Article 50, Brexit, David Davis, Irish border, Negotiating

#Brexit: “Sometimes it seems like they haven’t thought all this through”

This article was written on 17th Nov 2017

Hammond BoJoAnother week, another seven days that leaves us little wiser as to what happens next. With each passing day it becomes ever clearer that the UK government fundamentally misunderstands the position it has placed itself in as regards exiting the European Union.

This misunderstanding is such that, as of today, there would appear to be only two possibilities open to the UK.

The first is to leave the EU in March 2019 without an agreement as to its future relationship with the EU and, therefore, obliged to conduct trade with the EU within the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

The second possibility is to accept a free trade agreement modelled on the agreement the EU has recently signed with Canada. That agreement basically covers trade in goods, resulting in a reduction in tariffs of some 98%, and mutual recognition in regulated professions such as architects, accountants and engineers, and easier transfers of company staff and other professionals between the EU and Canada.

However, it has little to say about services, such as financial and legal services. As such services constitute a significant portion of the UK’s trade with the EU the “Canadian model” is of limited value, certainly as compared to the access the UK enjoys today to European markets through membership of the internal (single) market and the customs union.

It is the UK government that has put itself in this position with its decision that Brexit had to mean not only leaving the EU’s political structures but also meant leaving the internal market, the customs union and common commercial policy and putting itself outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It didn’t have to be that way but the UK’s prime minister, Theresa May, decided that such an ultra-interpretation of the Brexit referendum vote was the best way to manage the internal politics of the Conservative Party.

As has become clear since, this choice may well have resulted from a complete ignorance of the way the European Union is constituted and how it actually works. Those UK cabinet members actually charged with managing the UK’s exit from the European Union have very little actual experience of dealing with the EU. David Davis, the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator, spent 20 years on the back benches in parliament before being appoint Brexit Secretary in June 2016.

Such was Davis’s lack of understanding of the EU when appointed that one of his first announcements was that he planned a trip to Berlin to negotiate a trade deal with Germany, seemingly unaware that individual EU member states cannot negotiate trade deals with non-EU member states. The EU does that on behalf of all its members.

But Davis’s lack of understanding on trade matters merely speaks to a greater lack of understanding on the part of practically all UK politicians as to the constitutional nature of the EU, not helped by the fact that very few of them speak any European languages. The EU is a rules-based, legal order with complex decision making processes. This is the only way a bloc of 28 member states can work. Politics cannot trump this legal order. Legislation, once enacted, cannot be disregarded for the sake of some short-term political expediency. The CJEU ensures that decisions and legislation conforms to the Union’s legal and constitutional order.

The UK’s concept of parliamentary sovereignty is very different. Whatever parliament decides, it decides. Adverse decisions of the courts can be quickly overturned. A UK government with a solid parliamentary majority can do pretty much anything it wants.

This leaves UK politicians believing that, in the end, politics will always trump legal considerations. This belief has informed their approach to the EU exit process. They see the process as a classic “give and take” negotiation. I compromise, therefore, you must reciprocate with a compromise.

Davis said as much in a BBC interview on Friday last. He told his interviewer that the UK has “been offering some creative compromises and not always got them back”, insisting that “nothing comes for nothing”. He suggested there needed to be more give-and-take from the other side. “I want them to compromise, surprise, surprise, nothing comes for nothing in this world,” he said. “But so far, in this negotiation, we have made a lot of compromises. On the citizens’ rights front, we have made all the running.”

The problem for Davis is that the EU does not see the UK exit process as a negotiation in the same way as he does. They see it as something to be managed, as damage limitation, as the protection of the legal order.

For example, the UK continues to see the EU’s insistence that it settles its financial obligations, obligations the UK signed up to as a member of the EU, as something to be bargained against a future trade arrangement. The EU sees it as paying what you already owe and will not allow the UK to “double bubble” that money, buying future benefits with money owed from past obligations.

Likewise, when it comes to future trade relations between the EU and the UK. By now, even if they have never said so explicitly, it is clear what the current UK government wants: a trade deal that gives the UK de facto membership of the internal market and the customs union but without the financial and legal obligations that come with membership.

As Davis put it in a speech in Berlin last Thursday night:

“We will be a third country partner like no other. Much closer than Canada, much bigger than Norway, and uniquely integrated on everything from energy networks to services. The key pillar of this will be a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement – the scope of which should beyond any the European Union has agreed before. One that allows for a close economic partnership while holding the UK’s rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

It should, amongst other things, cover goods, agriculture and services, including financial services. Seeking the greatest possible tariff-free trade, with the least friction possible. And it should be supported by continued close cooperation in highly-regulated areas such as transportation, energy and data.”

Where does this “deep and comprehensive free trade agreement” actually differ from membership of the internal market and the customs union? The answer lies in the words about holding the “UK’s rights and obligations in a new and different balance”, code for the UK wanting three of the four freedoms of movement – goods, capital and services – while closing down the free movement of people. Except if you are a banker, for whom Davis has promised to negotiate a special free movement deal (here). Too bad if you are a Polish plumber.

The UK does not just want to cherry pick the single market and the customs union, it is asking for the whole cherry orchard.

Even if the discussions between the UK and the EU get beyond the three Article 50 issues, then the UK is going to have to face the reality that best that will be on offer is a Canadian-style free trade agreement. The EU will not compromise the integrity of the single market and the custom unions for the benefit of a third country, the UK.

To paraphrase some words from Davis’s Berlin speech: the EU will not put EU prosperity at risk for the sake of UK politics. 2018 looks like being a long, slow, steep learning curve for the UK that short-term political choices made in the interest of party management can have long-term adverse economic consequences.

But the discussions may not get beyond the Article 50 issues. Ireland wants a written commitment that there will be no hard border on the island after Brexit. The UK has committed to this but doesn’t know how to deliver on it. As the Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar said on Friday after a meeting with Theresa May: “Sometimes it seems like they haven’t thought all this through”.

Not just on Ireland, but on all things Brexit, that becomes more obvious by the day.

 

 

Brexit, Irish border, Michel Barnier, Northern Ireland

Is the UK’s #Brexit Cheque really in the post…?

This article was written on Nov 12th 2017.

13589652_f520It is becoming increasingly difficult to see Brexit ending well. Indeed, the process could hit the wall within weeks. Why? The complete and utter inability of the UK government to agree what it wants out of Brexit and, as a result, how to conduct the exit process. This should not be surprising given the closeness of the Brexit referendum vote: 52% to 48%, with the 52% only representing 37% of the total electorate.

It would appear that, when it comes to Brexit, the UK electorate roughly breaks down into three, though it is impossible to say exactly what weight to give to each of the three.

1. First, there are those who are totally opposed to Brexit and want to see the decision reversed.

2. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who want, in the words of arch-Brexiteers, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, the UK to become “a fully independent self-governing country”, irrespective it would seem, of the costs involved.

3. The third bloc, probably where most pragmatic businesses people are to be found, believe that if Brexit is to go ahead, then the economic disruption should be kept to a minimum, preferable through continued membership of the EU’s single market and the customs union.

On balance, and many of the polls show this, there is probably a majority in the UK who support leaving the political dimension of the EU but remaining within its economic dimension. The problem is that, what we might call the “economic remainers”, are split between the main political parties while the “Britain First” group of Johnson and Gove effectively control the Conservative Party, and thus the government.

Their control is such that within the past few days, the prime minister, Theresa May, has announced that she will bring forward an amendment next week to the European Union Withdrawal Bill which will embed the UK’s decision to leave the European Union at 12:00 midnight, Brussels time, on March 29th, 2019 in law. Irrespective of what happens between now and then.

The fact that there is no internal agreement within the UK as to the meaning of Brexit makes, as we note above, managing the process difficult, if not impossible. How do you get to where you want to go when you can’t decide on your preferred destination?

The first phase in the exit process is the Article 50 negotiations. The essence of Article 50 is found in the following language:

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

The EU has identified three issues that must be resolved during the A50 discussion with the UK before talks can move to the issue of the “framework for its future relationship with the Union”. They are: settlement of the UK’s outstanding financial commitments with the EU; the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU; and issues relating to the island of Ireland, where the only land border between the EU and the UK will exist, post-Brexit.

When it comes to the settlements of the UK’s outstanding financial commitments to the EU the two sides are approaching it from mutually incompatible positions. The EU sees it as a simply a matter of the UK paying what it owes, a settling of accounts. Once outstanding accounts are settled then what happens in the future can be discussed. There can be no future discussion until all outstanding bills are fixed, or at least an agreement is reached on how the bills will be fixed.

The UK see it as a negotiation. We will pay what you say we owe provided we get future benefits for our money. There must be a quid-pro-quo. The UK has made an initial offer of €20 billion and now says that it will not increase that figure until the EU agrees to trade talks. Even then, it would find it politically impossible to increase the figure without an actual trade deal to show for it.

This was the week that EU patience with what it sees as UK gameplaying finally snapped. At a press conference last Friday, after what can only be described as two days on non-negotiations, the EU’s chief negotiator, Michael Barnier, said that the UK has two weeks to make a serious proposal on its outstanding financial commitments, put at roughly €60 billion by the EU, or else he would not be able to report “sufficient progress” to the heads of government of the remaining EU27 member states in December to allow talks to proceed to what the UK insists on calling “trade” but which Article 50 refers to as the “framework for its future relationship with the Union”. A big difference in understanding as to the substance of the next phase of discussions, if the process ever gets to that point.

As of today, it seems extremely unlikely that there is any sort of political consensus with the UK cabinet to do what Barnier asks. On the contrary, in a complete misreading of the EU’s position, there is a belief on the part of many of the “Britain First” grouping that the EU is so desperate for the UK’s money that it will fold and give the UK the trade terms it wants if only the UK would walk away from the negotiating table. David Davis appeared to confirm this when he said in a TV interview Sunday that the EU should not to expect a figure or a formula by which the UK’s obligations would be calculated.

Even if a solution could be found on the money, this week also saw what is probably the most intractable of the three issues, borders on the island of Ireland, take centre stage. A leaked document on Thursday last revealed that Ireland and the EU were demanding that Northern Ireland remain in the single market and the customs union to avoid a hard border between the two parts of the island, a demand immediately rejected by the UK government, which is dependent for its survival on the votes of the Democratic Unionist Party from Northern Ireland.

The UK accepts that there should be no return to a hard border in Ireland, which would put the peace process at enormous risk. But it can offer no concrete solutions as to how this can be done outside the customs union and the single market. “We’ll find other ways around that”, was all that the UK’s Brexit negotiator, David Davis, could offer when asked in the same TV program mentioned above.

However, the reality is that there is no way around it. If Northern Ireland is outside the customs union and the single market then a hard border is inevitable if the EU is to protect the integrity of its internal market from goods being smuggled from Northern Ireland into Ireland, and onwards into the rest of the EU. Magical thinking and as yet undiscovered technological solutions are not going to solve the problem.

Conservative politicians and sympathetic commentators were quick to assert that the “newly hardened” Irish position, as they deemed it, was the result of Sin Fein/IRA pressure on the Irish government. No such thing.

This has been the Irish position all along. It is just that, as with other matters, the UK government has not been paying attention to what the Irish have being saying, just as they have not been paying attention to what the European Parliament is saying on citizens’ rights.

The Irish don’t have a veto on the final Article 50 agreement, if ever one is reached. But they do have a veto on whether or not “sufficient progress” has been made in the Article 50 discussions to allow the process to move on to the discuss the “future framework”.

They are not about to throw that leverage away.

The Irish position is simple: with its extreme definition of what Brexit means, out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, the UK created the problem. If it wants the process to move forward, it had better solve it now.

Post-dated commitments that it will be solved in future trade discussions will not be accepted. Like post-dated cheques, post-dated commitments too often bounce.

Indeed, that might be a useful metaphor for where we are. The EU (and Ireland) wants guaranteed, certified cheques now if the process is to progress. But all the UK is offering is post-dated cheques, with the figures to be filled in a later date.

Brexit, Data Protection, Data transfers, GDPR, Theresa May

Another Brick in a #Data Wall? #Brexit #EUDataP

This article was written on Nov 4th, 2017

GDPR readyUnder the BEERG law of unintended consequences; the unintended outworking of an action or event is often far more significant or impactful than the intended one. And so, while the UK media obsessed on sex scandals and a cabinet resignation, the Brexit process crawled along with the announcement of another round of EU/UK talks next week and a vote in parliament forcing the government to publish 58 sectoral studies on the economic impact of Brexit.

Meanwhile, the most important Brexit consequence of the week may turn out to be an obscure clause in the Second Schedule of the Data Protection Bill, (lines 39 – 45 on page 125) which is currently being examined line-by-line in the House of Lords.

In an article in politics.co.uk last Friday, November 3, Martha Spurrier director of Liberty, an organisation which campaigns for civil liberties and human rights in the UK, drew attention to a little noticed provision in the Bill, Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 4.1 – Immigration, which reads:

The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data processed for any of the following purposes—
    (a) the maintenance of effective immigration control, or
    (b) the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance          of effective immigration control,
to the extent that the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

While, as Spurrier notes, the intent of the Bill is as the government puts to “empower people to take control of their data” she says that “it will strip millions of their rights.”
As Spurrier writes, contrary to the stated intentions of the legislation, the real impact of Schedule 2.4 means that:

…any government agency processing data for immigration purposes will be free of those pesky data protection obligations we’ve developed through successive Acts of parliament – and signed up to through the EU’s General Data Protection

In practice, the exemption will create a two-tier data rights regime. When an agency relies on the exemption, individuals will lose their right to know what information is held about them, who is processing it and why.

They will not be able to correct or erase information held about them – which doesn’t bode well considering how much of the data held on us is out of date or just plain wrong.

She goes on to note that the lack of a definition of effective immigration control or activities that would interfere with it “makes it practically impossible to draw up a list of all those who could be caught up”. “The exemption could also be used to facilitate the sharing of personal data between public services and the Home Office if it’s decided checking everyone’s entitlement to access healthcare, education or social housing is necessary for effective immigration control.”

She concludes that the idea “that personal data collected for one purpose can’t be used for another without the individual’s informed consent is the cardinal principle of data protection. This exemption makes a mockery of it and sets a damaging precedent for the privacy rights of all of us.”

What has this got to do with Brexit?

Simply, it is one more potential barrier, and a significant one at that, to the free flow of personal data from the EU to the UK after Brexit.

That public authorities could have such unfettered rights to citizens’ personal data without citizens been aware of what data is being held, could make it extremely difficult for the European Commission to issue an “adequacy decision” on the UK’s data protection regime. Such a decision is vital if personal data is to flow freely from the EU to the UK, without individual businesses having to go through complex procedures to put in place binding corporate rules or avail of standard contractual clauses which are, in any event, been called into question by privacy campaigners as failing to offer sufficient protect for data transferred to the US.

But “data adequacy decisions” are not easy come by and can take years. Only a handful have ever been issued. See here for details.

The EU Parliament is also likely to have a good deal to say on the matter. And what it has to say will not be kind to the UK.

The data economy in the EU was estimated to be worth €272 billion in 2015, or around 2% of the EU-28 GDP. And that figure is expected to rise to €643 billion by 2020, according to the UK’s Department for Exiting the European Union. 43% of EU tech companies are based in the UK and 75% of the UK’s data transfers are with the EU Member States. Over 70 per cent of the UK’s trade in services is supported by personal data flows as the government noted in a position paper last August: “Data flows between the UK and the EU are crucial for our shared economic prosperity and for wider cooperation, including on law enforcement.”

The UK government believe that it is taking the necessary steps to ensure it is aligned with the requirements of EU regulations and to comply with European legislation, post-Brexit.

Further, to consolidate the relationship, it is proposing “a UK-EU model for exchanging and protecting personal data, […]providing sufficient stability for businesses, public authorities and individuals.” This would ‘build on the existing adequacy model’, and would see continued engagement of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office with other EU regulators. In other words, it wants the UK’s data commissioner to still have a seat at the table.

However, as we have previously noted in these BEERG Brexit Briefings, there is a major obstacle in the way of the EU issuing a “data adequacy decision” as regards the UK, post-Brexit. The Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force at the end of last year, allows the U.K. government to monitor large batches of data, collect people’s browsing records and hack citizens’ phones and computers for security purposes.

The Act was initiated by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was still at the Home Office. Critics, such as the German Green MEP, Jan Philipp Albrecht, have suggested that the Act gives the UK security services more far-reaching powers that the US counterparts. It was concerns over the extent of the access by the US security services to the personal data of EU citizens which had been transferred to the US that led to the collapse of the old Safe Harbour Agreement, and its replacement by the Privacy Shield arrangement.

EU law provides for exemptions from general data protection principles in matters of:
•  national security and defence;
•  the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences;
•  the protection of data subjects and the rights and freedom of others.

But these exemptions only apply to EU and EEA member states. They do not apply to “third countries”, EU terminology for countries that are completely outside the EU/EEA framework. After Brexit, as it has been defined by the UK government, the UK will be a such a “third country”, and so the security exemption will no longer apply. The problems created by the Investigatory Powers Act is securing an “adequacy decision” from the EU will be further exacerbated by Schedule 2.4, as discussed above.

There will be many in the UK who will argue that, even in the absence of an overarching Brexit agreement, the EU will cut “mini-deals” with the UK, including one on data flows. But then again, maybe not. As Sir Ivor Richards said in his comment to a House of Commons committee a week back:

What is going to happen? In the absence of a deal, have the French, Belgians or Dutch any incentive to sort that problem (customs blockages), or do they have an incentive to keep us stewing? In the area of data protection, do they have an incentive ultimately to cobble together some agreement at the last minute in order to keep data flows, or do they have an incentive to maximise the flow of UK business that has to shift to the continent?

The Investigatory Powers Act is already on the statute books. Schedule 2.4 of the Data Protection Bill is not.

Spurrier makes her own arguments as to why the provision should be opposed.

We simply seek to draw attention to the fact that it places another enormous brick in the wall as regards future data flows between the EU and the UK when Brexit bites.

 

 

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Negotiating, Theresa May

#Brexit, a Dickensian example of: “Please sir, can I have less?”

This article was written on Oct 29, 2017.

Sir-Ivan-Rogers-776583If the absence of economic rationality, as a driving force behind Brexit, was ever in question, comments this week from three very different speakers should put an end to the doubt.

First, the French ambassador to the US, Gerard Araud tweeted:

“Maybe I am too cartesian but leaving the largest free trade area in the world and 53 free trade agreements on behalf of free trade is weird.”

Indeed, much too logic. But that’s the French for you.

Second, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of Bloomberg and former mayor of New York commented:

Brexit is the “single stupidest thing any country has ever done…it is really hard to understand why a country that was doing so well wanted to ruin it”

Third, and most significantly, speaking to a House of Commons committee, Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassador to the EU (Photo above with David Cameron), who resigned earlier this year after warning against “ill- founded arguments and muddled thinking” in the UK’s approach to leaving the EU, said:

You cannot know how long a free trade deal discussion will last until you get into it. I have lived through a number of them, including the Canadian one, which we all thought was relatively straightforward, which we kicked off in about 2009, and it still is not in force; and they are one of the more simple partners. You cannot know until you get there. There are things that are simpler with us than with Canada simply because we have been in the organisation. There are things that are more difficult because we are a diverging partner rather than a converging partner.

All trade deals in history are struck between people that are trying to get closer together. This is the first trade deal in history struck between partners who are trying to get further apart. There are some things that are simpler because they know us better and we have been part of their organisation and, by definition, there is a huge degree of regulatory convergence and they know our regulation but we are obviously going to diverge to some extent, and the question that is politically live, including in this House, will be how far we diverge. (Our underlining).

I would take issue with Sir Ivan’s comment that the two sides are trying to get “further apart”. It is just the one side, the UK, that wants to make the break. But apart for that, what he says is right.

Normally, the parties to a trade deal believe the conclusion of the deal will be win-win for all, making them better off than they are now, boosting trade between the parties, enhancing business opportunities rather than limiting them. Getting closer together rather than “trying to get further apart”.

But in deciding to leave the EU, the single market and the customs union the UK will not be better off than it is now. As Sir Ivan said earlier in his remarks to the committee:

… from other capitals often it is read as meaning the Brits would rather like the benefits of three of the freedoms whilst suspending or ending the fourth freedom. The Brits would rather like to have continued, largely unchanged, market access in all the areas that they want, and see no reason why that market access should be diminished…
But if that is what the “Brits” would like, they are not going to get it, Sir Ivan continued:

… The Brits need to understand that there will be a radical difference as a consequence of exiting, in terms of levels of market access in multiple sectors that they care about.

… The British cannot simply expect the world to carry on broadly as is. They cannot suspend free movement of people because that is no longer applicable to them, live outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, but still have everything that they liked about the levels of market access when they were inside the venture.

Given his long experience of the EU, Sir Ivan knows what he is talking about, which is probably a lot more than can be said for many members of the government and many leading Brexiteers.

If Britain cannot expect to have as good terms outside the EU as inside, how does it go about negotiate a lesser deal than the one it has now? The answer, in all probability, is that it can’t. How can the UK government turn around to the motor industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry or the chemical industry and tell them that the agreement it has just negotiated with the EU will put more obstacles in their way when exporting to the EU? More paperwork will be required, more customs checks, longer waiting times at borders will all be part of the new deal.

Read Sir Ivan’s remarks, quoted above, closely. Better still, read the full script of his testimony to the House of Commons committee, which can be found here.

While diplomatically couched, he is saying that if you think the Article 50 negotiations on the financial settlement, citizens’ rights and Ireland are difficult, wait until you actually get to the trade talks. They will be brutal and bloody. Because, as we noted in last week’s blog, what the “Brits” want is to move from a marriage to a “friends with benefits” arrangement and there are no circumstances in which the “jilted” EU will agree to such an arrangement, where the UK gets all the benefits it wants but incurs none of the costs.

Further, Sir Ivan, along with his two fellow panellists, clearly makes the point that the UK government is deluding itself if it thinks that a DCFTA, a “deep and comprehensive free trade agreement” in the Brussels jargon, will be agreed before March 2019, to be followed by a two-year transition period, or “implementation phase” as UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, insists on calling it.

At best there will be an agreement, as part of the Article 50 process, to negotiate a DCFTA during the transition period, by which time the UK will have left the EU. All the transition period does it to buy two more years before Brexit bites.

It is not “hard” Brexit or “soft” Brexit. It is just slow Brexit. Because it will be impossible to negotiate such a DCFTA within the two-year transition. At the end of the two-year transition the UK may still find itself without a trade agreement with the EU.

The UK has gotten itself into an impossible negotiation. The structure and the timetable of the negotiations, which they agreed to, plays against them. The clock ticks remorselessly down. The negotiations open with the UK having all it wants; free and frictionless trade with the rest of the EU. But the price of that trade is the free movement of people, a price the UK no longer wants to pay. If it won’t pay the price, it can’t have trade on frictionless terms. What does it give up as the price of ending free movement?

How do you ask for less in a negotiation?

Those of you of a certain age will well remember the scene from the movie Oliver in which Oliver, approaches the top table in the workhouse and, holding out his bowl, says “I want some more”, to the outrage of Mr. Bumble, who runs the workhouse. Theresa May and David Davis are now both holding out the UK’s bowl to Juncker, Barnier and Tusk and the EU 27 and saying: “We want a lot less than we now have”.

Just how do you negotiate that?

Article 50, Brexit, Divorce, Negotiating, Theresa May

On #Brexit: You can’t always get what you want…

This BEERG Brexit Briefing (#16) was written on Sat Oct 21, 2017

Hammond BoJoWords and phrases can shape reality.

How we describe an issue or event can determines how that issue or event is to be understood. Such “framing” can be particularly important when we are dealing with some something unique, something that has never happened before. How do you describe the unknown? How do you explain the unprecedented?

One way of doing so is to compare the unknown to something known and familiar. This, in the UK at any rate, is what many journalists, commentators and academics have done when writing about Brexit, an unprecedented and unknown event. They have taken to describing the Article 50 discussions between the EU and the UK as being akin to divorce proceedings, with the key argument being about money: how much will the UK have to pay the EU as part of the “divorce settlement”?

Continue reading

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Irish border, Negotiating

Breaking up is so very hard to do #brexit

Brexit4Over the past number of years, I have been involved, on the management side, in many European-level labour negotiations. But one particularly comes to mind.

The employees’ representatives on the other side had cancelled an agreement that had been in place for close on 20 years. It wasn’t a perfect agreement, it had drawbacks for both parties, but it worked reasonably well in practice.

Further, it was always possible to negotiate small, but important, changes to the agreement as circumstances evolved, old provisions became outdated and new issues and organisational changes needed to be taken into consideration.

In other words, the other side did not need to cancel the agreement but could, instead, have worked on improving it. But they were advised that negotiating a new agreement would be easy and that it would be a lot better than what they then had. Five years on, a replacement is not yet in place.

Continue reading

Brexit, Negotiating, Theresa May, UK Labour Party

“Plan for the Worst: Hope for the Best” – the Fading Hope of #Brexit Deal

Posted on Friday, Oct 6th 2017:

4221396001_5597581765001_5597568337001-vsThe major party conferences have come and gone and still we are no wiser as to how Brexit is going to unfold. As we noted in last week’s Briefing, the Labour Party’s policy appears to be that they will deliver Brexit, but a Labour Brexit, not a Tory Brexit, whatever that means. Brexit is Brexit and Brexit means being outside the European Union (EU), the single market and the customs union.

However, Labour is in opposition and, so, for the moment what it says is important but nowhere near as important as what the Conservative government says, as it is charged with negotiating the Brexit arrangements with the EU. Whether it can get whatever deal it negotiates, if any, through Parliament, especially the House of Lords, is another matter.

This week’s Conservative Party conference was dominated by three issues:

  1. Brexit;
  2. Who is going to succeed Theresa May as Conservative leader, and when;
  3. and Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Continue reading