Guardian separates news and comment!!

My old print edition contained two headlines on Brexit both of which show distinct promise for the future of Graun journalism. Both show that views are quotes from EU persons, not just 'news' as before:

Barnier voices concern over pace of Brexit talks

(replaced with EU's Brexit negotiator tells UK to speed up and 'get serious' on the web version). The print article is nearly good at outlining the different positions too, although the web version stresses EU views rather more.

The second headline is a bit more sly (in the old-fashioned sense) reporting that 

Brexit threatens existing trade accords with US, warn MPs

(on  page 12 -- and it doesn't seem to have made it to the web). At least the 'news' is a (vaguely attributed) quote again, although it is not until you get to the second para that you realize that it comes from the infamous lobby group Open Britain (which says it 'will fight against the hard, destructive and potentially chaotic Brexit path the Government has chosen') -- so not really news then.

The opinion piece is by C Grant of the Centre for European Reform,  'an independent think-tank that is dedicated to promoting a reform agenda within the European Union' according to the Guardian. The Centre's own website says it is 'a think-tank devoted to making the European Union work better and strengthening its role in the world. The CER is pro-European but not uncritical' which makes is rather less independent perhaps: its list of corporate donors is also interesting as a comment on its 'independence'.

The Grant piece concludes with the shock news for Grudianistas that the absence of a deal 'would be bad for the EU (it would get no British money)'.The article also estimates the British annual bill at 'roughly' £10bn or 'roughly' £192 million a week, presumably net, and a couple of billion larger than earlier estimates in another blog -- but what's £2bn a year between friends?

Spelling it out even more clearly for Remainers who think the whole debate is about 'European culture', there would be a serious 'hole' in the EU budget, without continued UK payment until 2019--20, while continuing the payments would be 'a great relief to the European Commission...Many [governments] will find it hard to compromise on money: Brexit means that net contributors will have to pay more into the EU budget, and net recipients are likely to receive less'  

Grant sees this inability to compromise as a reason for obduracy over continuing EU demands for loot, still described absurdly as the 'divorce bill'. For the UK though it must be a Big bargaining chip! Big! as D Trump might say.

PS More encouraging signs today (30th) from the same journalist -- J Rankin. Not only are D Davis's criticisms of the inflexibility of the EU position quoted, they even lead the (small) article -- properly attributed to DD.