I don’t think the British government really thought much through. The Article 50 process is a legal, not political, one. I do not think this was well understood. It was certainly triggered for political motives - for May to try to bolster her support with back benches - and it has crippled the UK in the negotiations ever since.
To then waste time in a general election was yet more folly, even before the fact it made her even more dependent on those back benches.
I really don’t understand what you two are getting it.
A50 had to be triggered sooner or later. No progress was being made without triggering it (in case you’ve forgotten, the EU refused to discuss what would happen in any way beyond the reiteration of the obvious red lines before it was actually triggered.). Without starting the process both the continuity remainers and the fruitcake brexiteers were able to spout utterly unrealistic claims as truth with little fear of being meaningfully contradicted, so the situation wasn’t improving from May’s perspective.
As to the election - well May knew at some point she would need to have a confrontation with either the Europhile or Eurosceptic extreme wing of the party, or both. The logic behind holding the election, and holding it after the A50 notification and not before, was overwhelming. Noone realised what a godawful campaigner May would be, and how effective Corbyn’s social media lie machine was at shaping the perceptions of younger voters.
No disagreement there, but the government did absolutely bugger all groundwork before the triggering. Even from a hard Brexiteer perspective, it should have put itself in a position where a walk-away was a realistic, if still painful, prospect. As it is, they put themselves in a terrible negotiating position (and then made it worse over the next nine months).
Did it? Why? This is not the only way to renegotiate international arrangements. The EU refusing to negotiate is certainly a possible scenario, but they didn’t have to negotiate after we triggered it either. You may have noticed: they are still not negotiating anything but our withdrawal terms.
If it did have to be triggered, it was clearly far too early. If nothing else, surely the general election should have been held first?
If I were told I had to start a bomb ticking and then begin disarming it, I might decide who would disarm it before pushing the big red button.
I agree that the logic was overwhelming, but I assume we are both talking about the logic of capitalising on a political opponent’s extremely weak polling numbers?
Oh yes, but also of being in a suitable negotiating position for brexit. The reason for the lack of clarity for the kind of Brexit they actually want has come from the inability of May to unite the cabinet around a decision, and a strong election result would have let her tell people to back her or be exiled to the backbenches.
It’s worth noting that the election did at least tie Tory MPs to committing to support May in the Brexit process, and the votes on the Withdrawal bill had been going very well, probably in part due to this. I am completely amazed by the hole they dug themselves into on the “meaningful vote” amendment. There are good reasons to suspect Grieve’s amendment is unhelpful, but if they had introduced their own statutory wording that avoided giving the Lords a chance to hold things up it’s hard to believe they couldn’t have got through.
It really does confirm the generally low quality of people who go into politics nowadays - though given the way the media treats them it’s hardly surprising. Note that this is in no way confined to one side of the house.
The EU made it very clear that the only way Brexit would happen was through the invocation of A50. As I said, I really do not know what you are on about, and I think I will stop engaging at this point.
I’m sure they did! I’m sure they wanted to make sure Britain conceded the biggest leverage they had right at the outset. To do so, without anything in return beyond an agreement to talk, was an enormous mistake.
(If you have a Financial Times subscription, I’d encourage you to read Five steps for how Brexit should be done if you’re interested in how this could have been done better in any number of ways.)
Ivan Ivanevich.
In his rocket ship, spinning helplessly up above the earth.
Love me some Cracker!
That’s great David. And when they say no?
Which didn’t take very long at all, so, guess we’ll see what changes today…
Michel Barnier said it was unavoidable that British banks and financial firms would lose the passports that allow them to trade freely in the EU, as a result of any decision to quit the single market.
“There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist.” He said the outcome was a consequence of “the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport.”
And that’s what everyone with half a brain has been saying from the start of this whole thing. Loose the single market loose your edge. There is a reason many banks are renting space in other cities already.
Nothing changes today.
The PM said it was clear what the cabinet’s objective is: a deal which secures the best possible trading terms with the EU, enables the UK to set rules that are right for our situation, and facilitates ambitious third country trade deals.
The PM said that, in developing our future economic partnership, we should be creative in designing our proposal.
The Brexit secretary and PM were clear that the UK is seeking a bespoke deal.
Phew, I’m glad that got cleared up quick.
Well, the cabinet spent a whole hour and forty five minutes on the topic, so.
Ok, this is quite a mess.
According to the latest communications from the EU, the UK is going to have to remain subject to EU law to stay in the single market during the transition phase. So far as expected and a good deal for both sides, since it will give the UK the time to negotiate a trade deal with the EU.
However, apparently, as soon as the transition period starts, the UK will be left out of the 750 trade treaties the EU has with other countries.
Which means they now need to negotiate several hundred treaties while they negotiate Brexit alongside?
This is a mess.