Completely old news from the Brexit talks

Why do they still carry on as if public opinion was still obsessed with Operation Fear, the car crash, the catastrophe of  no-deal, the approaching cliff edge and all the other stuff? A Graun item takes up the old cudgels and tries to brush off the mould:

Brexit talks risk reaching a stalemate if there is no progress in the next round of negotiations between the European Union and the British government, EU sources have said.... if the EU did not see progress on its vital interests, including how to ensure fair competition, or a level play field, between British and EU companies under a free-trade deal.

Les barques de peche francais seems to be the major problem still:

“No fisheries agreement means no post-Brexit agreement,” said François-Xavier Bellamy, the French centre-right MEP – and member of Barnier’s Les Républicains party – who drew up a report that was adopted with near unanimity by the committee.

 Only 'near unanimity' though....

Frost argues the UK has set out a “comprehensive set of proposals” to prevent unfair competitive advantages, but multiple EU sources say the British ideas are inadequate....A UK government spokesperson said it was to be “expected at this stage in a very difficult negotiation that both sides are making their case robustly... our position hasn’t changed – we won’t agree to any EU demands for us to give up our rights as an independent state....“And we’ve never asked for anything special, bespoke or unique – we’re looking for a free-trade agreement, based on precedent and similar to those the EU has already got with other countries like Canada.”

An old friend, displayed prominently during the row with the Greeks (according to Varoufakis's account) reappears with this:

EU diplomats are tired of the repeated reminders from Frost’s team about the importance of UK sovereignty, pointing out that their governments are also sovereign.

Although they have also argued that individual countries must stick to the 'mandate' provided for the EC. This is how the EC deals with any popular votes against their interest in any individual country -- they argue that all the other sovereign countries outweigh the dissenter, and that the EC somehow represents all this devolved sovereignty against mere elected national governments or, above all, referenda.  It is a lethal combination of divide and rule and marshalling a permanent tyrranous majority.


Meanwhile, on the Cummings Front, a Times piece today adds a slightly different dimension to one major issue the cosmos are dramatising --  that the elitist Cummings is arrogantly denying that the rules apply to him. The Times piece suggests that Cummings had actually read the rules, maybe because he had helped draft them, and noticed that there were, inevitably (as argued below) exemption clauses. Blimey -- he might even have written them! Liberals and other vigilantes had not actually read the rules but had gone off half-cocked as ever and pursued an authoritarian interpretation by default. It's still elitism but of a 'meritocratic' kind, and the npb can hardly complain because it is a tactic they also deploy.