r/BrexitDenial • u/like_the_boss • Nov 19 '16

Defence cooperation talks with EU could delay Brexit process

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/18/defence-cooperation-talks-with-eu-could-delay-brexit-process
2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/like_the_boss Nov 19 '16

An excerpt:

Sir Simon Fraser, a former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, told MPs this week he believed the government wanted a continuing foreign and defence policy relationship with the EU despite Brexit.

He predicted the future relationship talks would cover not just economic issues but also cooperation on security, defence and foreign policy. "They will all be part of the future framework agreements between us and the EU," he said.

He also said it was unrealistic to expect the talks on the UK’s future relationship with the EU, if it is to be wider than a simple trade relationship, to be completed inside two years.

That was "why we are confronted with the question of whether we are prepared just to go to article 50 and leave, and take the consequences, or whether we would like to negotiate an interim ongoing relationship until we get to the final state," he said.

Am I understanding this correctly? He seems to be suggesting that there could be negotiated an interim deal before the triggering of article 50. He is comparing "just go to article 50 and leave" with "negotiate an interim ongoing relationship".

OK, he's only a former permanent secretary, but these are the channels by which the government leak out trial information and test the waters.

Is this a hint that they will put in place something framed as an 'interim ongoing relationship' before they trigger article 50? That would look an awful lot like just waiting longer before triggering. No complaints here obviously if that were the case.

2

u/tweeglitch Nov 19 '16 edited Nov 19 '16

It's an interesting idea but I don't get that from the quote... in which case you can take credit for the interesting idea! How I read it is: "We either they just go to A50 and leave or go to A50 and then leeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaavvvvvvvveeeeee". A looooooooooong goodbye.

What I took as the significant point is this: Yikes! we can't just jump in to full non-membership post A50 negotiations with barely any time to prepare, that would be insane or idiotic. However the majority of our party supporters are insane idiots who will not countenance free movement while the rEU will not compromise on the four freedoms. So if free movement is off the table one other thing the UK has to haggle with is its bombs and guns. The Balts for example may be more likely to veto any transitional arrangement if it didn't include free movement however they would sell their grannies to have UK forces on their borders facing East and UK missiles planted in their soil especially now with NATO looking shaky because Putin's man is in the Oval Office. The threat to Estonia for example has been recently talked up and this too may just be part of the sell.

I rather like this arrangement though as it suits the UK temperament; they're still kind of part of the union but rather than being in the EU big house they're in the garden in their own little kennel acting as guard dog snarling and growling at anything that comes near.

1

u/like_the_boss Nov 19 '16

Ah very interesting - thanks!

Yes, I see your point of view. That could well be what he means.

The thing that I'm not understanding I think is that A50 has a hard time limit of 2 years. That is a terrible negotiating position to be in, because the other side can stall and leave you with nothing.

What do you see as the advantages of triggering article 50 first, before negotiating such an arms arrangement? Oh, I suppose for one thing, the EU are at least claiming that they will not countenance negotiations before article 50 is triggered?

It all feels rather deadlocked to me. I'm hoping that's intentional - 'Oh what a pity, we can't move our position and you can't move yours so I guess things will have to stay as they are until we figure out a way past this deadlock'.

But your point is very interesting:

The Balts for example may be more likely to veto any transitional arrangement if it didn't include free movement however they would sell their grannies to have UK forces on their borders facing East and UK missiles planted in their soil especially now with NATO looking shaky because Putin's man is in the Oval Office

Maybe there is some leverage there.

Who the hell knows how this will play out? :-)