15/12/2020
There's progress, and there's significant progress. According to Barnier, there had been "some progress" on the three remaining areas of disagreement â the same areas of disagreement that we've been looking at for nearly a year â although he doesn't specify in which direction.
However, the
pathway to agreement remains "very narrow" and, while a deal could be sealed "as early as this week", there are still "major gaps", and talks on fishing "have gone backwards", raising the risk they could run deep into December.
Perm any three from five and you have an identikit report on the current talks, which will be much the same as yesterday and the day before and, until the process is brought to a halt, may be very similar tomorrow and the day after.
Gone are the days when we had published drafts to work to, with the parties giving detailed press statements before and after each round of talks. Now we're in a sort of X-files territory of leaks and innuendo, where the land is populated by anonymous sources and terse official spokespersons.
Largely, hacks are filling space and time, with nothing very much to report. They're going back and forth over the same material and, in the absence of official material, bring very little new to the table. The best they seem to have on offer is that the "architecture" of a deal is in place. Let's hope the architect isn't Le Corbusier.
Such is the state of the talks that even the commentariat haven't very much to say for themselves, with even less new or of interest to offer than the hacks. This
piece, for instance, which suggests that the effects of a no-deal will be a "slow burn", is hardly new. I've written several pieces on the same theme, including
this one and
this.
Many commentators, such as the
FT's Gideon Rachman, seem to think we will do a deal, mainly on EU terms, with Johnson caving at the last minute, while talking it up as a victory. That, of course, assumes we're dealing with a rational being, which cannot be taken for granted.
The logic of Rachman's argument is that, while the UK and the EU may be "sovereign equals", as long as the EU maintains its unity, they are not equals in terms of power. And that is what has mattered in these negotiations.
That actually makes a neat distinction between sovereignty and power, although it is hard to concede that the EU is a sovereign power. It has a sort of "pseudo sovereignty", with the same sort of relationship that a prisoner out on licence has to freedom. The very fact that each are conditional means that neither is the real thing.
For once,
Polly Toynbee might be closer to the truth, asserting that Johnson will cave simply because it is in his own personal interest to do so, and he always puts self-interest first.
Agree or disagree, this seems to me to be a saner appraisal than that on offer from
William Hague who is writing â in apparent seriousness â of the "convincing performance" of the prime minister, in demonstrating to the EU his readiness to walk away from an unsatisfactory deal.
This stance has all the sophistication of a bartering session in a Turkish
souk over the price of a carpet, where each side knows full well that the other can walk away. But, since there are no circumstances where the UK can manage its affairs without a stable relationship with its closest neighbours, the threat of walking away from the "future relationship" talks is merely empty posturing.
Even if the UK does have the misfortune to end the transition period without a deal, this can only be a short-term expedient. It simply defers the moment when a deal must be made â leaving it to a more responsible successor.
That said, there is now some suggestion that the UK might have to tolerate a short "no-deal" period if the talks drag on much longer, as it simply won't be possible to complete the formalities in time for 31 December. We could even see strategic "blind eyes" being turned at Calais, as undocumented truck drivers brave the wrath of
les douanes - that is, if the fishermen
don't get there first.
European fisher-persons are warning that they are prepared to blockade Calais and other ports if a "no-deal" Trans-End excludes them from exploiting UK waters. And they have the means to do so, stopping ferries sailing and potentially bringing the Channel port operations to a halt.
At least the French would be more coherent than
Daniel Hannan. The egregious columnist is attempting to create an alternative history by having Johnson apply for the European Free Trade Association (Efta) as an interim solution â a transition â for Brexit.
But it is quite clear from his article that he is advancing only Efta membership, rather than the Efta/EEA option. To this day, he still has not understood that Efta,
per se, does not have a relationship with the EU. The separate states have each made their own treaties with the EU, three of them under the EEA banner and the Swiss with its own group of bilaterals.
Hannan seems unable to comprehend that, having joined Efta without the EEA, the UK would still have to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement separately with the EU. Efta, in itself, is not any kind of solution, much less an interim or off-the-peg solution.
Thus, while we might rightly complain about the Vote Leave tendency having gone into bat without an exit plan, it has to be conceded that there is a constituency out there which, even if given a thousand years, still couldn't come up with a coherent plan.
And therein, perhaps, lies our more fundamental problem. Where we lack rationality and coherence, sensible solutions struggle for a hearing and the paths to Whitehall are stalked by poseurs and snake-oil salesmen.
When, at the pinnacle, we have a man who seems to think it acceptable to run the trade talks into the third week of December â with no end date set â then we have descended into an alternate universe.
It is there, however, that big business resides, with Airbus Chief Executive Guillaume Faury
telling a conference that "It would really be a pity that after so many years of preparation there is no deal at the end" [of the transition period]. "I think it would be much better for the EU and the UK to have an orderly Brexit", he adds, apparently unaware that Brexit happened on 31 January.
Nevertheless, while Airbus is preparing for some "logistical issues", Faury doesnât think they are going to be "unmanageable", although he doesn't say what his firm will do if there is no reciprocation on the part of the UK over commercial access to airspace.
But since nobody seems to live in the real world any more, Faury could ask Santa Claus to make the deliveries, which would be more sensible than asking Johnson to come to his aid.
Also published on
Turbulent Times.
