Brexit: round and round we go

07/12/2020

Brussels "sources", it seems, are slightly more leaky than the Titanic and possibly with similar effect, as those with any sense head for the lifeboats. But if the negotiators are intent on keeping people informed as to the progress of the negotiations, then I do wish they would do it properly, with organised briefings, instead of this "Secret Squirrel" stuff.

As it is, we have the Guardian, relying on "sources" of unknown provenance, not even identified as "EU diplomats" or some such, or the much-favoured "senior sources". These are common and garden "sources" – not even said to be "close to the talks", but merely "in Brussels".

These are enough, however, to give the paper the headline, "Breakthrough on fishing rights as Brexit talks hang in the balance", with the sub-heading: "Terms on access to UK waters all but finalised, say Brussels sources, but issue of following EU laws remains an obstacle".

In the nature of these things, however, no sooner was the report posted than denied, with the Mail carrying the story of No 10 in denial mode. The best that can be allowed, it would seem, is summed up by Sky News which has it that there has been "significant progress" but "no breakthrough". Relying on a "UK government source", it adds that "nothing new has been achieved".

Sky's Europe correspondent, Adam Parsons, goes on to tell us that "EU sources" are saying is that fishing is "no longer their big concern - they think that can be done", which is exactly what Bernd Lange was saying in Spiegel on Friday.

Sky takes the view that "The biggest obstacle to a deal is level playing field competition rules", a view which is "consistent with what we have been reporting all weekend", which is what I was suggesting as well, despite the Sunday Times going overboard – to coin a phrase – on fishing.

For all the bloviating in that paper about EU splits, the Guardian is at least pointing out that France and Germany have instructed Barnier that they are united on the need for the UK to face consequences over future divergence from the EU rulebook as policy changes.

This is the so-called "ratchet clause" under which the UK government would have to follow EU environmental, social and labour standards as they develop over time or face tariffs on British exports.

That opens the way for The Times to produce a lead story headed: "Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron in final bid for a deal", having Merkel and Macron "closing ranks" to "confront Boris Johnson with a final offer".

This is supposed to be more "conciliatory" than past positions taken by France, but, after the "split" story, it is now being sold by The Times as a "the new joint stance", and "comes with a renewed warning that Mr Macron is ready to abandon talks to concentrate on preparing for a no-deal".

The Telegraph seems to be being more cautious in its report, headlining: "Brexit talks on 'knife edge' as EU backs down over fishing", telling us that no progress has been made on the "level playing field". This means, the paper says, that negotiations could end without a deal today.

This paper has it that "diplomatic sources" have been saying that France and Germany have been "squabbling" over the weekend, with France accusing Berlin of going soft on Britain to avoid no deal. On Sunday, France repeated its threat to veto any deal that is agreed if it crossed its own red lines.

Nevertheless, British sources are suggested finding agreement on fishing was "the easier part" of closing out a deal because there is some room for compromise on both sides. On the other hand, the issue of "level playing field" guarantees was an "existential threat" to British sovereignty which will only be resolved if Macron and other leaders make a significant shift.

Interestingly, while we are told that Johnson and von der Leyen will confer on Monday evening for the second time in 48 hours (something we already knew), the purpose of the discussion is "to decide whether to allow negotiations to continue into Tuesday or – if there is no prospect of agreement – to walk away for good".

That better fits with the initial aim of Sunday's talks – going through into today – which was widely trailed as being an attempt to assess whether the talks could be salvaged. The presumption was that the two lead negotiators would then report back to their Principals, who would then decide whether it was worth continuing.

On that basis, it would seem that there is a prospect of the talks continuing past today, into Tuesday and possibly Wednesday and beyond, assuming no one has pulled the plug today. However, Irish premier, Micheál Martin is suggesting that chances of a deal stand at 50-50.

One source says: "If we are still talking on Tuesday it will be a good sign, because it will mean we are on the right path and a deal is doable. We could even carry on until Wednesday if it's just a case of sorting out details, but there is a European Council meeting on Thursday and they won't want the talks to still be going on by then".

Much will probably depend on Barnier this morning, who will be holding a "stocktaking" meeting with the EU-27 ambassadors at 6.30am on Monday. What he hears from them will almost certainly shape today's sessions.

One significant difference which may emerge through today is whether there should even be an attempt to find a compromise, with countries such as Germany and Ireland keen to sign a deal this year, as against Paris, which has Macron thinking that it might be better to restart talks in 2021, rather than rush into a hasty agreement that all sides will later regret.

Despite the Armageddon refrains of the perils of a "sudden death" no-deal outcome, there are administrative mechanisms which could be used to delay the effects of TransEnd, so there is always scope for a creative "fudge" that will allow a period of reflection.

The danger is that, if an agreement is rushed, and the French (or others) have second thoughts, then the whole thing could fall apart at the ratification stage: plus de hâte moins de vitesse might be Mr Macron's watchword.

There would, of course. Be the question of whether Johnson could follow suit, and whether his impatient backbenchers would allow it. The 31 December 2020 is written into law and Parliament would have to agree to amend the Withdrawal Act to make a later date possible. This gives plenty of opportunities for mischief-making – to say nothing of racking up the uncertainty for business.

With these talks, though, it seems that nothing is impossible, apart from the singular, pain-relieving objective of them actually finishing. But even then, the idea of finishing always was academic. Whatever else happens, these talks will not be the end. It is only a matter of time before we see the next tranche.

Also published on Turbulent Times.