EU Hauteur is delaying negotiations not the UK - Letter to The Independent 10th October

Referring to your editorial of 10^th October (On Brexit, the EU’s view is the one that counts), I fear you have ignored one of the basic features of negotiation – if you believe you enter the negotiations as a supplicant then that is where you will end up!

The EU is making it difficult as they believe it is in their interest – deter others and make the UK pay. However a more careful analysis will show that the UK has plenty of cards to play even if some think they should not be used (security and defence spring to mind). Moreover the EU has tied its own hands so tightly that they have little flexibility. This can be seen from the Guidelines published 31^st March 2017. This lack of flexibility is reflected in the stances adopted by Barnier and Juncker. The need to accommodate views of 27 countries further restricts the ability to engage in flexible negotiations leading to finding the lowest common denominator (conservative,cautious and very risk averse).

The document of 31^st March is extraordinarily arrogant – just to take three items: Section 11 para. 3 - “The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase.”; para. 12 - “The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards to Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus….”; para. 22 - “After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.

The UK on the other hand (while there are self inflicted difficulties in the government) has to play the cards of reciprocal Citizens Rights, Financial Settlement and preservation of the frictionless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland (it should be noted that the Common Travel Area is nothing to do with the EU!).

As regards reciprocal Citizens Rights this should be solvable via a mechanism whereby the UK Supreme Court and the ECJ consider the views of each other in any dispute. On the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland – Common Travel Area and frictionless border – the provision of electronic pre-registration of individuals, vehicles and goods is already operable elsewhere. So far as a Financial Settlement is concerned I think it is instructive that following the recent 3 hour presentation by UK lawyers as to the legal basis of such claims Barnier could only pull a face (this may be his permanent demeanour). If the EU was sure of its grounds then a reference to International Arbitration would seem appropriate. It is, of course, a nonsense for the EU to suggest such a matter should be determined by the ECJ (the EU’s own court). Reference must also be made to page 1 of the statement of 31^st March – The EU “…will be constructive throughout and strive to find an agreement”. The UK has made substantial offers in these areas it is time for the EU to be constructive.

I have not gone into detail regarding other areas such as security and defence which your editorial suggests should not be on the table. All I would say is be very careful EU in not over-playing your hand – this was done with eastward expansion of the Union leading to difficult relations with the eastern neighbour.

One last thing, I voted to remain but now is a time for re-constructed Remainers and pragmatic Brexiteers to come together to negotiate for the UK. Another referendum is not the answer as we all know it would not end there – a decade of “neverendums” would be the worst of all possible worlds! Outside the London/Westminster bubble (“Isn't outrageous that the plebians have the audacity to reject the wishes of the establishment”) this is the majority view – let’s get on with it!

Brexit We only have ourselves to blame

In February 2016 I attended meeting organised by the Fabian Society in Manchester to discuss the (then) forthcoming referendum on the EU. I asked why the ordinary working person should vote to Remain when they had faced years of stagnating wages and real loss of purchasing power. I remember clearly that the answers given were unsatisfactory – Andy Burnham said they should vote to Remain as the only beneficiary of a Leave vote would be Vladimir Putin?? Others pulled concerned looking faces. I said in aside that if we voted to Leave the rest of Europe would consider the UK a basket case. I voted Remain and happened to be in Oxford on 24th June. Going for a morning swim at the Holiday Inn that day one of the locals (who used the Leisure Club facilities) asked in a very friendly manner “How you doing – alright?” to which I replied “No I am not alright – the lunatics have taken over the asylum!” The friendly local smiled and let me get on with my swim. My analysis of the developing situation thus far is that the failure of Cameron’s reckless gamble to silence the Right Wing ideologues in the Conservative Party has plunged the Country into both a political and intellectual crisis. The politics are fairly straightforward – Brexiteers are overwhelmingly Free Market fanatics who would certainly be no friend or supporter of the ordinary working person no matter what they say before exiting the EU. Intellectually the debate has been appalling. It is not just that the same facts are wilfully mis-interpreted by Leavers and Remainers but that the former consider calling the national interest being a “Little Englander” and the latter believing the national interest to be their private property. Meanwhile the EU negotiators feel perplexity, glee at opportunities to get their own way and that the UK is engineering its own punishment without any help from Brussels all at the same time! On the Remain side the shallowness of the desire to reverse the decision can be seen from the Editorial in The Independent of 26th July. Here the argument is made that free movement of labour must be retained to preserve the NHS even to the extent of accepting a role for the ECJ. Facts do not seem to matter. If there is a need for Doctors and Nurses does anyone think the government is going to say you cannot enter UK because the quota (or whatever) has been reached and British citizens will have worse health provision. This is without indicating financial incentives to attract such staff. Moreover the British people are generous and welcoming – yes the number of EU nationals coming has dropped 25% but I do not believe that the vote has altered attitudes to the extent that EU nationals are no longer welcome. Far from it! In any event as the UK develops its policy on EU nationals I think they will find protection via Treaty and our Supreme Court is a better option than anything the ECJ can offer. The EU proposal to have continuing oversight by the ECJ is completely unacceptable to any sovereign nation and exists no where else despite the protestations of Guy Verhofstadt (aka in local hostelries as that Belgian windbag). I do not want to spend too much time on the bureaucrats view (this is very complicated and requires more of us to deal with it). Suffice to say in my varied experience (some £bn deals) if you pay too much attention to them (bureaucrats) you end up disappearing up your own rectum! On the Leave side the Free Trade fanatics seem to think it will just happen i.e. April 2019 in a couple of weeks all trade will be reorganised and there will just be this short blip. We all know this is nonsense and disruption of that magnitude must be avoided – but you would not think so if you read the Mail and Telegraph or followed the Adam Smith Institute on Twitter (a work of the Devil if ever there was one!) Business says it wants certainty and hopefully continuity and that is the voice of experience and should be given the required level of consideration. The UK is not without many strengths in these negotiations with the EU and we should be prepared to use them all. Just reflect on the Remainers concerns that people (EU Nationals in the UK) were being used as bargaining chips. What do you think now with the EU response to the UK offer. Does not the stench of hypocrisy disturb? Put yourself in the position of Russia. It is said with evidence that Reagan assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards! Now see what has happened! So Germany now has a number of “buffer states” between it and Russia and without making the requisite contribution to defence. At the same time as engineering economic dominance of continental Europe. One last thought for this evening would all this have occurred if the UK had been more assertive in European Affairs – probably not – so in may respects much of this is our own fault – mainly sins of omission! Thank you Blair and Cameron.

BREXIT More Analysis and less Hysteria

Another day another round of hysteria and hyperbole from the visual and printed media. Today (27^th April 2017) Chancellor Merkel is reported to have said: “An EU-UK deal can only be discussed once the exit issues - such as UK payments to the EU budget - are resolved, Mrs Merkel told German MPs.”. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39730326).

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph (27^th April 2017 Business Comment p.2) suggests that the hardening German attitude means Britain needs a Plan B and his view this could be unilateral Free Trade. Hopefully most will not fall for this idealogical right wing fantasy.

It must be like a never ending Christmas and New Year Party for Journalists – news (very little); opinion and comment (far too much); speculation and conjecture (its an epidemic!); rigorous analysis (hardly any – Economist and Financial Times excepted).

I wonder if all of this has anything to do with:

a) the print and visual media are based in London and by far overwhelm alternative views throughout Britain;

b) many of those who believe BREXIT will affect them adversely are based in London;

c) people in a) and b) above converse with each other all the time hence the agenda is as described – resulting in the Shakespearean “woe is me” syndrome. In the real world also known as running around like a headless chickens.

Now I am not at all complacent about BREXIT negotiations but all we have had at the moment is posturing and sabre rattling. Ever the optimist (not unwisely, I have been involved with some very big negotiations sometimes leading, worth £ ms and in one case£ bns. In the end, on most occasions, rational self interest supersedes the posturing. This is much more difficult where politicians are involved who whilst they do make deals the criteria are not always strictly business oriented. But when analysed does the EU want to end up in a position of mutual financial pain as the price for retaining political union for a little while longer? We shall see. Negotiations start in June this year.

Things to be analysed rigorously:

1) what is the legal basis for the so called exit bill?

2) what evidence can the EU offer to support its claim that it is negotiating in good faith? I would suggest that even allowing Spain to try and include Gibralter in the settlement is not a good sign.

3) How trustworthy is Juncker (you know that jumped up Mayor of Luxembourg who happens to be the Commission President? A man who at best presided over numerous sweetheart tax deals with companies that disadvantaged his fellow EU Members.

4) When is Germany going to admit that the expansion eastwards of the EU following the collapse of the Soviet Empire has provided buffers for them at the expense of those countries once client states of the Soviet Union? Moreover Germany has a security guarantee to which they contribute less than should be the case at the same time as enforcing economic pre-eminence via the EuroZone.

This is painful for me as a Europhile and Remain voter but in these negotiations we have to be as ruthless as we can and need to be so nothing should be off the table.

PS. I’ll still be voting Labour despite JC.