeing all manner of political commentators reporting how “difficult” and “agonising” the negotiations are turning out to be. They are bound to be when one side is not interested in agreeing anything.
Brexiteers were not expecting the win in 2016, but giving them nearly a year to formulate their plans, has resulted in where we are now (A50 should have been triggered immediately, before the brexiteers were able to formulate the “no deal better then a bad deal” narrative).
There won’t be a deal, because those in charge do not need one to prosper.
I have long felt that way
It seems the phrase “no deal is better than a bad deal” was first used in relation to Brexit by Richard Tice on 25 July 2016, so about a month after the referendum. Up until then, the nearest we got was Farage saying variations of (to paraphrase) “we can easily negotiate a new and better deal, but even if the EU blocks that, no deal will be better than the rotten deal we have now”. See https://www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-check-4632847-May2019/ Interesting how the narrative drifts isn’t it.
For some reason, it was always left unsaid exactly what the new and better deal would involve and why the EU might agree to it, or what would make a negotiated deal “bad” and how that might be worse than a “no deal” outcome.
You have confused the A50 with the A5: the size of paper the Government and ERG required to write down their whole Brexit plan; in big letters, and with room to spare.
John, care to guess what those words were? What grand plan was set forth by the intellectual titans of the ERG and May’s government?
Lets see………….”We hate all furrigners”…..”We want our ****try back!”….or maybe….”We’re English, so we’re better than everyone else, ever, in the whole history of the world..WE ARE, WE ARE!”
“Take back control.”
There. Enough space left on an A5 for the whole ERG ideology; or as the rest of us think of it, a doodle.
Much talk here about the implications of a no-deal and the Internal Market Bill, which is to be debated in the Commons today. Another critical component of the IMB, aside from its critical importance to future relations with the EU, is the existential threat that it poses for the devolved nations’ governance. If the bill is approved in the Commons without accommodating the Lords’ reservations, it will ensure the demise of the UK as currently constituted. It is only a matter of time and, with Scottish elections due in just 5 months, that time is running out fast too.
You’re probably right Ken. The end of the UK is in sight. The grotesque arrogance and stupidity of the UK government is driving us towards economic and political disaster, and there’ll be a price to pay.
They might be able to fool a lot of the English (not this one and his partner though) and blame the EU , but that won’t work in Scotland. Or, increasingly, Wales or NI. In a sense I’ll be sorry to see the UK break up, because it’ll be due to utter awfulness of English politics, and I’d prefer our politics to be so much better. Like a proper voting system so that my vote would actually count in this so-called democracy.
But I see no hope of that, so instead, I’ll be looking forward to seeing the punishment that reality will dish out to English exceptionalism when the Scots vote for independence following the impending disaster that it’s about to bring down on us all.
A doodle John? Surely more a rather smelly turd? you’re right about the rest though. A stupid three word phrase.
Sums up their level of thinking I suppose. Anything longer and more meaningful would tax their ‘intellects’.
Let me state the obvious: the EU is deeply flawed by design. Any arrangement that provides equal rights on the movement of capital and labour when one is inherently more mobile than the other is bound to favour returns to capital over returns to labour, and so it has been.
The period during which the UK has been a member of the EU has coincided with a period when there has been a massive bias to capital across almost every part of the political spectrum with inevitable, unjust and unjustifiable consequences.
I know
But what’s better? Reform it, or pretend we can exist without Europe?
Deeply flawed by design means that it cannot be reformed. That’s what the words “by design” mean.
Can the UK exist without the EU? Sure. Just as Switzerland can quite happily.
Switzerland has historic reasons for being able to do so
It also reached open minded agreement with the EU
We have historic reasons now for being unable to do so – not least on NI
And we are being closed minded
Apart from that your analysis is spot on
Or rather, utterly wrong
Nobody says the EU is flawless. Show me any human institution, and it’ll have its flaws. Your criticism has some truth in it, but as Richard says, its better to stay in it and reform it (and Britain was one of the most influential members of the EU, whatever the Brexiter liars say).
And the success of political union in preventing further European conflict is an inestimable achievement. And lets be frank, are you seriously saying that the EU is worse than Britian in its levels of inequality? The UK is worse than the rest of Europe, and about to get a lot worse in that regard. Its exactly what the lying, scheming con artists behind Brexit want. A regualtion free libertarian ‘paradise’; in reality, a race to the bottom.