ON PROGRESS DURING PHASE 1 OF NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 50 TEU ON THE UNITED KINGDOM'S ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

Hmmm, there’s an awful lot of comment in the media regarding the TF50 report presented by the negotiators of the EU and UK.

There are so many commentators and vested political interests (on both sides) are having their moment in the sunlight, each trying to justify their own position, that I thought I’d take a close look at the actual document before passing judgement.

Sadly, so many people are too busy (or lazy) to search out the facts for themselves, preferring to believe simply what their favourite newspaper, political party, social media site or, God forbid, celebrity, churns out. It is a sad reflection on human society that a large proportion of the population doesn’t like thinking for itself and has a compulsion to follow the herd.

We see this herd mentality everywhere, from virtue-signalling celebrities, companies caving into online pressure groups or simply thoughtless likes and retweets on social media without taking a moment to check the accuracy or truth of what they are spreading. Fake news, indeed.

So, in the spirit of trying to be impartial, here’s my take on the fifteen-page document. The original can be found in this link (Phase 1 Joint Report) and I strongly recommend you to read it for yourself and make your own mind up. It is written in legalese, but have patience!

To begin, we need to go back to the UK’s stated position at the beginning of these negotiations, namely, that everything was discussed at the same time, following the EU’s standard negotiating mantra of, and I quote, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” For their own reasons, the EU rejected this stance and insisted that “substantial progress” had to be made on three things before talks could move on to trade:

1.  protecting the rights of Union citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the Union;
2.  the framework for addressing the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland; and
3.  the financial settlement.

It’s a little more long-winded than how I have described it, but I hope you get my drift. Now, to my simple way of looking at things, each of the three is intimately tied up with what the final Brexit agreement will look like, and the UK’s position of no agreement on anything, until everything is agreed, seemed totally reasonable. However, the EU disagreed and held firm, resulting in eighteen months of talks, posturing and disinformation coming from all sides.

The most interesting (and to me, important) line in the entire document can be found on the first page, point five, and I quote verbatim: “Under the caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the joint commitments set out below in this joint report shall be reflected in the WithdrawalAgreement in full detail. This does not prejudge any adaptations that might be appropriate in case transitional arrangements were to be agreed in the second phase of the negotiations and is without prejudice to discussions on the framework of the future relationship.”

I’ve highlighted the interesting bit in yellow and bold. Unless I have missed a trick here, what both sides are saying is that the entire contents of the document are a bullshit political fudge by the EU so that trade negotiations can take place, and that the British stance at the very beginning was the correct one, namely, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed!! Think that statement through logically as it is very important. Nothing in the document is agreed until everything about the entire exit agreement is agreed.

It has taken eighteen months of talking to arrive at the original British position. WTF!
It makes me wonder why the EU has given ground. I have no more idea than anyone else, but will set out some possible reasons:

• ·         The EU was worried Theresa May would be deposed by a coup of hard-line Brexiteers, possibly Gove, Redwood, Rees-Mogg and Boris. Not a good scenario from their point of view.
• ·         A General Election would be called after a vote of no confidence, resulting in a Corbyn PM. Given Corbyn has been a virulent anti-EU campaigner and his stated aims nearly all tend to be impossible under EU law for as long as we remain in the EU (renationalisation is one example), he would revert to type.
• ·         Worries that Eire would follow the UK and leave. Eire is now a small nett contributor to the EU and the UK is its largest trading partner.
• ·         They see a hardening of the UK population towards leaving under WTO terms and an unhappiness at the way the EU has been conducting themselves.
• ·         The ramifications of what happens to EU businesses if the UK left on WTO terms.
• ·         The nightmare of no more UK money and how to fill the budget hole if we leave with no deal.
• ·         Possible withdrawal of UK troops from Eastern Europe and a cancellation of information sharing under the Five-Eyes agreement, especially around Islamic terrorism.
•          They wanted to see if the UK would roll over and blink first, confusing us with a poor, bankrupt and powerless nation such as Greece. When we didn’t (to their surprise and bafflement, hence the nastiness and snide comments) it was on to phase two eg trade talks

But who knows for sure? Certainly not me, but it does make one wonder why the EU has caved in. Don’t let the pro-EU commentators hoodwink you…the EU has given major ground here and has realised the negotiations are between equals, not supplicant and master.