Westminstenders: Boom. The Brexit Backlash starts to hit.

[RedToothBrush]

So it turns out that immigration figures that stated students overstayed were wrong. The home office knew this. And sat on it. Since 2015. Under Theresa.

That smells a bit doesn't it?

Imagine it: "Let's do lunch Paul. I'll cover up and give you a nice immigration story for your front page. In return, crown me PM."

Then tonight BOOM. Labour look like they have made a move. Soft very swishy Brexit. Even less brexity than the Beano Brexit that the Tories have been trying to announce on the quiet over the summer whilst Brexiteers are on holiday.

amp.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit
Labour makes dramatic shift on Brexit and single market
Party opens clear divide with Tories, with support for free movement and paying into EU budgets for up to four years

Labour is to announce a dramatic policy shift by backing continued membership of the EU single market beyond March 2019, when Britain leaves the EU, establishing a clear dividing line with the Tories on Brexit for the first time.

In a move that positions it decisively as the party of “soft Brexit”, Labour will support full participation in the single market and customs union during a lengthy “transitional period” that it believes could last between two and four years after the day of departure, it is to announce on Sunday.

This will mean that under a Labour government the UK would continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules, accept the jurisdiction of the European court of justice on trade and economic issues, and pay into the EU budget for a period of years after Brexit, in the hope of lessening the shock of leaving to the UK economy. In a further move that will delight many pro-EU Labour backers, Jeremy Corbyn’s party will also leave open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.

Why would Labour suddenly do this? It's not just because of the youth vote. What about their leave voters?

Faisal Islam on the subject:
2. On Labour Leavers is very very interesting and involves quite the psephological judgement re the election....
...the calculation appears to be that Labour Leave voters had the chance to vote for Theresa May's brand of Brexit, and bar 5 seats, said No
Was that because Lableave voters were already signalled "hard Brexit"? Or many millions such voters much more concerned about other things?

Have Labour been polling their voters on this?

Theresa has also apparently set her sell by date: Friday 30th August 2019.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-sets-date-shell-quit-11061894.amp
Theresa May sets date she'll quit as Prime Minister - giving herself time to see Britain through Brexit

The longer the transition and the squishier it gets, the more the more you wonder.

Mr Barnier will enjoy his coffee and newspapers tomorrow as he prepares for round two of Brexit talks starting next week.

The question on his mind most: Will David Davis remember to bring his notes this time?

. So why wouldn't we ask first for our most wished for situation? Why would we start negotiations already agreeing to loosing loads?
Because by leaving of our own volition we chose to leave behind the benefits of the EU.

No Corcory that is not what negotiations are, not even complex ones that cover commercial terms between businesses, let alone covering trade, legal arrangements, regulatory frameworks, collaborative arrangements on security, science, education etc. the rights of citizens, peace agreements and other political matters between nations.

Opening positions and red lines should be just a small stage in the process which is all about maximising your power and working collaboratively with the other side to identify the most mutually beneficial arrangements between you.

Firstly there needs to be extensive preparation on both sides so that they truly understand the issues and have a full grasp of the relevant information so they understand and are in a position to identify the risks and opportunities. The EU have done that and published it to all interested parties. The U.K. have already lost power in the negotiations because they have farted about and when their shallow position papers finally came out they were too little and too late with no sense or substance, and intended for the domestic political audience not a credible response to the EU position. Without that preparation the UK has no opening position just a vague wish list .

The EU already have the power because it is the UK who wants new arrangements and both the risks and the priority are (or in the case of priorities should be) much greater for the UK than the EU both collectively and individually. The farting about meant that the UK handed the power to the EU to set the agenda.

The two parties need to work together to find a way through the complexity, in what is effectively a game of chess, but the EU has to sit back and twiddle its thumbs whilst being subjected to a barrage of disrespect and blame which has nothing to do with the negotiation process and everything to do with the domestic political pluralism scene.

That is most definitely not how you conduct an effective negotiation on complex matters.

As someone who has been involved in complex contract negotiations if I was faced with such gross incompetence with a partner who needed the contract more than my side did, and it was a power ration of 1 to 27 I would be exploiting their weakness to get the best deal for my side.

This piece by a skilled experienced negotiator makes some of the same points. www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/the-art-of-negotiation/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41106507

'No decisive progress' on Brexit - Barnier'

Worth a quote "The delusion she would negotiate well has been fed by the media employing all kinds of completely inappropriate metaphors for the Brexit negotiations. From metaphors of waging war to metaphors of playing poker, they all characterise the process as binary and aggressive.

In fact – and I speak as somebody who has undertaken very serious international negotiations, including of the UK maritime boundaries and as the Head of UK Delegation to the Sierra Leone Peace Talks – intenational negotiation is the opposite. It is a cooperative process and not a confrontational process. Almost all negotiations cover a range of points, and they work on the basis of you give a bit there, and I give a bit here. Each side has its bottom lines, subjects on which it cannot move at all or move but to a limited degree. Sometimes on a single subject two “bottom lines” can be in direct conflict. Across the whole range of thousands of subjects, you are trying to find a solution all can live with.

So empathy with your opposite number is a key requirement in a skilled negotiator, and everything I have ever seen about Theresa May marks her out as perhaps having less emotional intelligence than anybody I have ever observed. Bonhommie is also important. Genuine friendship can be a vital factor in reaching agreement, and it can happen in unexpected ways. But May has never been able to strike up friendships outside of a social circle limited to a very particular segment of English society, excluding the vast majority of the English, let alone Scots and heaven forfend continentals. The best negotiators have affability, or at least the ability to switch it on. It is a vital tool.

That is not to say occasionally you do not have to speak and stare hard to make plain that one of your bottom lines is real. But that is by no means the norm. And you need the intelligence and sharpness to carry it off, which May does not. That is one of the many differences between May and Thatcher.

Frankly, if I had the choice between sending in Jeremy Corbyn, with his politeness and reasonableness, or Theresa May, into a negotiation I would not hesitate for a second in choosing Corbyn. I am quite sure there is not another diplomat in the World who would make a different choice. May’s flakiness and intolerance of disagreement represent a disaster waiting to happen."

From the DD/Michel Barnier press conference currently taking place

Q: [To Barnier] Are you seeing any sign from the UK they are being flexible?

Barnier says the UK has decided to leave the EU. The government has said it will leave the single market and the customs unions. He says he is following the guidelines he has been set.

Some of the issues may have not been debated in sufficient depth in the UK, he says.

He says he hopes there will be a debate in the UK about what being in the single market means. He will be happy to take part.

Reading some of the British papers, he says “a sort of nostalgia”. There are requests to enjoy the benefit of the single market without being part of it, he says.

'nostalgia' is a startling euphemism.

@IanDunt 6m
I am so embarrassed I want to hide under a chair.

There's nothing wrong with trying initially for a cake deal
BUT 2 years is a ridiculously short time to unpick 44 years of integration

Time is running out for any deal and there is a big imbalance in who needs a deal the most

The EU will suffer wrt British trade, whereas the UK will suffer not just wrt 27 countries / 450 million consumers, but also has no trade deals with any other country

Leavers keep saying the UK can turn back the clock to before joining the EC
BUT
world trade was not so heavily dominated by trade blocs
AND
the UK then had many trade deals with other countries and had its own agencies for medicines, banking; negotiated its own treaties for international flight etc

A Brexit on WTO terms - which is the A50 default - would be Year Zero for the UK

Politically, May got herself into a hole where she had to try for cake, to survive
But even party politics should have had a strict time limit before reality sets in.

I don't know how on earth Hard Brexit became the only acceptable option for the govt,
when there is the EEA/ EFTA option which the UK could request, with minimum economic pain.

We need to start somewhere

True, it not budging from the stance that we want everything we like to stay the same whilst dispensing of everything we don't like isn't going to get us anywhere.

The EU have been quite clear on what needs to be agreed before talks can move on.

We haven't even attempted to come up with sensible answers on any of those 3 items.

That's not negotiation, it's blatant arrogance.

@JohnRentoul

9 Tory MPs Publicly Back May to Stay On
and Gideon's on the case:
www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-britain-deserves-better-than-this-horror-show-a3623806.html?amp

Closed: Blyth job centre suddenly shuts after bailiffs raid building over legal dispute
www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/closed-blyth-job-centre-suddenly-13553685

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. It is really grim up here in parts of the North. When the shit really hits the fan... I do not think the government is even thinking that far.

We need to start somewhere

If you're going to take a very strong stance, then it's important that you can back this up with solutions to the problems that this position will undoubtedly cause. Simply throwing up your hands and saying that the other side has to be "imaginative and flexible" is worse than useless - it won't get you what you want and insults your opposite numbers. The UK should have worked out extremely detailed pathways many months ago for achieving their very ambitious ask. It is scandalous how blindly and churlishly the government is handling these crucial talks. Leavers should be outraged that not more is being done to bring about the promises that were made to them (Remainers, we know, have to shut up and put up).

When leaving an organization, you negotiate the best terms you can.

BUT, requiring the organization to tear up its most fundamental organization and rules is sheer fantasy

If the EU were to let the UK have cake and eat it then India, Japan, China , USA will want the same from the EU
Why not ? They are as big or bigger players than the UK

The EU wants a post-Brexit trade relationship with the UK, but not enough to disband itself.

But Ron, I'm talking about our opening positions. The EU's opening position on the 'divorce bill' is obviously their 'wish list'. I doesn't mean we have to agree, that's what I am getting at. Apparently asking for clarification and wanting to know on what legal basis these sums are based is 'arrogant'! Our negotiators have every right to ask these questions.

. I doesn't mean we have to agree,
The problem is, we already agreed. Last negotiating round. Then we've changed our mind. Who wouldn't want to strike a deal with a country who takes only weeks to reneg on an agreement?

Going through lone by line, which is what DD was claiming, would use up all the time left
That would mean no trade deal.

It is in the Uk interest to examine the figures and proceed quickly, but DD seems to think a filibuster is the correct strategy

I can only assume he thinks the EU is desperate for a deal, whereas the UK is not.
That if he delays on the 3 prerequisites - settling accounts, expats, NI - they will give up and move onto trade instead
I don't understand why he would think that

.... unless this is all just grandstanding for the Tory party:
Thee is no Brexit deal possible without Uk concessions that would be a political disaster for the Tory party

So DD is just wasting time deliberately, to exit without a deal and blame the EU for the following UK recession.

He is choosing a national disaster instead of a party disaster.

The Tory hard right also see a great opportunity opportunity to roll back the welfare state, during the turmoil and anger of a no-deal recession.

For some idea of the "Britain Unchained" that they want to see , you only need to look at the AIBU by a fervent Mumsnet Brexiter,
praising Australia's decision to drug test all welfare recipients.

The EU's opening position on the 'divorce bill' is obviously their 'wish list'.

I think it's simplistic - naive even - to consider the EU has any sort of "wish list" beyond not wanting the UK to leave.

But, since it's the UK that has decided to leave, it seems eminently reasonable that the UK comes up with the terms of leaving, and both sides work from that.

The problem is the UK hasn't come up with anything (beyond chauffage) , so the EU has had to plod on regardless.

Apparently asking for clarification and wanting to know on what legal basis these sums are based is 'arrogant'! Our negotiators have every right to ask these questions.

Asking for clarification on the EU stance is not the problem. Having no credible stance of our own is the problem. If we came to the table with clear, workable objectives it would be reasonable to then question and review the EU position. However, waking up and just going "your wrong! Your wrong!" while offering no realistic reasoning or alternative is in fact very arrogant.

Corcory It is not an opening position. It is a list of very vague ideas, it is in no way equivalent to the position papers the EU have issued, which after all are rooted in existing principles and agreements. On the financial settlement the EU position rests on a lot of previous committments and agreements that the UK entered into willingly, they have set those out, the Brexiteer position is that the UK just walks away, regardless of the damage to our international reputation. How do you negotiate with that? There are no principles to challenge! We would be playing on an entirely different playing field politically diplomatically and in trade terms to the rest of the world. If you rdnegenon your financial agreements you go to prison, the person you reached the agreement with does not say oh alright then I'll take the hit!

We would be playing on an entirely different playing field politically diplomatically and in trade terms to the rest of the world.

So far the rest of the world is unconvinced (and that's putting it mildly) with the UKs handling of Brexit.

Or, to put it another way:

When Davis, Johnson and Fox all hit town (like the three Amigos), no seriously developed country is going to waste any valuable time on them. They'll be paired off with the cheapest and least experienced negotiators, while the top-level staff work with the grown ups.

(with apologies to Ben Elton and RIchard Curtis) ... it's as if the Leavers wanted to see how international relations are handled, so badly ...

There's a suggestion for a 'The Thick of It' brexit special, I don't think Malcom Tucker character would have a wide enough vocabulary to do it justice.

It is really grim up here in parts of the North
Elena talking to a lovely lovely relative from Sunderland (brexit and tory voter)at weekend, I hear you.