P for paranoia, not Polly

R Behr has had a heart attack.Someone ought to send P Toynbee on gardening leave before it is too late. I like her and will miss her if she is laid up.

The prime minister could have tried to heal the divisions. Instead he’s preparing the ground to blame Europe once Brexit’s damage is clear

I tend towards paranoia myself, and there is clearly something in what she is saying --but it all adds together so smoothly and there is such an emotional charge and sense of vindication. There is no way anything Johnson could do that would heal that.

It sounds like war. The thud of the falling pound greeted the prime minister’s tub-thumping speech: it suggested his “great voyage” was destined for the rocks of the hardest of Brexits. Days after proclaiming we would leave with peace, prosperity and friendship, he set out to do battle [negotiate!] with those he called our friends and neighbours. Now our ersatz Winston Churchill proclaims he will fight them on our fisheries, fight them on aviation, but above all fight off their filthy regulations

I know Graunistarias have never understood mock confrontations as a routine early step in negotiation, but this is over the top, and not the first time she has talked of war. Naturally, she just knows what is really at stake.

At first the order was never to mention the Brexit word again. Get this trade stuff off the front pages and safely hidden away in business sections....So why ratchet up new confrontation with the European Union? Because before long he will need a great distraction from all the undelivered airy promises. He will need foreigners to blame....Oddly, one reason for this opening salvo is for Boris Johnson to keep his party happy, despite his unassailable majority

It is odd isn't it? That is no problem though -- it is now conspiratorial repression disguised by the occasional oddity.

Toynbee evidently hoped for a return to niceness in negotiation:

[That] prudence would prevail. He would quietly settle a deal with Barnier, disguised in new language [how cynical] that would avoid tariffs and barriers. ...No alignment, no deal – and fair play must be fairly adjudicated by the European court. That was written into the political agreement Johnson signed [we shall see]

Apparently

The EU is genuinely alarmed that Britain may develop into a deregulated Singapore on its border, unfairly competing by undercutting on standards and social conditions while subsidising our key industries to destroy those of its member states....Johnson’s riposte to this was preposterous. “The UK will maintain the highest standards in these areas – better, in many respects, than those of the EU – without the compulsion of a treaty.” He listed where the UK outshone the EU’s bare minimum regulations: better on a minimum wage, maternity leave, carbon emissions, live animal transports and more, and of course there is no intention of ever lowering standards. Disingenuous is the polite word: if ours are higher, why not agree to abide by theirs? ...Because the whole point of Brexit, as he always said, was freedom to diverge when it pleased us – and that can only mean downwards. The EU is right to expect us to lapse unless prevented by treaty.

Oh dear. You can never argue with a paranoid mindset. There is even the unmistakable binary between good and bad guys:

This sabre-rattling will have no effect on the imperturbable Michel Barnier, the EU negotiator who knows us and our boorish behaviour all too well by now.

So why is she worried?

While we are here:

According to the UK website 

The Political Declaration (PD) is not a binding legal document and it is unlikely that it will bind the parties to anything beyond a commitment to negotiate for a future relationship in good faith...The future relationship will encompass a free trade area and cooperation in particular sectors where this is in the parties’ mutual interest....The PD refers to a trading relationship which is “as close as possible”. There are no references to ‘frictionless’ trade or a ‘common rulebook’ for trade in goods, which were prominent features of the Chequers agreement....There will be mechanisms for reviewing and remedying breaches of the procurement rules....

The Institute for Government

[Says the PD] implies that trade between the UK and EU will not be frictionless, but the extent of checks will depend on the extent of divergence by the UK. The customs arrangements proposed by the government are intended to minimise friction....No discussion of UK aligning with EU rules in relevant areas....Rather than the “dynamic alignment” suggested previously, the government looks to be closer to agreeing “non-regression” [still bad in my view, but more rooom to weasel] ....Explicitly states that the ECJ should have no role over disputes not relating to interpretation of Union law [weasels run through this too?].

Of course, it is all very vague, but Toynbee can see through it. Of course, paranoids are sometimes right -- but she has not done too well with predictions so far.