So, deal or no-deal? I'm afraid it looks gloomy. Too many outstanding issues, a political context that is not conducive to compromise, and a tunnel leaking like mad. Quite possibly forming between them a vicious cycle. So, is this it? I suspect not... 1/n

Recall, this UK-EU negotiation is attempting to put in place an agreement unusually extensive (haulage, aviation, security, as well as trade) in a record timescale (9 months start to implementation) at a time of pandemic. That was always optimistic. 2/
A process driven EU against a naive yet overconfident UK in a short timeframe was also never going to be easy. In particular the UK's sole evident negotiating strategy, to say we'll walk away, is still in overdrive, making compromise harder. 3/
On the up side the UK has been inching slowly away from the purist notions of sovereignty which would prevent any deal towards a more realistic haggle over details, but possibly too late to resolve them, barring unexpected deep late concessions from either side. 4/
Geography isn't changing, and trading more with neighbours isn't either. Virtually all countries in the world have deals with their neighbours. It is unrealistic for the UK to be the sole developed country exception. Even if it takes a while. 5/
Right now the politics is 'blame the French' on one side and 'don't trust the Brits' on the other. As I said, not conducive to deep compromises. The only real chance is to agree you don't trust each other, but would trust each other less without a deal. Which isn't great. 6/
But apart from petulance, why walk away? The EU don't, ever. However improbable a deal appears (hello India!). Why should the UK do so? As we've just seen, we need to talk with neighbours. And you can be not scared of no-deal and still prefer a deal. 7/
Time, as Brexit threadmeister @pmdfoster often says, for cool heads. A lot has been agreed. But negotiating teams are now tired and probably pretty grouchy. Member states, MEPs, MPs, all concerned about what might be agreed. No time to implement properly anyway. 8/
Yes, deal if we can today. But if we can't, far better for the two sides to take a pause, get ready for January 1, and come back with some renewed energy (and knowledge of why we need a deal). Yes it will be messy. But it will be anyway. Trying to be civil will really help. 9/
Throughout these talks we hoped for some kind of outside intervention to overcome fundamental differences. It hasn't happened and is probably still needed (hello Biden?). But the two sides have come through a lot. If they can't complete, at least don't throw it away. 10/10

More from David Henig

So many stories of new barriers to trade between UK and EU, but you might be thinking at some point these will run out. The government is certainly hoping so. Well they may slow down, but trade relations and regulations are not static, and changes will lead to further problems.

The likelihood of continued trade problems for a £650 bn trade relationship is why there should be a huge cross-government effort led by the Foreign Office and Department for International Trade to put in place the necessary resources to seek best results.

There isn't.

So the UK's relationship with the EU currently consists of two not particularly good deals and no consistent effort to manage current problems or prevent future ones. Joint committees are a second order problem to putting in place the right internal structures.

But that's been the consistent UK problem in relations with the EU since 2016. Lack of focus on getting the right internal structures, people, asks, strategy, too much attention on being tough and a single leader.

News just in. This doesn't necessarily mean the right structure being put into UK-EU relations. I suspect Frost's main role is to ensure no renegotiations with the EU.

Also, wonder what this says about the PM's trust in Michael Gove?
Quick intro to more analysis later - since Freeports are mentioned in this article worth making the point that it seems to me under the UK-EU deal that if the UK provides subsidies for them, or relaxes labour or environmental rules in them, the EU can take retaliatory action.


There has never been level playing field content like this in a trade deal. The idea it is any kind of UK win, when the UK's opening position was no enforceable commitments whatsoever, is ridiculous.


The EU can take retaliatory action against the UK if we weaken labour standards, weaken pretty firm climate change targets, unfairly subsidise, or just in general seem to be out of line. There are processes to follow, but it looks like the PM did it again...


Final one for now. Quite how Labour gets itself in such a fuss about whether to support a deal with the strongest labour and environment commitments ever seen in a trade deal is a sign of just how far it hasn't moved on from leaving.

PS well... (sorry DAG). It certainly didn't have a good effect. And I think if we had settled LPF issues with the EU much earlier there is a good chance the conditions would have been far less stringent. By making an issue, we made it much worse.

More from Politics

You May Also Like