Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Interestingly different media strategy under this government. Downing Street press office did a little thread on the EU negotiating mandate, below.

It feels like they want to try and control the narrative a lot more because May's team were dreadful at communicating their message so you'd just have the EU and hard-core remainers on one side and the ERG and Farage on the other. I remember watching TV after she'd got the deal the first time and it was insane, I didn't see a single person for the government to back the deal in about an hour of watching - just lots of people for the other sides.

Also it feels like the UK is going for Canada or no deal. Given the potential benefit of Canada v no deal is quite low, compared to the difference between what's happening now v Canada, I think the chances of no deal (or as the government puts it an "Australia terms deal") is quite high.

Thread:

No.10 Press Office
@Number10press
1/5 The EU has set out its objectives for the negotiations with us in the mandate it has agreed today.  We welcome that and we will be setting out our own approach on Thursday.  Meanwhile, a few key points:
2/5 The EU mandate stresses (reasonably) the importance of its own legal autonomy. We are equally determined to protect ours.  That is the key point of Brexit and is fundamental to the sustainable long-term relationship the EU says it wants with us.
3/5 The EU has respected the autonomy of other major economies around the world such as Canada and Japan when signing trade deals with them.  We just want the same.
4/5 We agree the UK's trade with the EU is significant.  The US's is on the same scale – yet that did not stop the EU being willing to offer the US zero tariffs without the kind of level playing field commitments or the legal oversight they have put in today's mandate.
5/5 Here is the section on trade and competition in the EU's directives for the US negotiations. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51650961

Post-Brexit talks: UK prepared to walk away in June if no progress

The UK has warned the EU it will walk away from trade talks in June unless there is a "broad outline" of a deal.

Michael Gove told MPs the UK wanted to strike a "comprehensive free trade agreement" in nine months.

But the government would not accept any alignment with EU laws as the EU is demanding, with Mr Gove adding: "We will not trade away our sovereignty."

The EU has already set out its priorities ahead of the formal start of the talks on Monday.

The government has published a 30-page document outlining its priorities for the talks.

The UK officially left the EU at the end of January, but is continuing to abide by many EU rules while talks on a permanent trading relationship take place.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to get a deal with the EU by the end of the so-called transition period - 31 December 2020 - and has said he is not prepared to extend that deadline.

UK ambitions

The government says in its negotiating document it wants to agree a "broad outline" of a deal with the EU "capable of being rapidly finalised by September" in the next four months.

If that "does not seem to be the case" by an EU summit in June "the government will need to decide whether the UK's attention should move away from negotiations and focus solely on continuing domestic preparations to exit the transition period in an orderly fashion", the document says.

The UK mandate emphasises the government's wish for a trading relationship with the EU based on its existing precedents with Canada, Japan and South Korea.

It allows no jurisdiction for EU law or the European Court of Justice in the UK.

"The government will work hard to agree arrangements on these lines," the document says.

"However if it is not possible to negotiate a satisfactory outcome, then the trading relationship with the EU will rest on the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement and will look similar to Australia's."

Critics say leaving without an agreement and going to World Trade Organisation rules - the terms countries use to set tariffs (taxes) on goods when they do not have free-trade deals - could damage the economy.

The UK's negotiating team will be led by Mr Johnson's Europe adviser David Frost. The chief negotiator of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, Michel Barnier, will head up the EU's delegation.

The EU's 46-page negotiating document, published on Monday, said the "envisaged agreement should uphold common high standards, and corresponding high standards over time with Union standards as a reference point".

It said it should apply "in the areas of state aid, competition, state-owned enterprises, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, relevant tax matters and other regulatory measures and practices in these areas".

The UK strategy was agreed on Monday by the EU Exit Strategy (XS) committee, which includes new Chancellor Rishi Sunak, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, senior cabinet minister Michael Gove and new Attorney General Suella Braverman.

All members of the committee supported Brexit during the 2016 referendum.

After the document was released, Mr Barnier warned the EU would not agree a deal "at any price", saying there would be "complex, demanding negotiations" over a limited period of time.

He added: "A short time, as chosen by the British government, not by us. In a very brief period, you can't do everything. We will do as much as we can under pressure of time."

Speaking to the BBC's Today programme, former International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said he didn't think the UK and EU negotiating positions "are a million miles apart".

He said it would be "unacceptable" for the UK to accept dynamic alignment - that would mean if the EU changed its rules in the future, the UK would automatically make the same changes.

Instead Mr Fox said he wanted to see non-regression clauses where neither side would be able to dilute standards from their current point.

[Tamas]

I would recommend ignoring all negotiation news until end of November.

[Sheilbh]

Disagree. I think this is their position (and I think the extension has to be approved in June under the Withdrawal Agreement): Canada style FTA only or no deal ("Australia terms" - which excellent spin).

Theresa May's endgame was always "frictionless trade" and basically staying in the customs union. It's become fairly clear that's not the goal of this government.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think the government is pretty indifferent between a Canada-style deal and no-deal. For me the sound and the fury ended with the most recent election; events will take their course and we will end up with a pretty cold relationship with the EU.

[Tamas]

I think the government is pretty indifferent between a Canada-style deal and no-deal. For me the sound and the fury ended with the most recent election; events will take their course and we will end up with a pretty cold relationship with the EU.

Yes plus public posturing is very important to maintain the image of Getting Things Done.

But I am not convinced they have the guts to jump off the cliff. They have more than four years left in government so they would be still in charge when we hit the ground.

[Sheilbh]

Yes plus public posturing is very important to maintain the image of Getting Things Done.

But I am not convinced they have the guts to jump off the cliff. They have more than four years left in government so they would be still in charge when we hit the ground.

Alternate view: they've got four more years left in government with a healthy majority. Also as I say the difference between Canada and no deal is not huge. The difference between now and Canada is, but they've made that decision already.

If they really want legal autonomy, and I think they do, then better take the hit early and have four years to recover than drag it out.

Edit: Basically I think there's lots of people reading the last two years of a government probably the weakest Parliamentary majority since the 19th century as the new normal. And I don't think it is. We're back to government with a solid majority like Blair or Thatcher in their pomp.

Edit: Having said that - if, at any time in the next 5 years, the Tories think Johnson is an obstacle to them retaining power they will stab him in the back and dump him in the Thames. As is their way.

[Tamas]

Yes plus public posturing is very important to maintain the image of Getting Things Done.

But I am not convinced they have the guts to jump off the cliff. They have more than four years left in government so they would be still in charge when we hit the ground.

Alternate view: they've got four more years left in government with a healthy majority. Also as I say the difference between Canada and no deal is not huge. The difference between now and Canada is, but they've made that decision already.

If they really want legal autonomy, and I think they do, then better take the hit early and have four years to recover than drag it out.

I don't think there's any way to recover in four years from a hard Brexit. It will take just a couple of years for the negatives to truly set in.

[Sheilbh]

The initial shock will be over and we will probably have returned to (lower) growth, but we're not going to be in recession for four years. The impact of Brexit is going to be long term lower growth than the rest of Europe, not a great depression and people might not notice in the first few years.

And I think the shock is part of the appeal for the government/Tories. If you're a de-regulating, big spending Tory PM then there's almost nothing more appealing than a big economic shock because it's the perfect reason to justify splashing the cash and cutting regulations.

[Tamas]

The initial shock will be over and we will probably have returned to (lower) growth, but we're not going to be in recession for four years. The impact of Brexit is going to be long term lower growth than the rest of Europe, not a great depression and people might not notice in the first few years.

And I think the shock is part of the appeal for the government/Tories. If you're a de-regulating, big spending Tory PM then there's almost nothing more appealing than a big economic shock because it's the perfect reason to justify splashing the cash and cutting regulations.

How much of the production and finance sector will pack and leave? They'll need time to relocate, but it will take less than four years, and removing the meager tariffs on US goods will not compensate for this.

[Josquius]

I'm worried about this government. we have all seen power for powers sake is Johnsons approach to life. And its not like no deal is going to hurt him personally.
He seems very willing to utterly destroy the country if it will placate the brexit hordes.
The only hope is the slow shift against brexit speeds up. Its not enough that a majority are now against it, it needs to be over 60%, enough to keep the tories out of power.

[Sheilbh]

How much of the production and finance sector will pack and leave? They'll need time to relocate, but it will take less than four years, and removing the meager tariffs on US goods will not compensate for this.

I mean my understanding is the financial services sector already activated and completed their no deal projects - none of the deals from May or Johnson have proposed covering financial services. It's always struck me as weird that all of the negotiations and discussions are focused on manufacturing/exports which is, I think, under half our exports and only 15% of the economy. None of the proposed deals have cared much about services for some reason (maybe because it's more difficult and actually the services single market is still a long way behind the goods single market? ).

The issue isn't that loads of jobs are going to move from the banks, law firms or insurance brokers because they've done what they need to do. It's more a long term issue which is where there growth will be. As I say my view is the UK sector and the EU sector will split the growth, possibly with a long-term drift to Europe but I think that does depend on a single financial centre starting to emerge in Europe. Similarly I can see, in the long-term, a move to Irish law contracts - but I think it'll happen gradually, not least because companies tend to be risk-averse and they generally know Irish law less well.

Production I think will have a bigger more immediate hit. But you're right it'll take time. My point is it's long-term slower growth, it's not going to be four years of recession.

And in response, if you're a Tory who's comfortable with debt and has a fondness for grands projets (and Johnson is) you whack up the capital spending/investment and slash regulations on whatever - environment/labour/consumer rights. That's always been the Tory goal and a big part of the Tory issue with Europe. And if you want to do big structural reforms like that then you want to do them early in your term because they won't show the benefits for several years (see Macron now for example who is starting to see reforms pay off).

[Tamas]

I'm worried about this government. we have all seen power for powers sake is Johnsons approach to life.

Yes but the lwo-risk political survival option is soft Brexit. Hard Brexit is more risky. You'd need to win the propaganda war and try for a Putinist way of running things to stay in power. With soft Brexit all you need to worry about is paint bending over for the EU as spanking them, and that's something Johnson has already managed with the Withdrawal Agreement. Then the fact that nothing would change could be sold as a big victory and "TOLD YOU SO REMAINERS".

[Tamas]

Sheilbh I don't think they should or indeed do think about this from what's agreeable to arch-Tories. They won big because they won over the plebs. They have become a plebian party and they will seek to remain so.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure what you mean. There's nothing patrician about deregulation.

Yes but the lwo-risk political survival option is soft Brexit. Hard Brexit is more risky. You'd need to win the propaganda war and try for a Putinist way of running things to stay in power. With soft Brexit all you need to worry about is paint bending over for the EU as spanking them, and that's something Johnson has already managed with the Withdrawal Agreement. Then the fact that nothing would change could be sold as a big victory and "TOLD YOU SO REMAINERS".

I don't know why you think - given Johnson's career - that he's a politician who will go for the low-risk option. They didn't run on soft Brexit in the 2019 manifesto and I think it's the option that would cause most issues from a party management perspective. Especially because Eurosceptic MPs (which are now probably the majority of the party) could legitimately say they made manifesto pledges that soft Brexit breaks.

And I think it ignores the fact that many Tory MPs, including those from the previous Labour areas, are true believers in Brexit. They genuinely think it's the best option for the country, for them it's not part of some cynical game.

Now I think they're probably wrong, but if you don't start from that position I think you'll probably come to lots of wrong conclusions.