Another
day another round of hysteria and hyperbole from the visual and
printed media. Today (27th
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 (27th 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.
