24/07/2016
Through the fog of political rhetoric, we get from French Finance Minister
Michel Sapin a glimpse of the other side of the Brexit adventure, where the uncertainty is as damaging to the other Member States as it is to the United Kingdom.
Thus, while he is reflecting the realism stemming first from Angela Merkel and then his own boss, that the UK was unprepared for the outcome of the referendum to leave the European Union and so should be given time to respond, Sapin is also saying that, it should not take too long because of the damaging uncertainty, said.
"At the time, which is understandable given the shock and the lack of preparation of the British authorities, Britain needed a bit of time to organise itself and reflect on the way it should respond" Sapin tells Reuters.
He then adds: "But the time should not be indefinite, uncertainty is damaging, also economically, and in particular for Great Britain. So one needs to engage in negotiations as soon as possible. The talks cannot be done in bits".
The very last comment â on doing the talks in bit - is a little curious. If, for instance, we are staying in the EEA and rejoining Efta, than the only way the talks can be done is "in bits".
However, one should not run away with the idea that Sapin necessarily knows what he's talking about. Very often in politics, the higher up the tree you go, the less you know of what is going on around you. It would not be the first time that a Minister has been the last one in his own building to learn of important developments.
Nevertheless, the recognition that the UK will need to take a little time before it invokes Article 50 is at least seeping through the body politic, and that bodes well for the UK government, if it uses the time wisely.
On the other hand, nothing we're seeing indicates that the Government has in any way got as grip on the strategic aspects of Brexit, to the extent that it can define its strategic objectives.
Most likely, Mrs May â described by her detractors as a "belief-free zone" - doesn't have any strategic objectives. Rather, she is overly focused on the mechanics of leaving, without giving any thought to what we as a nation can achieve from the process.
All we have on offer of any substance comes from Mr Alexander (aka Boris) Johnson, temporarily on the other side of the Atlantic at the United Nations. He is saying that there is "absolutely no doubt that a balance can be struck" between access to the tariff-free market and the Single Market four freedoms.
But that is not pleasing back-benchers such as
Bill Cash. He declares that the 1972 Act has to be repealed, whence he says, "Once we repeal the Act, we can't remain inside that market".
Although Cash has a reputation for being able to clear a room faster than the most strident of fire alarms, one should not under-estimate the mesmeric hold he has on the backbench group of Tory "eurosceptics". They treat him with a reverence normally reserved for minor deities. What Cash says, no "eurosceptic" Tory backbencher dare put asunder.
Thus, behind the scenes, his brooding presence poisons the well of discourse and the group cannot even agree publically on the basics, such as invoking Article 50. In the Land of Cash, to get out of the EU, we repeal the ECA and drop out of the Single Market.
Unsurprisingly, the Cash stance has been adopted by the
European Research Group, and informal grouping of Tory eurosceptic MPs, formerly chaired by Chris Heaton-Harris, but now led by Steve Baker.
This is the same MP on the Treasury Committee who was so pressed for time that he couldn't hear my views on the need to stay in the Single Market. His group of MPs "do not trust" May to deliver on her pledge that "Brexit means Brexit" and have decided to insist on "total control of migration" as a "red line" in the Brexit negotiations, the scrapping of the ECA and severance of full links to the Single Market.
Baker says the MPs want to be "constructive" and "don't want to be oppositional ... at the moment", adding that if May sticks to her pledges, "all will be well". But he warns: "If we end up with the government doing things that don't end the supremacy of EU law, donât leave us able to control our own migration policy and leave us in the EEA, then there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction".
May's position is said to be somewhere "between Canada and Norway", which means it might as well be on planet Zog where she can join Baker who, I guess, is not going to be terribly supportive of
Flexcit in the Treasury Committee report.
With the Government limited to a working majority of 16, there are enough of these back-bench trouble-makers to bring down May if things don't go their way, and one MP warns of potential trouble, saying: "We showed under [David] Cameron that we can easily overturn that whenever we want to if we don't like the direction things are going in".
This puts May, potentially, in a difficult position. Seemingly lacking a coherent position of her own, she is also going to be pressured by a totally incoherent group of Tory backbenchers who are so far from reality that planet Zog, by comparison, is a garden suburb.
At a European level, though, May is being told that she cannot expect any special favours when the UK negotiates a new deal. A German government source warned that Merkel believes there will be, "tough times ahead" and that "we are entering a long and difficult process".
With her backbenchers playing hardball, the new Prime Minister may find herself having to rely on Opposition support to keep her agenda on track, with some serious squabbling to come when reality bites and deals have to be made with the "colleagues".
Perversely, that has the
Independent forecasting that Mrs May will enjoy only the very briefest of honeymoons, following which she must expect trouble. I wonder at which point she might decide that becoming Prime Minister was a rather bad idea.
