Our ‘friends’ in the EU are staking out the playing field on which they hope to start the negotiations in the wake of us leaving with Johnson’s WAIB on the 31st of January 2020. Their ever so generous proposals were told by “sources” to Peter Foster, DT’s ‘Europe Editor’. He used to be the DT’s Brussels correspondent and his ‘sources’ from that time know that he’ll be more than happy to provide them with publicity. After all, it’s always best to show that velvet glove first before the iron fist will be deployed.
The title of the article is: “EU dangles hope of broad trade deal in exchange for softer Brexit” (paywalled link), the article itself was published Saturday the 14th of December 2019, at 8.08pm. It is quite revealing:
“European Union member states are leaving the door open to Boris Johnson signing a broad-based trade deal by December 2020 in the hope that he will embrace a softer Brexit, EU diplomatic sources have told The Telegraph.
EU leaders last week ordered the European Commission to draw up a “comprehensive mandate” for the future relationship talks after pushing back against Commission plans to confront Mr Johnson with a narrower menu of options.
Three EU diplomatic sources said the shift in position creates the potential for a broader future partnership deal, including some elements of services trade, if Mr Johnson chose to extend the transition period which currently expires on December 31 2020.
“The member states didn’t want to limit mandate discussion to a very narrow range of issues,” said an EU diplomat familiar with internal discussions.
“There was no desire to pre-determine the shape of the negotiation.” (paywalled link)
Wasn’t that nice of those EU diplomats! But how could there be a desire not to ‘pre-determine the shape of the negotiations’ ? Everybody surely knows already what M Barnier is going to do: prolong this transition period for years – all those extra billions coming from our Treasury …! But it’s important to these ‘diplomats’ to look lenient at the start, the better to insist on hardcore demands should Johnson and his putative Brexit negotiator show themselves to be intransigent. Next, here’s the reason for this apparent leniency:
“A second EU diplomat said there might still be space to include elements of services trade which are key to the UK economy.
“Maybe we will be able to get services into the overall package, the UK will now doubt want something on that,” the source said.
The orders issued by EU leaders at their quarterly summit in Brussels on Friday also removed an earlier reference to there being “limited time” for the coming negotiations, since it appeared to implicitly accept that talks would not run beyond the end of next year. […]
EU analysts said that the less prescriptive approach by EU leaders had revealed that Commission negotiating team, led by Michel Barnier, and EU member states were “deeply divided on the best way to proceed” to avoid a hard crash out in 2020.
Mujaba Rahman, the chief Europe specialist at the Eurasia Group, wrote in a note to clients that the internal differences “could also presage a less united front; something the Commission worked painstakingly to maintain throughout the entirety of the Article 50 negotiations”.” (paywalled link)
That ‘division’ appears to worry the EU somewhat, as this next quote shows, but they are trying to manage it:
“The EU maintained iron discipline in the first phase of ‘divorce’ negotiations by refusing to even discuss the future relationship until the UK had agreed a £39bn financial settlement, guaranteed EU citizens’ rights and avoided a hard border in Ireland.
It is understood the Commission wanted to repeat this “sequencing” strategy, which provided the EU with mounting leverage as the talks deadlines approached, by ruthlessly prioritising what it would discuss with the UK, depending on the time available.
However a senior EU official warned that “prioritisation will become the new sequencing” if the UK did not extend transition and options for what could be addressed in the short time available would narrow sharply, leaving much of the UK services and manufacturing vulnerable to a hard Brexit.” (paywalled link)
Next, see how the old arguments are again trundled out, veiled by the softly-softly words of the EU diplomats:
“In this scenario the EU could agree to a “stage one” Brexit deal based around a ‘zero-tariff’ Canada-style Free Trade Agreement if the UK agreed to follow EU rules on environment, social issues and state aid to avoid unfair competition.
An agreement covering internal and external security could also be added, alongside harder-to-negotiate areas such as aviation, transport and social security which under EU law require ratification by the EU’s 36 local and national parliaments.
The EU side has already made clear that any EU-UK trade agreement must be accompanied by a deal on fishing quotas and access, ideally completed by July 2020, but diplomats conceded that the broader approach also concealed unease about EU splits developing in the coming talks.
The demand for a fishing deal as a precondition for a UK-EU trade deal has already unsettled eastern EU members states, like Poland or Hungary, who have no fishing interests and are much more concerned about issues like labour market mobility and trucking permits.” (paywalled link)
A ‘split’ in the EU? Well I never! We surely can’t have that. Here’s what those ‘sources’ believe M Barnier will propose, with the interesting nugget of why the EU can’t see it’s way to ‘prioritise’ some points, and with their ‘red line’ turning into a ‘’red wall’:
“Mr Barnier’s team will submit a “draft comprehensive mandate” to EU leaders soon after the UK leaves the EU on January 31, with expectations that it should be a broad document based around the Political Declaration agreed last year.
“The truth is if you tried to really prioritise the mandate up front you would never get agreement among the 27 member states,” added one candid EU diplomat.
For all the openness, however, EU leaders were clear last week that the UK’s options could narrow very quickly if negotiators shut the door on agreeing to so-called ‘level-playing field’ guarantees that will be the price of zero-tariff access to EU markets.” (paywalled link)
The concluding paragraphs show that the soft-soaping by those ‘diplomatic sources’ at the start of this article are nothing but a smokescreen to make the EU’s forthcoming demands look more palatable to the UK negotiators. This last quote comes with a warning: your blood pressure will rise:
“The UK will also need to accept a cross-cutting governance mechanism that will allow the EU to take punitive actions against the UK in one area of the trade and security agreement if it resiled in its commitments in another. […]
“The outcome will be determined by the UK’s choices,” a third EU diplomat concluded, “the ball is now firmly in Mr Johnson’s court.” (paywalled link)
Aaand …. We’re back to ‘The UK must’ before we’re even Out, before this Johnson BRINO has even gone through Parliament! This is how the EU is going to keep us In: sounding ‘reasonable’, but showing us, showing Johnson the torture instruments, just like the medieval justiciars did, to entice their victims to confess.
I’m as yet not sure if the EU hopes to get Johnson to cave in, his GE landslide win notwithstanding, or if they truly believe that they can ride roughshod over us as they’ve done so successfully in the last three years.
At the moment it seems as if we have learned from the last three years while the EU hasn’t. They seem to think that they’re going to negotiate with the May Remain civil servant personnel so that caving in from our side is inevitable. We’ll have to wait and see – but we’ll be watching carefully nevertheless: no rest for the wicked!
Boris continues to ‘pull the wool’, as he rushes his WA through parliament, which differs very little from May’s BRINO sell out. The full extent of the Tory’s capitulation will be concealed as much as possible from the public, aided and abetted by the msm. I still doubt the existence of sufficient political will to actually fight for British independence and sovereignty. Despite the cringe-worthy posturing, the key players are all globalists, with no loyalty to such details as ‘national sovereignty’ or ‘democracy’.
Yes we all get frustrated at continually shouting out the bl***ingly obvious! The Tories have got their majority and, has been said, thereis now no excuse. As Hesrltine (the traitor) has said the Remain force are routed. What we will see now ate the true colours of all the fence sitters, the sly and the cunning. We are leaving! Whose side are you on??
THEY, the EU, really are incredible aren’t they Viv. They are STILL talking as if THEY are the MASTER RACE and us the poor supplicants. Words fail me.
If the EU won’t play ball on OUR terms, then leaving on WTO Rules should be the order of the day, and well before the 31st December 2020 as well. Johnson got a landslide majority last week and he will be expected to deliver with absolutely no prevarication. We have had enough of this in the past 3 1/2 years. We are sick to death of endless negotiations going nowhere. He is now in a position of strength and should use it. The UK are no longer the whipping boys, we are leaving the EU and that’s it, get used to it.
Hear Hear, Colin
Why does anyone still use the term “Divorce”?
We were enticed into this “club” by lies.We have been kept in by deceit. Now, we want to cancel our membership.
If the other members wish to sell us their goods, fine, so long as they conform to British Standards, and so long as they are willing to buy from us.
Should we “crash out” without a “deal” how long do you expect the German car manufacturers, for example, to wait before they start clamouring for some sort of trade arrangement? There is no reason for any further delays, or “transition periods” except incompetence. (the very idea of well stuffed plain brown envelopes floating around should not even arise…)
The lies did not come from the Common Market – they came from the Tory Party starting in 1947.
“It is as well to state this at the outset – no government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan for European Union must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences……. No satisfactory economic plan for Europe can be devised without sacrifice of sovereignty by the nations concerned.” – Peter Thorneycroft, former Tory MP June 1947 (Posts held; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chief Whip, Secretary of State for Defence, Party Chairman)
In October 1962, Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell addressed conference with strongly-stated opposition to British membership of the Common Market:
“The Tories have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union.”
“We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: Let it end. But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Forget Article 50; just repeal the 1972 and any other relevant treaty.
I fear that many, if not most, of our British Standards have been superseded by European Standards. Nevertheless they should be reinstated and updated as necessary.
Bring back farenheit then I won`t have to do a mental calculation when I want to know whether I am going to feel hot or cold.
While you are at it bring back feet and inches and LSD (nb pounds shillings and pence)
Bring back duo decimals in building
Bring back feet in hills and mountains.
Bring back pounds and ounces. and pints and gallons
Lessons need to be learned from the way Trump deals with Communist China.(which politically speaking, is very similar to the EU). Note: I said deals with, not negotiates with.
Squeeze them with tariffs until the pips begin to squeak.
Not only will their behaviour improve, but with a bit of British luck, the income from tariffs might even make lower taxes possible.
As it as always been the necessary response to the EU should that well known term for “go away”. Anything less will result in subservience to them for evermore on wholly unacceptable terms.
Will Boris have the necessary fortitude to say it? We may hope.
He should have with that thumping big majority we gave him. But I must admit I worry still about the civil service. Also – something I do not really understand – what is meant by ‘service trade’? Why do the EU think they have a threat there? Is it the financial services in the City of London? If so that sounds like something Boris might worry about.
Otherwise it surely must be obvious that trade tariffs are far more damaging to them than us.
I’m sure Jack you meant nothing worse than Bog Off did you.