Referring to your editorial of 10th
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
31st
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 31st
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 31st
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!
