Posting on social media is keeping the politicians too busy to reform anything these days. It’s not just Donald Trump on Twitter though. EU pollies are avid twits too.
Politics seems to have become an ideological drug dealer. People need increasing numbers of doses that reaffirm their biases increasingly often or they feel lost and aimless. The media and politicians are happy to oblige. And Brexit is the ultimate topic.
The EU negotiation team and EU leaders have been busy criticising the British side on social media. Apparently they’re disorganised, slow and dreaming. And don’t know how to reply to baiting on Twitter.
But there is progress. Of a sort. The kind that delays things.
Both sides of the Brexit negotiations finally admitted the two-year deadline is a fraud. The timeline can be extended by mutual agreement according to the rule that imposes it, so the whole two-year deadline hullabaloo was nonsense from the beginning.
But they’re seeking a transition period instead of agreeing to an extension under the rules. This would allow Britain to pursue free-trade deals which come live the moment we finally leave the EU. There would be no gap where we revert to World Trade Organisation rules while negotiating deals.
The snag is in the details of EU law when it comes to the transition period. To achieve a smooth transition with EU trade, we need to have the deal ready to go for exit. But if the transition period is too long, it contravenes the internal EU rules by smelling like a de facto trade agreement.
Divorcing the UK can be agreed by majority vote at the EU, but trade deals must be unanimously supported. This means two separate deals. Any suggestion that the divorce deal looks like a trade deal in disguise will cause trouble. The arbitrary deadline for that trouble is two years.
Brexit negotiations… over what?
Something has always mystified me about the negotiations. What is each side’s definition of winning and losing? Who wants what?
Obviously, paying a divorce bill is a financial loss for Britain and gain for the EU.
But is higher or lower immigration good for Britain – not that we can count immigrants anyway. Is it a win or a loss for the EU to have immigration restrictions with the UK? What policy are they wanting?
What about trade – who doesn’t want free trade to continue between the UK and EU? Who is opposed to it?
I just can’t see where the trade-offs for Britain and the EU come out as anything but mutually beneficial or mutually harming. Aside from the divorce bill, what do they have to disagree about? The incentives are aligned, not a zero-sum game. Otherwise this would be true within the EU as well.
Surely it’s in Britain’s interest to provide EU citizens with rights. Trade is by definition mutually beneficial or it wouldn’t happen. And the majority of Brits support immigration.
The EU must protect its prestige and credibility to keep other countries from leaving. But what else are they motivated by?
Until next time,
Nick Hubble
Capital & Conflict
Category: Brexit