Day: December 8, 2020

Boris Johnson is in Brussels today to meet EU leaders in a last-ditch attempt to hammer out the details of a post-Brexit trade agreement.

Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a joint statement on Monday that “remaining differences on critical issues” still stood in the way of agreeing a deal, despite lengthy phone negotiations between the two stretching late into the evening.

A time and date for an in-person meeting between Johnson and his EU counterparts has yet to be confirmed, but with European leaders gathering for a summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has reportedly told MEPs that the deadline for finalising a deal is Wednesday.

What is the state of play?

The ongoing stalement between the two sides after months of negotations is causing frustration and despair among politicians desperate to prevent the UK crashing out of the bloc without a trade treaty in place.

Johnson and von der Leyen said yesterday that “the conditions for finalising an agreement are not there due to the remaining significant differences on three critical issues”: the “level playing field”, governance and fisheries.

The warning came even though the UK government had just “offered an olive branch in the form of a route to removing controversial clauses from domestic legislation, including its draft Internal Market Bill”, according to Politico.

These clauses would “give the UK power to unilaterally override the divorce deal struck with Brussels last year”, says the news site, but would be “unnecessary if the two sides could implement a solution to concerns the British had about how Brexit would be implemented in Northern Ireland”.

Paving the way to a deal?

The face-to-face meeting between Johnson and von der Leyen is a “sign that eight months of technical negotiations have gone as far they can” and that if there is to be a deal, “political leaders will now need to step in and broker a compromise”, says Bloomberg.

“Equally, it suggests both sides still think they have time before the ultimate deadline at the end of the year and aim to use it to extract last-minute concessions,” the site adds.

But the final outcome may not hinge entirely on Johnson’s trip to the Belgian capital.

“Whatever happens, some in the EU insist they will keep negotiating, even if a deal isn’t struck this week,” Politico reports. Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok has hinted that negotiations could drag into Christmas, with the EU “even willing to continue negotiating after the end of the transition period”, says the site.

Nervous Tory backbenchers

The Independent‘s political editor Andrew Grice predicts that around 25 hardcore Eurosceptics in the Tory party “might condemn” any concessions made by Johnson as “BRINO”, meaning Brexit in name only.

The prime minister has attempted to assuage these fears, telling reporters today that he is near the “limits” on Brexit and could “draw stumps”.

“Our friends have just got to understand the UK has left the EU in order to be able to exercise democratic control over the way we do things,” Johnson said. “There is also the issue of fisheries where we are a long way apart still.

“But hope springs eternal, I will do my best to sort it out if we can.”

Market analysts have suggested that no agreement would be “preferable for Johnson as that would leave all the economic damage blamed on the EU with Brexiteers on his side”, reports Business Insider.

Deal deadline

Barnier reportedly told MEPs in a closed meeting on Monday morning that talks were now in their “endgame” and would need to be wrapped up within days.

Any deal must be unanimously backed by the EU27, approved by various European parliaments and then pushed through the UK parliament before the transition period expires on 31 December.

Indeed, “even if a deal is reached”, the chances of formally completing the process before the end of the year “already seem slim”, says Deutsche Welle.

But Johnson is refusing to admit defeat, with a spokesperson for the PM insisting that the UK is prepared to continue for “as long as we have time available”.

The Week’s daily round-up highlights the five best opinion pieces from across the British and international media, with excerpts from each.

1. Rachel Sylvester in The Times

on an embarrassing saga

Who’ll want to do a deal with us after this?

“Instead of playing to Britain’s strengths – reliability, stability, respect for the rule of law – Mr Johnson has undermined the qualities that are most admired around the world. The prime minister threatened to break international law and tear up an agreement that he struck with the EU only a year ago, putting at risk the fragile peace in Northern Ireland. That will surely worry others who are considering entering into a free trade deal with Britain. British institutions that are respected across the globe, such as parliament and the judiciary, have been trashed by the revolutionaries in No 10. The government even appears prepared to sacrifice the Union in the pursuit of ideological purity. The Department for International Development has been scrapped, and the aid budget, which has done so much to boost Britain’s ‘soft power’ abroad, cut. To potential allies around the world, Britain under Mr Johnson seems untrustworthy, petty, confused and inward-looking.”

2. Philip Ball in the New Statesman

on pointless jingoism

The UK government’s vaccine nationalism is not only distasteful – it’s dangerous

“[Health Secretary Matt Hancock] and his colleagues have only soured what should have been a celebratory moment with more of the petty divisiveness that has curdled public discourse over the past few years. As with Dominic Cummings’s flouting of lockdown rules earlier this year, this might look superficially like a political spat – but it has serious implications for public health. For that reason, the government’s chief scientists must intervene. The deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam already did a sterling job, in the government press briefing on 2 December, of restoring the international perspective on vaccine development. But the scientists also have a duty to warn the government that its cheap and deceitful nationalism could do real harm to the already challenging vaccination programme. It has to stop.”

3. Paul Krugman in The New York Times

on denial in Congress

Republicans can’t handle the truth

“There’s obviously a big difference in immediate impact between refusing to accept evidence that contradicts your policy preconceptions and refusing to accept the results of an election. But the mind-set is the same. The point is that once a party gets into the habit of rejecting facts it doesn’t want to hear, one fact it’s bound to reject sooner or later is the fact that it lost an election. In that sense there’s a straight line from, say, the Republican embrace of climate denial to the party’s willingness to go along with Trump’s attempts to retain power. And the G.O.P.’s previous history of dealing with inconvenient reality gives us a pretty good idea about when the party will accept Joe Biden as the legitimate winner of the 2020 election — namely, never.”

4. Marwan Bishara in Al Jazeera

on an ugly alliance

Saudi Arabia: Time to face the music

“[Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu’s smug phoniness must have been especially irritating and embarrassing to the monarchy, which reportedly moved to cancel an upcoming secret visit by the Israeli intelligence chief. Make no mistake, Saudi Arabia remains keen on improving security ties with Israel to contain Iran, but without openly normalising relations, as such a move could cause a backlash within the kingdom and part of the Islamic world. Unlike its smaller neighbours, the kingdom has much to lose from openly betraying the Palestinian cause. With President Donald Trump’s defeat in the US elections, Riyadh lost its staunchest ally at the White House. The monarchy is now obliged to tread carefully, walk back some of its mistakes and avoid any new risky moves before a less friendly administration takes over next month.”

5. Tian Shichen and Bao Huaying in the South China Morning Post

on diplomatic hypocrisy

In Australia’s Twitter row with China, no surprise who the West sides with

“In the past, Australia had been the one to stand on the moral high ground to criticise China on alleged human rights violations. Now, however, it is Australian soldiers who stand accused of gross violations of humanitarian laws. Given the facts of the war crimes committed by Australian soldiers, it is strange to see the rest of the Western world teaming up and siding with Canberra by accusing China of being biased and unprofessional in targeting Australia. Countries including the US, France and Britain, to name just a few, have showed their support for Australia in one way or another. Such teaming up cannot be fully explained by the fact that condemnation of Australia’s behaviour during the Afghan war is to some extent equivalent to condemnation of those other countries, since many were also involved in the Afghan operation as Nato allies.”