Brexit: the final throw?

06/12/2020

So, we had the famous phone call – which is reported to have lasted an hour. Von der Leyen then told us (as if we didn't know) that "differences remain". She then tells us that no agreement is feasible if these are not resolved (another statement of the bleedin' obvious).

Negotiations are to resume today, but it seems more like a salvage effort, to assess whether the parties can resolve their remaining differences. Then Johnson and von der Leyen will speak again late on Monday. That, one assumes, will be the next "make or break" moment, as to whether to go on for a final deal or call it a day.

In the unlikely event that we actually see a deal agreed on Monday, that would be nicely timed for the European affairs ministers on the Tuesday morning. We would see the ministers prepare for the European Council on Thursday which would "endorse" any deal that had been made, ready for it to go to the European Parliament – or not. If it gets that far, it would then go to Council for the deal to be finally concluded.

According to MEP Bernd Lange, however, it ain't going to be that simple. Via Spiegel he tells us that the Brits fundamentally reject the idea of enforcement provisions for the level playing field.

Lange has good credentials. He is the SPD Brexit expert in the European Parliament, so he should know something of what he speaks. And he suggests that Johnson views the level playing field conditions as a question of sovereignty.

The EU, on the other hand, would like to prevent British companies from gaining competitive advantages, especially since the desired trade agreement would allow British goods to enter the EU market free of tariffs and quotas.

On that basis, it would seem unlikely that there will be any meeting of minds – not by Monday or any time soon. And that is something which seems to be confirmed by the Telegraph. It conveys a complaint from a "UK source" that the EU is not treating Britain "as an independent country" and had offered terms which "effectively tied the UK's regulations to the EU's in perpetuity".

This exchange tends to reinforce the impression that, while fishing has taken a lead in the media stakes, the real sticking point is the LPF issue. Lange, in fact, thinks that fishing is solvable – not that it would do much good, when nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The Sunday Times is making a big thing about fishing and an even bigger deal about a supposed split between France and Germany, each backed by their own groups of Member States.

Personally, I don't buy this. Merkel and Macron are close politically, and I don't see them falling out over the UK, especially at this late stage. Some free rein will be allowed but, when push comes to shove, France and Germany almost invariably act as one. I would be amazed if they haven't already spoken.

So far, though, Merkel is keeping her own counsel – last heard on Friday to urge both sides negotiating in London to move past their red lines to strike a deal. Her spokesman is not adding much, repeating the agreed line, that Europe "is ready to reach an agreement with Britain, but not at any price".

The Sunday Times also seems to be a bit confused by the role of the European Council which, typically of our low-grade media, it insists on calling a "summit". It believes that any deal "must win the unanimous support of all 27 members" at the Council, which is not the case.

Formally speaking, the European Council doesn't have a role in the approval process – it is not mentioned in the Article 218 procedures. More as a matter of courtesy, it is given the opportunity to "endorse" a deal, before it goes for formal ratification. There is never a vote. The Council relies on consensus.

Only once it has been to the EP, and the MEPs have voted (by majority of those present), does the Council of Ministers get its turn (usually the General Affairs Council), voting to "conclude" the agreement. And, as we know, that is by qualified majority voting. Whether it must then be ratified by the Member States remains to be seen.

In terms of hard information, that's as far as it goes. Inevitably, there is much speculation in the Sunday papers and the mood music is not optimistic. With talk of a "final throw of the dice" (even in the Irish Times), there is a general view that, if there is no agreement by the end of Monday, then it's over.

Johnson, according to the Sunday Times has his cabinet's support for a no-deal, and the ERG is saying that "we will be content to leave the transition period without an agreement and make our own way in the world", adding: "We have nothing to fear from freedom".

Thus, the scene does seem to be set, one way or the other, for the final act of the negotiations on Monday, although if the negotiators report that a deal is imminent, it is hard to accept that they would be denied still more time.

Nevertheless, if this had been theatre, one assumes that the Principals would have announced an agreement yesterday, but that was not the case. As far as one can ever tell, therefore, I think we're dealing with the real thing – genuine uncertainty as to the outcome, rather than a stage-managed finalé.

Despite that, one especially cynical EU diplomat has suggested that, "There is no deadline", although he is putting his money on a Tuesday deal. "This all seems very choreographed and this drama seems like a pretext for more time", he says

If the talks continue past Monday, I suppose it is possible that they could even keep going even until Wednesday or Thursday, and still make the cut. And it would be unwise to assume that that would necessarily be the end of it, if the parties were still talking.

That is not going to made easy by the British government which is now to press ahead by publishing two draft laws – the Internal Market Bill and the Taxation (Post-Transition Period) Bill, respectively on Monday and Tuesday, which will breach international law by rewriting parts of the Withdrawal Agreement. To say that this is a move that could further strain relations is probably an understatement.

Should the talks breakdown, we can expect the "blame game" to go into high gear. The Sun on Sunday has already put in any early bid, declaring that, if the talks break down, "it's clear the EU never really wanted a deal and just wanted to punish Britain".

The reason for any breakdown, it says "is clear". It is the "entirely unreasonable approach of the EU" which "dragged their feet agreeing the legal text, then at the last minute European negotiators hijacked talks with a raft of last-minute demands".

If, as looks certain, the paper says, "these talks break down there is only one conclusion to be drawn: the EU never really wanted a deal. Instead its most vocal elements were hellbent on punishing Britain for daring to vote for Brexit".

That is a "red top" view, but I suspect we're not going to get much better from many of the papers, especially as we had a prime minister who once talked of "punishment beatings" and, to this day, nurtures a child-like view of how international negotiations should work.

For the time being, though, hopes of a deal – however slender – are making the news, even fighting Covid for space on some front pages. If this is the modern-day equivalent of the fat lady singing, then there is some hope that this torture might finally be coming to an end.

Also published on Turbulent Times.