The UK Government Is Completely Deluded About Brexit

[PhotoLady]

An article shared today by an ex-colleague from Forbes:

The UK’s eventual exit from the EU is looking more and more likely to be a train wreck. The Brexiteers in Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration are living in a fantasy world. And although May herself comes across as sensible and pragmatic, it now appears that she is as deluded as they are.

Last Wednesday, April 25th, May met the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for dinner in London. Senior members of the British and EU negotiating teams were also present.

The dinner was a total disaster. But just how badly it went, at least from the European Commission’s point of view, has only just been revealed.

As is its wont, the Commission has expressed its anger in the press. Although it has previously used the British press to communicate its views on Brexit, this time it has opted to use a German newspaper. An article in the print edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAZ) reveals details of the proceedings at the dinner. It is in German. There is no English translation. Nor is there a complete online version of the article.

Releasing details of the dinner to a German newspaper for printing in German only is a slap in the face for May and her team. The Commission, it seems, is very angry indeed.

Jeremy Cliffe, The Economist’s Berlin bureau chief, tweeted the salient points from the FAZ article. They are absolutely damning. No wonder the Commission is angry. Here they are, transcribed.

Today's FAZ report on May's disastrous dinner with Juncker - briefed by senior Commission sources -is absolutely damning.

May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.

May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.

It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.

May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.

EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.

Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.

May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.

EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".

May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.

"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).

May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.

Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).

Jeremy Cliffe's thread continues:

"I leave Downing St ten times as sceptical as I was before" Juncker told May as he left.

Next morning at c7am Juncker called Merkel on her mobile, said May living in another galaxy & totally deluding herself. Merkel quickly reworked her speech to Bundestag to include her now-famous "some in Britain still have illusions" comment.

FAZ concludes: May in election mode & playing to crowd, but what use is a big majority won by nurturing delusions of Brexit hardliners?

Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.

What to make of it all? Obviously this leak is a highly tactical move by Commission. But contents deeply worrying for UK nonetheless. The report points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through. Presumably as a result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27.

Also clear that (as some of us have been warning for a while...) No 10 should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak.

Sorry for the long thread. And a reminder: full credit for all the above reporting on the May/Juncker dinner goes to the FAZ.

Cliffe's analysis (third paragraph from the end) implies that May has made a terrible mistake. She has put hardline Brexiteers in charge of negotiating the UK's exit from the EU and its new trade relationships after Brexit. They appear to be systematically deceiving her. As a result, she is not in possession of the true facts.

Presumably these wrecking tactics are intended to further the Brexiteers' real aim of a no-deal exit from the EU - the so-called 'clean Brexit'. But the cost of such an exit for the UK would be terrible. Such behaviour from the Brexiteers is unbelievably irresponsible. And it undermines May's own credibility, just as she is seeking a new mandate from the British people to strengthen her hand in the negotiations.

If the UK is to secure the smoothest possible end to the UK's membership of the EU and the best possible relationship between the UK and the EU in the future, the British team must conduct the negotiations in good faith and with good will. The Brexiteers have demonstrated neither. May must sack them.

The article is 2 pages long. I've copied it in its' entirety but the source link is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescop ... dceb494f04

[Poppy]

Sorry but it does not quite make sense does it? Why should the commission be so angry if they feel they have the upper hand? I would have thought they would be jubilant if that was the case. If this article is to be believed then they will be angry that we are not submitting to their bully boy tactics of demanding the 50 billion or whatever it is and wondering how they can balance the books without it.

[Pete G]

Perhaps Junker was a little 'tired and emotional', he's well known for it

[Royal]

Maybe Jean Claude imbibed too much alcohol that evening. He's well known for it. Just google 'Juncker alcohol' and see the hits...

[Jimgym]

Thanks for that, very enlightening. I think May is a fruit loop.

Perhaps if she ever met you she would return the compliment

[Jimgym]

Enlightening? Depressing more like.....do we really have to deal with these playground bullies? If attack is the only form of defence then these people are so desperate to "win" that they believe that the only way is their way....immature, childish, petulant and spoilt.....

The EU keeping it as classy as ever I see. Such a pity.....

[Rita Sherry]

BBC News at 1pm today report a denial regarding this report. Forbes also makes it clear it is the author's opinion and not that of Forbes. I agree totally with Jac's (Smudger) view regarding why are the Commission so angry makes no sense but then that is journalism at times for you.

Rita

[Rita Sherry]

Lloyd ad Road Warrior

Have either of you two gentlemen actually met or know Mrs May personally? In your case RW I think I am right in thinking you dont give a tinkers cuss who becomes Prime Minister of England, Wales & Northern Ireland so long as Scotland can break away from the Union. Lloyd I am saddened and disappointed regarding your attitude towards people you perceive or are indeed not in tune with your way of thinking on this matter. All members of the Cabinet were in favour of remaining in the EU however, the electorate decided we should leave, and please do not give me a lecture on how old, uneducated etc they were to reach such a conclusion. Following that decision the then Prime Minister resigned and it was left to the then Government to find a new leader which they did in the tried and tested manner of the Conservative Party. Or would you have preferred there to have been no leader, hence no Prime Minister but leave it to the populace you appear to so despise to have a poll for the job? - I think HM might have had a thing or two to say about that but that is bye the bye.

It occurs to me that you and others on this forum who believe as you do are hoping and praying that everything will go wrong so you can all say "I told you so" hardly a grown up educated stance. I realise, and exclude from my view, those who likewise voted to remain but have reluctantly decided the decision has been made and we must endeavour to make the best of it. What do you think should happen - overturn the original vote to appease the 16+ million who voted "remain" and expect the 17+ million who voted "leave" to accept without demur.

From a purely personal view I can tell you I thought long and hard regarding this vote (and yes I did vote unlike some people who were eligible to do so but did not - in my book such people have no right to criticise any result). I have never in all the years I have been eligible to vote been so concerned or tested regarding how I should vote but vote I did and I and my family, friends and fellow countrymen all have to live with the result. By the way this old and uneducated person has two degrees for what it is worth.

As I say I am both saddened and disappointed in you - I consider much of what you say apparently in anger is not worthy of you.

Rita

[outasite]

[bromerzz]

A very well thought out and constructed post Rita.

[Poppy]

Excellent Post as always Rita.

[Jimgym]

Eloquent as ever Rita, thank you for an excellent post.

[smudger]

Can't disagree with a word you've said Rita

[Jim B]

Rita
I have always believed it was my democratic right to stand up and argue and vote against an act I did not believe in and I believe like millions of others it is still our democratic right to fight against a result that we believe is leading the country we love just as much as you to disaster. You are advocating we should get behind and follow polititians we don't trust or have faith in just because a very small majority think we should. As I keep saying, we may have lost this referendum but there will be others and maybe not in our lifetimes though eventually the pendulum will swing; it's just about having the courage of your convictions.

Jim

[Poppy]

Jim,yes of course have the courage of your convictions and fight against things that you can do something about but you can do nothing about this so why waste your breath? ( unless of course you all vote for Labour in the hope that they will reverse the referendum decision or maybe get everbody voting for the SNPs and get them in power?

[Jim B]

Poppy
If you read the history of the Brexit Campaign it didn't start last year it began in 1974 when certain polititians continued to fight against being in the EEC and later EU membership and after 41 years they managed to turn the result around. I'm certain it won't take 41 years so we will continue campaigning to reverse this decision that we see is taking the future away from our kids and grandkids.

Jim

[Varky]

A very well thought out and constructed post Rita.

Agreed

[Rita Sherry]

Jim B

As I recall you had a democratic right to vote in or out on Brexit but you did not avail yourself of that right - in my book you therefore forfeit any right to fight, as you put it, to reverse the decision or criticise it and those who voted as they did - at least they voted.

I do not intend to enter an argument with you I am entitled to my opinion and, on this particular topic, I took the trouble, as did others, to ensure and put in place the mechanism enabling me to vote as I have done for the forthcoming General Election.

Rita

PS Thank you to all those people above for your kind remarks.

[Jim B]

Just to clarify Rita; like you I also took the trouble to register to vote which for one reason or another and even after communications with the Electoral Officer the postal vote failed to arrive so to say I never availed myself to vote is not strictly true. In my book I have as much right to contest or support any movement as any other person has. At no time have I ever suggested differently that you are not entitled to an opinion only that I disagree with it

Jim

[josef k]

It occurs to me that you and others on this forum who believe as you do are hoping and praying that everything will go wrong so you can all say "I told you so" hardly a grown up educated stance. I realise, and exclude from my view, those who likewise voted to remain but have reluctantly decided the decision has been made and we must endeavour to make the best of it. What do you think should happen - overturn the original vote to appease the 16+ million who voted "remain" and expect the 17+ million who voted "leave" to accept without demur.

I am a remainer, and always have been. I am certainly not hoping everything will go wrong, as ordinary people like me will suffer as well as the UK. I am one of those who recognise the decision to leave has been taken, and we are unable to change that. However, what angers me are a number of things:

1. The referendum gave people a leave or stay option, without explaining the consequences of those options. Therefore the result to leave was a leap into the unknown for everybody.
2. The UK government seems unable to publish any detailed and comprehensive stance they are taking for the leave discussions, unlike the EU which has recently published their's.
3. The UK government has not taken to opportunity to sufficiently reassure key industries that it will be fighting their corner. These industries range from Banking and Finance through to farming and the charity sector (many charities rely on EU funding).
4. The UK government seems intent on proceeding as much as possible without involving parliament. Whatever you think of parliament, they are there to represent the people and to ignore them is to ignore the people. Would we accept this on any other subject?

There are others, but listing any more is depressing.

Finally, the figures you quote (16m and 17m) demonstrate a key point. There isn't a great swathe of the UK population that want to leave the EU. It's not far off 50-50. To my mind there should never have been a referendum as it should have been a matter for a general election. Of course, now the UK is having one (rather late in the day and seeming against the PM's wishes) and it will be interesting to see it's outcome.