Special reports and Brexit editor, The Economist. Author of "Unhappy Union" and reports on the EU's future (March 25th 2017), and Brexit (October 17th 2015)
Speaking as an occasional friend of
@BorisJohnson
, also as a fellow journalist: in 45 years of civil service and then public reporting, the only worse prime minister I have seen is Silvio Berlusconi.
To claim that the EU is adopting an “extreme” position of trying to divide the United Kingdom is outrageously dishonest. It was Johnson who chose to carve off NI, not the EU. 13/
It was obvious to anyone who thought for 5 minutes that Northern Ireland and specifically the border with Ireland would be a massive problem if the UK voted for Brexit 2/
And finally, to pretend that his new internal market bill “protects” the GFA is utter drivel. It was the NI protocol that protected the GFA – either in May’s form or his own. 17/
If Johnson did not want a border in the Irish Sea, he could have refused to agree to the protocol. That would have meant no WA, but it would at least have been honest. 16/
Now Johnson expresses outrage because the protocol he signed and ratified means border and customs controls in the Irish Sea. And a backdoor for EU state aid rules via the province. 10/
@bernardjenkin
I am sorry Bernard but given your views I cannot see how you could have voted for the WA in October, November and January. The text of the NI protocol is crystal clear. Did you not read it? Or if you did, not understand it?
It is true that a joint committee exists to sort out practicalities of the NI protocol. But it was not set up to change the meaning of the WA, and it cannot legally be used to rewrite a treaty. 15/
When Johnson took over, he decided to junk the NI backstop. The only way to do this was to revert to solution two, in effect creating a frontstop for immediate use after Brexit.9/
In December 2017 Theresa May toyed with solution two, but was forced off it by Arlene Foster, and then said that no British prime minister would ever agree to it. 7/
So she fell back on solution one, calling it a backstop in hopes that something else might come along in a future FTA that would avoid having to use it. 8/
I have recently spent some time in Berlin, Brussels and Paris trying to find out how the EU might greet a prime minister Keir Starmer. Here are a few conclusions. 1/
A party that in quick succession loses Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan, Ken Clarke, David Lidington, Philip Hammond, Nick Boles, Jo Johnson and Dominic Grieve has serious thinking to do about its future - if it has one
The fact that the UK cabinet can spend entire days debating its preferred Brexit choices while completely ignoring what is actually negotiable with the EU never ceases to amaze
Next up for EU governments is a more generous mobility deal, especially for young people. Musicians, actors, students: nobody benefits from red tape, high visa costs etc. There is scope for a far more generous open mobility deal with the EU, not just individual countries. 5/
One, everybody will hugely welcome the most pro-European PM since Tony Blair. And one who makes a big change from a variety of disparate, difficult Tories. 2/
It is extraordinary. And worth adding that, against strong advice from many experts, in June the UK government unilaterally rejected the insurance option of extending the transition period.
@GavinBarwell
@CJCHowarth
Nobody can dispute the identity of the person who deliberately chose to create a customs and regulatory border in the Irish Sea: Boris Johnson. Not Theresa May. Not the EU. Not Dublin.
In 47 years of commentating, I have never observed a more shambolic or disastrous government. I cannot grasp how serious Tories, if there are any left, could have backed
@BorisJohnson
in 2019. They must have been mad.
No-deal at end 2020 hits economy and public finances hard (budget deficit up to 4% of GDP, debt rising again). Far from getting Brexit done, next year promises just to repeat 2019 story of missed deadlines and cliff-edges to no-deal./17ENDS
What a night. Lessons: voters want Brexit, no matter its effects; Corbynomics is ridiculous and should be dead in the water; and UK so polarised that decent centrist types (Gauke, Reynolds, Soubry, Wollaston, even Swinson) are just road-kill. Not sure all this so good for us!
Johnson is thus repeating the mistake from round one of assuming that Britain has all the cards. In fact his bargaining position is weak, not least because the WA has settled such awkward issues as money and the NI border. The EU also has the experienced trade negotiators. 6/
Raab at Lords today accused EU of legalism and called for pragmatism and innovative thinking instead. Yet it was UK, not EU, that took two years to make a proposal for relationship. And it was UK, not EU, that set out legalistic red lines in October 2016
And this brings up two other issues for Starmer. One, the EU has many other problems: Ukraine, ME, far right, economy, Trump. Why devote any attention to improving relations with an ex-member of the club? 9/
@pmdfoster
@FT
@AJack
How on earth can Brexiteers justify this sort of outcome? Sovereignty? Hatred of Europeans? Generalised xenophobia? And where does it leave Global Britain exactly?
And we might be only 42 days away from this (even A50 extension by a few months won’t stop it happening again in July). Depressing; also, as ever, worryingly ill-informed
Yet as a steely von der Leyen confirmed, this is not how it will actually work. Third countries have worse access, zero tariffs and zero quotas requires zero dumping, Brussels and member states mean what they say when they demand a level playing-field and no cherry-picking. 5/
Somewhere in this mix the UK, like Switzerland, Norway and others, might be able to find a happier home than the one it is in now. One that keeps closer economic and trade relations but without too much on the political front. Labour must keep a close eye on this. 14/
They still think no deal is a threat that will bring the EU to heel over the backstop, rather like Thatcher threat to withhold budget payments, when it is actually an offer to commit suicide
As an economist I find it quite extraordinary that anyone could believe that erecting trade barriers with your biggest market could have anything other than a negative effect on GDP. Economics 101 Mr Colvile
I just wonder when
@BrandonLewis
became so. an expert in international law. Perhaps about the same time
@SuellaBraverman
did? Many years ago the UK helped invent international law, now we just break it....
@Mij_Europe
@DavidHenigUK
The industries suffering most from bare-bones deal with regulatory divergence will be eg aerospace, auto, chemicals, food and drink, and pharma that rely on frictionless supply chains. Even lightest checks for regulatory compliance, RoO threaten to break these chains. 13/
Finally, they delude themselves that, if no deal happened, it could somehow be blamed on the EU, something no disinterested observer (or voter) could possibly believe
Maybe I am just naive: but I struggle to see how elections in which Tories, Labour and UKIP all lost seats while Lib Dems and Greens both gained seats mean that voters really want Brexit to happen pronto
Second, take some heart from thinking about future EU enlargement. EU members know they can't stick to one-size-fits-all approach with 35 or so members. Hence discussion or variable geometry, hard cores, multispeed and associate memberships. 13/
NEW: Sources close to Privileges Committee say evidence is so damning that Boris Johnson could be 'gone by Christmas' if he returns.
One Tory MP tells me any attempt to kill the inquiry could 'bring down the govt'.
Yet momentum builds behind Johnson.
@Mij_Europe
@DavidHenigUK
The notion of seeking trade deals with others eg US to put pressure on EU won’t wash. Americans notorious for insisting on their wishlist and nothing in return. Food, drug pricing on the table. Anyway no third country will deal until it knows how UK stands with EU. 12/
That is not least because A50 would lapse, so any new negotiation would have to be A218 meaning unanimity and full ratification by national and regional parliaments – which could take years
So why not do it? Real answer may be to try to disguise adverse economic effects of hard Brexit in December beneath bigger covid-19 economic meltdown. Politically savvy, perhaps. But hitting firms in trouble with a double whammy is hardly sensible economics. 13/
@Mij_Europe
Yet setting an absolute end-year deadline is actually unhelpful to Johnson. Vitally, it means that a deal must not be mixed, as that would require lengthy national and regional ratification. So it will be bare-bones goods, nothing on services, security, data, research etc. 9/
The cost of hard Brexit will take time to emerge. But it looks consistent with LSE modelling for
@UKandEU
: a fall over ten years in British exports to the EU of 36% and in incomes per head of 6%, bigger than impact of covid-19.9/
This means Brexit will happen on January 31st. But it will not be “done” and nor can the word Brexit be dropped as the news shifts to business pages. We will be in an 11-month transition during which a highly complex deal on the future must be both completed and ratified. 3/
@DavidHenigUK
It is almost hilarious. All Tory MPs voted for the WA (an international treaty) and the political declaration only six months ago. So how could any of them now plausibly demand a renegotiation?
They do not see that in fact it would lead to acrimony, money rows, lawsuits and, in effect, a trade war that it would be extremely hard to climb back away from
@Mij_Europe
Fish, financial services and data all troublesome in June/July when PD wants them settled. Littoral countries eg France may just say no fisheries access, no trade deal. Any equivalence for financial services/data unilateral and subject to withdrawal (note Swiss experience). 10/