One of the more insane things he says is that the Treaty of Rome was negotiated in nine months so there is no reason why the EU-UK treaty can't be agreed by the end of the year. But, apart from the fact that the treaty took two years (from the start of the Spaak Committee), he is comparing chalk with cheese. The treaty was essentially an enabling treaty giving the Commission powers to develop policies in specific areas. The EU-UK treaty must deal with the fine detail, something the Treaty of Rome never had to do. If this is representative of Frost's intellectual level, then we are in real trouble.
The point of the speech, though, is to set out a hardline position hoping to gain concessions from the EU. The British government seems utterly incapable of realising the game in play. When two nations negotiate there is room for give and take. In this instance, though, we are not negotiating with a nation state. We are dealing with a wholly different animal. Too weak a stance with the UK could not only weaken its global standing, therefore, it could have a significant impact on its internal cohesion and what is, in reality, a rather fragile unity. Then as much as it can't break the fundamental rules of the system, it doesn't want to. There are precedents to be observed and were the EU to substantially diverge from its usual approach to trade governance then its other FTAs may soon fall apart.
As much as there is a great deal to be concerned about in terms of the cavalier attitude, of greater concern is that this government, much like May's, simply doesn't know what game it is playing and has no real understanding of what it's up against. A more optimistic appraisal would be that the government was always going to start from a hardline position just to see how much movement it can get from the EU on level playing field provisions, which may even work, to a point, but the fact we are still talking about minimal regulatory alignment with our nearest and largest market, with no discernible strategy for overall trade, ought to be a cause for concern.
But it isn't. One rather suspects that the speech won't get much of an airing. It will keep Twitter trade wonks fed for a couple of days and it is sure to delight the Spectator reading Tory tribe, but beyond that, the media will find something else to run with, not least because it doesn't have the attention span for this sort of thing, but also because the wider public is losing interest. The central points of disagreement are nothing at all new and for all that has been written and discussed, nothing has been learned. Insofar as the negotiations will feature in general discourse, fishing will absorb a disproportionate span of runtime at the expense of more urgent concerns.
Ultimately if the government is serious about its current approach then the whole process of negotiating a deal is little more than a sham. Since much of the economic fallout comes from leaving the single market and abandoning any formal regulatory cooperation, it's difficult to see the point of a bare bones agreement. At best securing a deal serves as a decoy to temper no deal panic, but for all the difference it makes, it might as well be no deal. Perhaps that is the intent.
Shamefully though, as usual, we are left to speculate with little to go on, where the British side of negotiations will be conducted in speeches at formal dinners. This has less to do with concealing intentions from Brussels as it is to do with concealing the true agenda from the British public. And so it now looks like we are leaving the EU the same way we joined; a feral government acting outside of its remit, seeking to avoid debate and meaningful public scrutiny. Again our relationship with the EU is something imposed on us while the media sleeps.
No comments:
Post a Comment