British charm and legal action to domesticate Johnny Foreigner

The Graun suggests that one problem with the talks seems to be the lack of chances to show that desite all the bickering, one is really a jolly good chap:

The source close to the UK’s negotiating team said last week’s talks, conducted by video conference, worked well but it was more difficult to build up a personal rapport when communicating remotely.

It used to work with Johnny Foreigner, but EU reponses seem quite churlish in reponse to this aristocratic charm:

“Everybody knows that the UK is the world of betting men [?], but betting alone won’t result in a trade agreement. The continent is as engulfed by Covid as the UK, so I wouldn’t bank on leaders having much time to cater to British fancy,”

 Real underlying issues continue though:

“What is slowing us up is the EU’s insistence on extra provision, notably the level playing field area, aspects of governance and, of course, there is no meeting of minds on fisheries. If they continue to insist on their position on a so-called level playing field, and on continuing the common fisheries policy, for example, we are never going to accept that....not so much that they are negotiation positions as they are what an independent state does.”

I suspect the last bit is what is leading to incomprehension as ever. Meanwhile:

The EU has accused Johnson of backsliding on promises to uphold common standards on the environment, health and workers’ rights – the so-called level playing field. [not actually in the protocol as argued below]  Under pressure from coastal member states such as France, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands, Barnier has also insisted there will be no trade deal without an agreement on fishing rights. [They mean the common fisheries policy, while the UK means negotiated agreements?] 

Business still goes on as usual in some areas:

Eleanor Sharpston QC, advocate general to the court in Luxembourg, has lodged two claims challenging her replacement by a Greek lawyer before her term in office was scheduled to end next year.

 And in other chambers:

[Lawyers] argue that while the withdrawal agreement between the UK government and the EU has resulted in the UK as a nation leaving the EU, the fundamental status and rights of the British citizens of the European Union cannot be removed without their consent.

Stephen Hocking, a partner at DAC Beachcroft, said: “In the withdrawal agreement, the EU council purported to remove fundamental individual rights from a group of citizens of the European Union, namely UK nationals, without any due process and without any reference to them. In doing so it acted unlawfully....“EU citizenship is a citizenship like any other, and it confers individual rights on citizens that cannot be taken away by an agreement between governments.”

 Even Verhofstdat seems to agree with that claim:

“People received European citizenship with the treaty of Maastricht. Will be interesting to see, if a government decides to leave, its citizens automatically lose their European citizenship. They shouldn’t do!” 

Elsewhere,Toynbee rightly urges action to prevent a surge in youth unemployment post-virus, but nearby, the GHraun offers another priority:

A precaution against spreading infection and a signifier of being a good citizen, the face mask may yet give new meaning to a ‘must-have’ accessory