To save time
For a freestyle look at where we are, try "Everything you need to know about the Brexit endgame in five minutes" or for a more formal view (which I quote below) look at "2018: The year of Brexit decisions". But I'll go on.Officials are talking
The EU parliament held its first plenary session of the year on Tuesday 16 January, with several of the EU's presidents addressing it ("president" is an awkward word in this context, but... some other time).
The Estonian presidency (which would have been the British presidency if not for a certain vote) ended at the New Year, having concentrated on matters digital, in business and governance. Now Bulgaria has taken over, and their emphasis seems to be on security and solidarity.
Speeches about Brexit came from Donald Tusk, who chairs the EU council and facilitates its work when the heads of government and state have other things to do back home, Jean-Claude Juncker, who leads the EU commission (more than a civil service, far less than a government, much to his personal regret) and Guy Verhofstadt, the EU parliament's representative on Brexit (not a negotiator, to his personal regret).
The main point reported from Tusk's speech was that it's still open for the UK to change its mind on Brexit: "If the UK government sticks to its decision to leave, Brexit will become a reality – with all its negative consequences - in March next year. Unless there is a change of heart among our British friends. Wasn’t it David Davis himself who said: 'If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy'?" But there was business to be done as well: "what we need today is more clarity on the UK’s vision. Once we have that, the leaders will meet and decide on the way the EU sees its future relationship with the UK as a third country... The hardest work is still ahead of us, and time is limited. We must maintain the unity of the EU27 in every scenario, and personally I have no doubt that we will." Juncker too said "our door still remains open and I hope that will be heard clearly in London".
Verhofstadt's line was that the second phase of talks will be harder than the first (not least because we'll have to finish the things which May & co pretend were signed off after phase 1). He was concerned to translate guarantees on citizens' rights into law as soon as possible and to prevent cherry picking during the transition period. He did ask what Barnier put in Farage's tea to make him come out for a second referendum. Verhoftsadt enjoys goading (some of) the British press:
@guyverhofstadt says he is very pleased with latest version of the negotiation directives b/c they make very clear transition means signing up to all EU law. "The only thing that will change is that Britain will not be represented any more in the institutions."— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) January 16, 2018
"Senior backbencher" Bernard Jenkin MP didn't like the idea of the UK changing its mind on Brexit. He told Sky "Nobody serious wants another referendum in this country on this question". When it was put to him that the government could change its mind, Jenkin went on: "You want the government to just ignore the referendum? It’s absurd".
 |
| Chart from Lord Ashcroft Polls https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/parties-stand-second-eu-referendum/ |
What exactly is absurd? Just ignoring the referendum, he says, but, to coin a phrase, nobody serious is saying that. Millions are, however, saying they would like another vote and, as Lord Ashcroft has discovered, the wording of the question has a noticeable effect on the answers - voters are opposed to a "second referendum" but, when a deal is available, are open to a "referendum on whether to accept the terms or leave without a deal"'. Whether they want to be asked or not however, a majority would like to "stay in the EU after all". I wonder what effect "somebody serious" coming out and suggesting that another vote is a serious possibility would have on these numbers.
 |
| Chart from Lord Ashcroft Polls https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/parties-stand-second-eu-referendum/ |
To Jenkin then, another vote is absurd, though millions seem to disagree with him. According to May it's "crucial" that there isn't such a vote, which can only mean that it's very important that such a vote does not happen. But why? If people consistently consider it a reasonable thing to do, how is it absurd? And what could the crucial factor be other than to protect May's fragile commitment to the cause?
When I commented on Twiter that "crucial" is an odd choice of word I was told it was a "Good word, another referendum would mean that you effectively disenfranchise all the leave voters." To which the only response is to ask how you disenfranchise people by including them in the electorate for another vote.
But what next?
The CBI has 190,000 business members of all sizes and sectors, employing nearly 7 million people, about a third of the private sector workforce. In December, not for the first time, its Director General Carolyn Fairbairn told its members (and of course the media) that "From our politicians we need unity, clarity and certainty, not a different opinion every day. Politics will need to work on business time scales if we are to get the right result for the country... To keep jobs and investment in the UK, binding Brexit transition terms by the end of the first quarter need to be accompanied by progress on a framework for a final deal that delivers barrier free trade with the EU".
Neil Armstrong, chief executive of medical devices regulatory affairs management company MeddiQuest says "We took the decision to relocate our company out of the UK a year ago – and we were probably a year too late to be able to ensure continuity in all eventualities, in all areas".
Mika Reinikainen, chairman of the European Association of Authorised Representatives reports that his organisation is moving its HQ from the UK to Brussels in 2018: "One of the very simple reasons for that is that some of the feedback has shown that anyone who has got a British address is not going to be very effective in any European organisation. So we are leaving the ship, even if it is a little premature... The UK has more authorised representatives than any other member state and possibly all the other member states put together, so it is a very serious problem for us".
Another representative body for business is the British Chambers of Commerce, also representing millions of employees in companies across the country. They're engaged in developing businesses in their local areas and have well established links to similar bodies internationally.
Writing in the Observer, the BCC director general Adam Marshall says "Businesses have been very patient in waiting for clarity on Brexit in the 18 months since the referendum. That patience is now wearing thin. Businesses want answers, they want clarity and they want results. Chambers of Commerce members – as well as their EU trading partners – want a swift “standstill” transition agreement as soon as possible in 2018. This would give certainty on short-term trading conditions and ensure that businesses face only one set of adjustment costs when the final UK-EU settlement kicks in. The transition must be agreed quickly; a failure to do so would see contingency plans activated, investment flows delayed and a battening down of the hatches in far too many of our firms".
And yet the BCC's head of trade policy isn't apparently interested in transition, just looking forward to the "next phase of negotiations [which] will not formally begin until late March" (the next EU council summit is 22-23 March). She notes that "the UK government has a mere two and a half months to a) internally reach a decision as to what kind of relationship it wants to have with the EU in the future, b) set out credible proposals to make this happen, and c) discuss these with individual member states". And then "The UK has agreed the negotiating timetable as set out by the EU – but it can and must influence the content of what will be discussed over the next two months. This means that if it wishes to achieve all of its ambitions for a future relationship, it must put together a plan for a new model for cooperation between the UK and the EU, and actively promote it before the next EU Council summit in March".
Interlude
Lord David Hannay, who has a long history of negotiating with and on behalf of the EU, was questioned by the Commons international trade committee at the beginning of January. He noted that negotiations on the transitional phase have yet to start. "The Government call it the implementation phase, though nobody else in the world calls it that because it isn't. It is what I prefer to call the standstill. It seems to me very clear that it is a standstill the Government want. When the Prime Minister made a statement on the package that was agreed in Brussels before Christmas, two little words popped up that I welcomed greatly. She said that things will be 'as now'. Well, I can’t read 'as now' as anything other than being in the single market and customs union."The road ahead
The calendar as seen in the EU (and apparently agreed by the UK government) is presented in 2018: The year of Brexit decisions, which is based on the guidelines agreed at last December's EU council summit:- Early January to late March
This might be enough to agree the "post-Brexit transition period requested by Britain". The EU is offering "continuation of the status quo after Brexit until the end of 2020... Britain would still be under all the obligations of an EU member... pay contributions... guarantee freedom of movement... remain a member of the single market. However, the UK would lose its voting rights in the EU... During the transition period Britain would be allowed to negotiate and make agreements, but not implement them."
- London
May & co have sketched a transition period (they insist on calling it implementation, but see the interlude above) mirroring the status quo to some extent but allowing negotiation of trade agreements outside the EU (though what time there'll be for that with all the existing ones to be carried over...).
"Broadly speaking, the Cabinet is still divided into two opposing camps. The Brexiteers want to leave the single market and the customs union, and to abruptly ditch all EU legislation. They dream of a 'free Britain,' signing international trade agreements and standing up to the EU in economic might... the other camp... want as soft a Brexit as possible. They fear a collapse of the British economy. They want to retain as much EU regulation as possible in order to protect access to Britain’s biggest export market. They only support Brexit out of loyalty to the Conservative party."
"Theresa May has announced that she will make another speech at the beginning of the year... to outline what Britain wants. In principle... a tailor-made solution that would allow the British to retain many of their rights while freeing them of their European Union obligations."
- March 22-23, 2018: EU summit in Brussels
"This is where the transition phase will be decided, the divorce bill legally drawn up and Michel Barnier given a mandate to negotiate the EU’s future relationship with Britain. What is still not clear is whether or not the British government will have defined a realistic position by then. It is also not a given that EU member states will remain as united as they have so far: Conflicts of interest may arise."
- April to late October 2018
"The goal for October 2018 is to finalize a withdrawal treaty [and] a political framework agreement covering the future relationship... to achieve this goal in just six months, the British side will have to get involved in much more intensive and frequent negotiations than it has up till now. A joint declaration of principles of this kind would need to define the basis for subsequent trade talks, which would start in 2019.
"The EU heads of government recently said that the aim is to guarantee a level playing field and fair competition. If the EU-UK relationship is seen as a sliding scale, then the more EU regulation the British side retains, the more access it will retain to the single market, and vice versa. However, Brussels has warned that there can be no cherry-picking, i.e. the British will not be able to pick and choose its preferred rules for crucial business sectors.
"To date, Michel Barnier has been describing the EU’s offer as "Canada Dry." ... a simple trade agreement with broad exemption from duty for goods, but with no market access for services."
- London
"Much depends on whether Theresa May remains head of government... Until now, May’s government... have been seeking 'Canada plus plus plus' - market access for goods and services, including the financial market. The British want to make their own rules, and they want the EU to recognize these rules as equivalent to its own... corresponds to the promise of prominent Brexiteer Boris Johnson, who claimed that the British could have their European cake and eat it too. This possibility is categorically rejected by Brussels. The question is whether there is a line of compromise somewhere between these irreconcilable visions."
- EU summit on October 18-19, 2018
"the final draft of the Brexit withdrawal deal and the plans for a future trade relationship need to... gain approval from the EU Council... after the summit, the EU parliament will need to sign off on the package. The bloc's member countries will also need several months for their national parliaments to consider the proposal for the new EU-UK economic agreement, and the UK parliament will review the terms of the final withdrawal agreement, as well."
Keeping it simple
The fact that officials are talking about all this has been mentioned in passing, but I have yet to see any proposals for visible meetings involving the "chief negotiators". I've also heard nothing about another Downing St face-off to produce a single proposal for a future relationship. On past form we can look to May's February(?) speech to define the position, and a subsequent cabinet meeting to be manoeuvred into signing it off. The Deutsche Welle article quoted above includes a useful section headed Grace period: End of October until the EU summit on 13-14 December:
"There
may be a great deal of argument towards [the] end of the process, and these
two months could serve to bring in last-minute compromises to end
disagreements on all sides. Up till now the Brexiteers have firmly
suppressed the reality that any new agreement is going to be
extraordinarily complex. New rules will have to be written for every
field in every sector, from air travel to scientific exchange to
financial services and beyond. Even a basic agreement on this will
inevitably contain a lot of explosive material, for both the European
and the British sides."
