BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS BUBBLE NICELY.

As we approach the 'crunch point' for Brexit negotiations, things seem to be hotting up. Theresa May is reportedly going to tell EU leaders not to demand the "unacceptable" in negotiations over the Northern Irish border, while Donald Tusk, for the EU, has said that the UK's proposals regarding both the Irish border question and future economic cooperation "need to be reworked and further negotiated". At the same time, Michel Barnier, also for the EU, has suggested that they may be prepared to move their position on the subject of the Irish border.

Clearly, the EU is becoming a bit twitchy about the potential for a 'No Deal' scenario, which is hardly surprising given what they would lose if that came to pass. It's already been clearly stated by the UK's 'Brexit Secretary' that 'No Deal' would mean no divorce settlement; the EU would miss out on the little matter of £39bn. Additionally, the EU's annual trade surplus with the UK is reported to be around £70bn; the prospect of seeing this substantially reduced can't be a happy one. While the UJ would undoubtedly suffer in the event of 'No Deal', there would surely be a significant drop in the number of German, French, Italian and Swedish cars bought in the UK, while imports of wine, fruit, olive oil and much more would also be affected, none of which would be popular on either side of the channel. The Irish economy could be decimated.

The question of the Northern Irish border is one which the UK government should have been firm about from the outset. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and the integrity of our nation must always come first. However, we seem to have allowed the Eire government to hijack this issue and turn it into an opportunity to push its own political agenda; consequently, we have the nonsense about the nature of the border between the 2 parts of the island of Ireland. In truth, the UK sees no issue and it is only the EU, driven on by the relatively new government in Dublin, which has made a fuss. Why does the UK not simply tell the EU that we will impose no border restrictions and leave it to them to do whatever they want on the Eire side ?

As far as trade is concerned, why has the UK been so wishy-washy in its approach ? Either we have a free trade agreement or we don't. If we do, everything will continue much as now; the policies and general approach of the UK is much the same as that of the EU and will undoubtedly remain so for the foreseeable future, so why the fuss ? If there is no deal, prices will rise as WTO tariffs will be applied, making the aforementioned BMW will simply swap my BMW for something from a non-EU country, my French wine for wine from Australian, New Zealand or elsewhere, and so on. I've no doubt that others will do the same.

All of this adds up to the single fact that it is the EU which needs to "rework" its thinking and be more flexible and realistic. What are the chances ? 

TIME FOR 'NO DEAL' TO TAKE CENTRE STAGE.

Today, there is to be yet another attempt to stop Brexit from happening at a gathering presided over by three of yesterday's people.

David Miliband, when he was rejected by the Labour Party in a leadership fight won by his brother, abandoned the UK for a lucrative job in the United States; Nick Clegg was ignominiously rejected by the constituents of his former Sheffield constituency and Nicky Morgan, after a less than sparkling ministerial career, was sacked from her role as Education Secretary by Theresa May.

This unholy trinity are all ardent 'remainers, determined to try to stop the UK from ever leaving the European Union in any meaningful way. They want the UK to stay within the, or some form of, customs' union and also the single market, an approach which would see the UK be subservient to the EU while having no voice at all over its decision making. In effect, it would prevent Brexit from happening and the UK's position vis-à-vis the rest of the world would be even worse than it is now.

The only reasons that this bunch of losers has any audience are that the broadcast media largely opposes Brexit and that the UK's government has yet to state its own position on the future trade relationship with the EU. While various alternatives have been touted, there has been no agreement within the Cabinet and the EU has basically rejected every suggestion out of hand; they continually refer to the Irish border and, more recently, Gibraltar, as 'problems which must be resolved. Indeed, on the question of Gibraltar, it seems that the Spanish government has been given an effective veto over whatever the UK puts forward unless there is an agreement to substantially increase Spanish influence and control over that enclave.

The EU needs a deal every bit, possibly more, than does the UK. It is long passed time that the UK government took the bull by the horns and told the EU that enough is enough. As has been said many times by all and sundry, 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' and the EU is desperate for our money, not to mention our continuing trade. If the EU continues to be unwilling to accept what the UK proposes and continues to do all that it can to put obstacles in the way of a sensible agreement, then the UK has only one option left.

'No deal is better than a bad deal', so NO DEAL it must be, whatever Miliband, Clegg and Morgan might say.

BREXIT 'DEAL' NOTHING BUT BELGIAN FUDGE.

Is Teresa May a saint or sinner ? It's hard to tell from the assorted stories now emerging about the supposed 'deal' reached between the UK and EU last week.

In truth, it seems likely that the 'deal' was little more than a political fudge, capable of being interpreted according to the prejudices of the reader. Agreement over the Irish border question, a problem which would almost certainly be on a par with the 19th century's 'Schleswig-Holstein Question' in its incomprehensibility, is absolute according to Irish politicians but not according to the UK's Brexit minister, David Davis. The UK has agreed to cough up something like £37bn according to some but more or less according to others; the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living in the EU have been protected or are still open to debate even though some nebulous nonsense has been agreed. As has been said by some, 'Nothing is agreed until all is agreed', so what is really going on ?

Both the UK and EU were actually desperate for an apparent agreement on Phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations to enable progress to Phase 2, the all-important trade negotiations. Consequently, both sides had an interest in being able to present some sort, indeed any sort, of deal last week and the fudge was the best that could be found (keep in mind that the Belgians do make excellent fudge !). Whatever the rhetoric spouted by the representatives of either side, the only thing that really matters to the makers of German, French and Italian cars, French, Italian, Spanish and German wines, French cheeses, Italian and Greek olive oil and lots more, plus the owners of hotels across the continent, the Spanish, Italian and Greek holiday industries and the purveyors of vast quantities of meat and vegetable produce across the continent, is a trade agreement that avoids disruption and potentially catastrophic effects on their livelihoods.

The UK has an enormous trade deficit with the EU, that is the UK buys much more from EU member countries than it sells to them. Ergo, the EU has a huge vested interest in maintaining a good trade relationship with the UK though it also wants to discourage other states from thinking of having their own exit plans - Grexit, Spexit, Frexit are simply out of the question. Therefore, the EU's negotiators have been making all manner of unfriendly noises towards the UK while secretly knowing that the UK has a much stronger hand than is publicly stated; perversely, the UK's government appears to have also followed this line, "Why ?" is a major question that no one seems willing to address.

 

The good news is that talks will now move on to trade, the bad news is that progress is likely to be every bit as tortuous as before, with much huffing and puffing, much rhetoric and little substance until, that is, we reach the point at which a deal must be done for fear of there being no deal; that, of course, is a scenario that the EU dreads above all else. The UK simply needs to hold its nerve and it will get the deal it wants. The question is whether it has the stomach for the fight.

Ding-Ding : Seconds Out, Round 2 !

Btw, the 'Schleswig-Holstein Question' was about the complex relationship between 2 European duchies to the governments of Denmark and Germany. The one-time British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, was reported to have commented : "The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead, The second was a  German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it"