The view from Europe The border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic has suddenly become as big a stumbling block as the financial settlement. Davis last week firmly rejected an EU suggestion that Northern Ireland could stay in the customs union or the single market, saying that would in effect "create a new border" inside the UK – one between Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Dublin, for its part, is adamant that Britain will not dictate the border's future. Foreign minister Simon Coveney said Ireland would remain a "consistent, firm and stubborn" opponent of any proposal leading to a hard border with Northern Ireland: It seems essential to us that there is no ... regulatory divergence from the rules of the internal market or customs unions which are necessary for meaningful north-south cooperation, or an all-Ireland economy that is consistent with the Good Friday agreement. Arrangements acceptable to the EU would include those adapted for Hong Kong and Macau, which are part of China but have their own trade regimes. Brussels favours the province staying under EU law, allowing trade to flow freely on the island. It is not immediately clear how a way will be found out of this impasse. There are now real concerns on the continent that Theresa May's government is too fragile and divided to come up with adequate proposals on this, and other key issues. Ultimately, Barnier said in a significant speech in Rome, Britain is going to have to choose between deregulating and following the US social and economic model, or staying within the European mainstream: The UK has chosen to leave the EU. Will it also want to move away from the European model? There is behind the European regulatory framework the fundamental societal choices we hold: the social market economy, health protection, food security, fair and efficient financial regulation … It is up to the British to tell us whether they still adhere to the European model. Their answer is important because it directs the discussion on our future partnership. Meanwhile, back in Westminster Those in Westminster who worry that Brexit is, for some proponents, almost a cult will have had their prejudices confirmed by news that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have written to Theresa May seeking to toughen her resolve on the issue. The missive has, inevitably, been described as "Orwellian", containing as it does advice that May should ensure her ministers get fully behind Brexit by "clarifying their minds" and seeking to "internalise the logic". The letter, and the fact it brought not a squeak of protest from No 10, also demonstrates another thing: how gravely weak May's position is. This will be further illustrated later this week when the EU withdrawal bill, which seeks to move EU rules and statute into British law, returns to the Commons for the committee stage, when amendments can be made. Dozens of amendments have been tabled, and despite Davis's last-minute promise of primary legislation that will allow MPs the chance to debate and vote on the final deal, dissatisfaction in the chamber is such that several of them could yet pass. The prime minister's powers of persuasion over her MPs have also hardly been improved after she lost a second cabinet minister, Priti Patel, in a week, over a spot of off-the-books freelance diplomacy in Israel. May is being urged to consider a major cabinet reshuffle to reassert control. But as ever, there is a tension between what might be politically useful, and what a PM who is arguably the weakest in living memory can realistically do. You should also know ... Read these: In the Guardian, Deborah Orr argues that we should not expect those struggling through austerity to be benevolent to EU workers. For many, free movement causes pain and until their lives are improved, Europe will remain the scapegoat: People need their lives to improve now, not to live in stress and worry because things might work out in the future … The EU didn't save areas economically devastated in the early stages of globalisation, and it isn't saving them now. No amount of promises that the EU is the best hope of shelter from economic change in the future will persuade enough of the hard-up Brexiteers in that 52% vote. If progressives want to change the minds of Brexiteers, waiting for them to see the error of their ways isn't going to work. What people need is a quid pro quo that offers them tangible improvements in their lives right now. That, and only that, will keep Britain in the EU. In the Financial Times (paywall), Gideon Rachman reckons the British government is so enfeebled and divided between leavers and remainers, and the EU so unyielding, that the most probable outcome of the Brexit talks is that the bloc will impose a solution: Britain is drifting towards disaster on Brexit without a viable diplomatic, economic or political strategy to make a success of the venture. The central problem is that the government is stuck between an implacable EU and an unrealistic Conservative party. The EU will not offer anything like the deal that Britain's Brexiters still dream of. But Theresa May's Conservative colleagues are still unprepared to accept this unpleasant reality. In this paralysing situation, it seems increasingly likely the UK government will simply be politically and technically incapable of delivering a negotiated Brexit. As a result, the likeliest outcome is that, late in the day — perhaps in January 2019 — the EU will present Britain with a "take it or leave it" deal. Tweet of the week Denmark weighs in, and not in a friendly way: | 
Posts
David Davis (l) with Michel Barnier at a press conference in Brussels last Friday. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images 
No comments:
Post a Comment