The third round of Brexit talks begins on Monday morning. Those cruel EU bureaucrats, forcing David Davis & co to work on a Great British bank holiday! Perhaps the Brexit Bulldog should have thought of that when he decided to forego the "row of the summer" at the opening session in June, and meekly went along with the EU27's proposed timetable.
As far as we know the topics for discussion are the same as last time - citizens' rights, a formula for a financial settlement, the Irish border and "other separation issues". The Sun tells us Davis is going to be tough (Wham!) and might even refuse to attend the joint press conference on Thursday (Kapow!) but one way or another we should see by the end of August whether any recognisable progress has been made.
Sunday morning saw Labour's latest Brexit policy outlined in the Observer, "agreed after a week of intense discussion at the top of the party" and "signed off by the leadership and key members of the shadow cabinet on Thursday".
The new policy is widely presented as a softer Brexit than the government's current plans, though Labour has promised that much since it refused to consider the idiocy of May's "no deal" option. More significant is that it seems to be softer (and more coherent, until we hear shadow ministers on Monday disagreeing about what it actually means) than Labour has presented before.
“Labour would seek a transitional deal that maintains the same basic terms that we currently enjoy with the EU," Labour's shadow Brexit minister Keir Starmer informed the paper. "That means we would seek to remain in a customs union with the EU and within the single market during this period. It means we would abide by the common rules of both.”
Further, "Labour is flexible as to whether the benefits of the single market are best retained by negotiating a new single market relationship or by working up from a bespoke trade deal". And the party holds out the prospect of this "some kind of single market and some kind of customs union" relationship indefinitely if Labour could negotiate "a special deal on immigration and changes to freedom of movement rules".
But what is this "promising", "seeking" and "negotiating"? The one thing Tories in government are supposed to be good at is staying in government. Can even this weakened Conservative administration manage to grasp defeat from the jaws of Pyrrhic victory by falling apart over Europe again and letting in a Corbyn government? (It would have to be a very weak minority government, since yet another election would ensure that any eventual Labour "master negotiator" would not have the time to agree anything other than the size of the parachute to avoid bailing out without a deal.)
Labour, we are told, will try to attract enough Tory rebels to back them on softening Brexit. They'd better not enlist Laura Pidcock as an ambassador in trying to construct that majority. But how do they hope to do it anyway? May & co have no intention of allowing a substantive (i.e. effective) vote on anything to do with the negotiations.
There'll be the EU Withdrawal Bill, and that's your lot. Any amendment trying to shape "a customs union" will be ruled out of order, and a vote on an opposition option (when the government finally gets round to allocating a few days for them) has zero power. Starmer might achieve a moral victory but it would have no effect on the negotiations. And don't forget, as I reported on Wednesday, MPs are hardly in the Commons for two weeks between now and the October EU Council which has to decide whether negotiations can go on to talk about future UK-EU relationships.
Polls and the British Election Study tell us that, whatever its currently declared policy, Labour is seen, especially by its new, young supporters, as the party of soft Brexit or no Brexit. I still haven't seen an explanation of the "compositing error" which invalidated this motion at last year's Labour conference:
"[Conference] recognises that many of those who voted to leave the EU were expressing dissatisfaction with EU or national policy and were voting for change, but believes that unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through parliament and potentially through a general election, or a referendum."
The motion was passed unanimously, then voided. Let's see what happens this September.
So... "let me be absolutely clear". Labour will prioritise jobs (which any kind of Brexit will hit) and working conditions (which are entirely a matter for the UK parliament under the EU Withdrawal Bill) in negotiations it has no part in. So that's OK.
Corbyn & co seem to be pushing us into a position where we accept EU legislation without representation. The last thing our MEPs will do at this rate will be to approve our exit from the EU. Nigel Farage will have more power over this than any Westminster MP. Right up to the end.
