Second, there is a minor example of the old shouty-headline-concealing-more-moderated-argument schtick: the link says '"Chaotic and severe" Experts warn about impact of no-deal Brexit', while the actual article mentions the short-term impacts predicted by a pro-European think tank and adds.
In the longer term, UK in a Changing Europe’s experts say, the UK would have time to normalise its trading status, and agreements could be struck with the EU27 to tackle many other practical challenges.
Some of the short term impacts will follow only if 'talks broke down acrimoniously, making it politically difficult to negotiate measures to mitigate the risks, [and then] the disruption would be significant.'
The major piece reports an article by ace EC negotiator M Barnier who has finally come out as dead against even Chequers. He said:
the British offer on customs was illegal and its suggestion of a “common rulebook” on goods would kill the European project... warned European manufacturers that the streamlined system of imports and exports between the UK and the rest of Europe would come to an end [particularly affecting the car industry]...added that in order for EU carmakers to enjoy low tariffs on their exports around the world, they would need to shun British manufacturers.
In more detail:
“In order for EU carmakers to benefit from the tariff benefits of the EU-Korea agreement (pdf), [a cracking read I bet] only a certain proportion of the services may be provided in a car in a third country.[ Classic bureaucratic mind-set --the UK and Korea are both third countries with no other differences]... Businesses have to be careful not to use too many parts of [sic] Britain in their vehicles in the future.”...“We cannot relinquish control of our external borders and the revenue there to a third country – that’s not legal...“By the way, infringement proceedings against London are ongoing because, according to the commission, Chinese textile imports have not been properly cleared...“Moreover, the British proposal is not practical. It is impossible to tell exactly where a product ends up, on the UK market or in the internal market...That would only be possible with insane and unjustifiable bureaucracy. Therefore, the British proposal would be an invitation to fraud if implemented.”...There is another reason why I strongly oppose the British proposal. There are services in every product. [services were to be exempt from common rulebooks in Chequers]...“We must therefore prevent unfair competition if the United Kingdom has weaker legal requirements than we do. Otherwise we would discriminate and weaken our own companies.”... The only option that could maintain something like the current economic relationship would be to follow the Norway model, under which there would be free movement of people and large payments to Brussels.
In summary: “I am often accused in the United Kingdom of being dogmatic,” Barnier told the newspaper. “In fact, I only fulfil our fundamental interests.”
So what was the point of all the 'negotiation', demands for UK clarity and compromise,all that shit about clocks ticking, if, all along, the only option compatible with the interests and principles of the EC was a Norway deal? What was the point of the £39bn 'divorce bill' again?
It could all be more bluff, of course. If not,it is crap politics. At the moment there is no way to turn these threats into actual political action in the UK. Who in the UK gives a stuff about the EC's interests and principles, even though they have also been ours, officially, since 1975? Not even Remainers want to defend those in public. Who in the UK would propose a Norway deal and how would proponents overcome the politial problems of the referendum result and the subsequent splits in both parties?
As usual, much more ideological work would be needed, not just pugnacious assertions and bad faith claims to be impelled by immovable intersts and principles. If anything, Barnier risks hardening attitudes against EC 'bullying'.
No comments:
Post a Comment