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

4 Ts are needed in #Brexit Talks: Timescale; Table; Team & Truth

This blog was written and posted on Feb 18th, 2018:

BELGIUM-BRITAIN-EU-BREXITLast Monday I came across a Twitter exchange between two prominent Brexit supporters. Not politicians, but well-known members of the commentariat.

One of them accepted what the UK government had signed up to as regards the avoidance of a border in Ireland in Article 59 of last December’s “Article 50, Phase 1” agreement. However, she believed that the UK government had been trapped into doing so and should now actively be looking for a way out. Welch on the deal, in deed if not in word.

The second one denied that what had been agreed had been agreed. The interpretation of Article 49 by Brussels (AKA EU27) and Dublin was simply wrong. London could never have agreed such terms.

Both, in their own way, were saying that Article 49 put the UK government in an impossible position of promising mutually incompatible things to the EU27 (and Dublin), the DUP and the hardline Brexiters in the UK.

Truth may be the first casualty of war, but it can never be a casualty of negotiations, and denying or reneging on the truth was what the two Brexiters were about.

While, as we discussed last week in this BEERG Briefing, a large part of your leverage in negotiations derives from clearly knowing your BATNA, your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, the actuality of negotiations is conducted by real, living, breathing people and they only have one card to play in discussions. Their reputation for trustworthiness and honesty. The other party must be able to believe that you mean what you say and when you say you can deliver, you can deliver.

Continue reading

Brexit, British Government, Conservative Party, UK Labour Party

#Brexit: It’s not the Economy, Stupid, It’s Politics

This blogpost was written on January 27:

3140It has been one of those weeks when you have to stop and ask yourself just exactly what is Brexit, given that the UK government and the wider political community seem incapable of agreeing on an answer.

Certainly, Brexit means the UK wants to leave the EU, but on what terms? When does it really want to leave, and what happens afterwards? Reading about the way UK politicians are approaching Brexit I am often reminded of the hassled parents who, patience worn thin, tells the kids to “get in the car, we are going for a drive”. When the kids demand to know “where are we going” they are told to “just get in the car, we’ll decide on the way”. As soon as they are in the car the parents start arguing as to where to go, all the while the kids creating a noisy racket in the back.

Continue reading

Brexit, British Government, Macron, Negotiating, Theresa May, UK Labour Party

#Macron says: “Be My Guest” while UK’s two main parties are gripped by #Brexit cakism

This piece was written on January 19th 2018.

_99662678_selfieWith just three words, “Be my Guest”, French President, Emmanuel Macron, on a visit to the UK this week, made it clear that the EU would not bend or break its rules to accommodate the UK in any post-Brexit deal.

“In” means in, and that means abiding by the EU’s rules. “Out” means out. And the choice was the UK’s to make. No doubt, a wry smile crossed the face of the spirit of General De Gaulle, wherever he may be.

As the Europeans see it, Brexit isn’t difficult or complicated. In fact, it is fairly straightforward. It is UK politics that are difficult and that are making Brexit hard for the UK.

We believe that the EU see Brexit as follows:

1.       Following a vote on June 23, 2016, some nine months later, in March 2017, the UK wrote to the European Union saying that it would be leaving the EU at midnight on March 29th, 2019. Continue reading

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Irish border, Northern Ireland, Theresa May

That #Brexit Winding Road may be a Cul-de-Sac

This post was written on Monday Dec 4th, 2017.

may-tusk-junckerThere was a time, before the Internet and social media, when politicians could say very different things to very different audiences and get away with it. Not so today. To coin a phrase, what you say in Brussels is known in Belfast before you finish your sentence.

As I write this, at 18:30 Paris time, reports of what actually happened in Brussels today are still somewhat unclear. But it does appear that all parties thought a deal was done until the UK said no at the last minute. Speaking to Irish radio, the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), Leo Varadkar said:

“The U.K. had agreed a text on the border that met our concerns … I was then contacted by [Juncker and Tusk] and confirmed Ireland agreement to that text… I am surprised and disappointed that the U.K. Govt is not in a position to agree to what was approved today”

Reports suggest that the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) said it could not support the agreed text as it appeared to split Northern Ireland economically from the rest of the UK as Northern Ireland would, to all extents and purposes, still be in the EU’s single market and customs union while the rest of the UK would not.

Continue reading

Article 50, Brexit, British Government, Brussels, Divorce, Northern Ireland

#Brexit: A Moment of Truth Fast Approaching

Written on Sunday Nov 26th.

Brexit4After we wrote our weekly Brexit Briefing last Friday, the news broke that the European Union (EU) had given the UK until Monday, December 4, to table revised and meaningful proposals on the three Article 50 issues, the rights of citizens, the “Irish question” and meeting financial obligations if it wishes the EU27 to agree at their December summit to move the talks to discussing the future relationship between the two parties. As Politico noted:

European Council President Donald Tusk set an “absolute deadline” of December 4 for the U.K. to submit a revised offer on the Brexit bill and a credible solution for the Irish border, telling U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday that otherwise it would not be possible to move on to the second phase of talks, a senior EU official said.

The official said May had accepted the timeframe, and that Tusk warned her if London misses the deadline, the European Council would not be able to declare “sufficient progress” at its December summit.

Continue reading

Brexit, British Government, Brussels, Irish border, Northern Ireland

Break, for the Border #Brexit

This blogpost was written on Nov 24th, 2017

welcometoniThe week opened with the UK cabinet agreeing that it would offer more money to the EU to settle its financial obligation triggered by its decision to leave but only on condition that the EU would agree to now move to talks about the future relationship and that the money would only be paid over when a trade deal was actually signed. This is an offer that, by Friday, even the ultra-Brexit supporting newspaper, the Telegraph, was admitting would be rejected by the EU.

The week closed with howls of rage from British politicians, often Brexit supporting, when the EU announced that UK cities were to be excluded from consideration from the prized European Capitals of Culture competition for 2023. An example of the EU punishing the UK, Brexiters argued, apparently ignorant of the rules that only cities from EU, EEA or applicant countries can be so nominated. Why would the EU subsidise cultural activities in a city in a country that had left the EU?

Continue reading

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?