Is Britain headed for a disastrous “crash landing” out of the European Union? This is the view of some European politicians concerned at the UK’s “divide and rule” tactics ahead of formal Brexit talks.
A leaked European parliament report seen by the Guardian accuses Britain of trying to “move the goalposts and do away with the referee” in the impending negotiations with the EU27 nations.
Guardian readers in Britain and across the EU discussed the negotiating positions and “red lines” likely to dominate once article 50 is triggered - with many doubting the process would end successfully for either side.
Below is a selection of their views.
The UK government has failed to manage expectations
The EU will hope for the best and prepare for the worst
I don't think May thinks that. I think it's politically expedient for her to appear as if she does though.
In my country we have saying that if translated litteally boils down to 'the soups is never eaten as hot as it is served'. There's an element of tough talk from both sides on this.
Still it would be fair to say that a degree of trust is vital in any negotiation and starting things off by threatening to become a Tax haven does runs counter to the 'we want close cooperation ' narrative by May. The EU is likely to hope for the best and prepare for the worst and take threats like that seriously and harden its position accordingly.
Lastly divida et impera is noting new but given the fact that after the Brexit deal a FTA with unanimous agreement will be needed it is indeed a dangerous strategy. People have long memories on this side of the channel.
And to the long term economic future of the UK the free trade agreement is more important. So to from my quote Indiana Jones movie 'choose wisely'.
May will talk tough but negotiate for a soft Brexit
In the EU negotiations there are two benchmarks to check the outcome against - does the situation advance and improve the UK's position from what it was prior to the Referendum, and does it ensure that economic growth continues in the decade after the agreement is reached?
It is difficult to see how any 'hard' version of Brexit could achieve either benchmark - wishful thinking about 'opportunities' and 'taking back control' does not a policy make. The risks associated with Brexit are all on the downside, and it is going to take a lot of compromise, especially on free movement of labour, for a deal to be struck that does not greatly disadvantage the UK economy.
My view is that May is talking tough on a hard Brexit but will negotiate for the softest possible one to avoid the consequential economic fallout that will inevitably come from a hard and disorganized exit. I hope this is the case.
The UK is deluded about the strength of its negotiating position
As I've been posting for over a year now, the EU leaders haven't even begun to fight, and the UK is severely deluded about the strength of its negotiating position and about the goodwill it still enjoys in the EU: both of these are diminishing.
The EU27/UK talks are likely to become acrimonious fairly quickly, given that the British government is clearly acting in bad faith and ready to use underhand tactics - i.e. diverting part of its aid budget to bribe eastern European states. If Britain is going for divide and rule tactics it shouldn't be so glaringly obvious!
I'm sure the EU will offer us a fair deal. But sadly for brexiters, the EU's idea of 'fair' is vastly different from theirs: brexiters think a 'fair' deal is for the EU to cave in on everything. It's all going to go pear-shaped fairly quickly for the UK, because the two negotiating positions are completely incompatible - and will remain so unless May makes big concessions. The EU won't: it's more united than ever before than the UK should get little or nothing of what it wants. Brexit is brexit, as we've been told repeatedly. That means no sweetheart deals, and no concessions without painful quid-pro-quos.
It's all too reminiscent of the England football squad: always hyped up as the 'best team ever', aiming for the final, only to crash out ignominiously against an underrated 'minnow' country in the first or second round. It's going to be painful to watch the UK, as it heads for either a bad deal or, worse still, no deal at all. We can't say we weren't warned.
The EU can ignore all the sound and fury
I don’t see the point of a divide and rule strategy in a situation in which every EU country has a veto. Surely it’s in the UK’s interest to think of a deal no one will want to reject. If the Brits are simply sounding out the smaller countries, that makes perfect sense. Maybe that’s all this is? Setting countries against one another or trying to buy them off individually will just make a deal impossible.
Time-consuming negotiation with the UK might be very costly for the EU in all kinds of ways. Perhaps there will come a point when the game isn’t worth the candle and the EU’s best tactic will be to let everything slide on, noisily but gently, to March 2019.
What do EU countries actually need in the short term, aside from a financial divorce settlement and clarity for EU migrants? If the migrant issue (who can live where and on what terms) is to be settled ahead of the rest, which everyone seems to want, then surely a financial divorce settlement can become priority number two and everyone be made to focus on that until it’s resolved.
Those two issues will absorb a huge amount of time and energy by themselves. They could easily take a year or more. Especially if the UK muddies negotiations about them by trying to make their resolution dependent on deals concerning other fields.
All the EU will need to do is make sure no damaging deals are done, which with a veto for every country shouldn’t be too difficult. If the UK comes up with brilliant ideas that suit everyone, fine. Otherwise the EU can ignore all the sound and fury from Britain and turn to more important matters. Offshore tax haven? Why not call Britain’s bluff? Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick.
Brexit shows the EU must change to survive
The EU has many internal problems and much internal unrest. Brexit highlights the extent to which it must change in order to survive. One major difference between Remainers and Brexiteers is that Brexiteers see the EU as unchangeable, intransigent, which is why they want out.
Personally, I think the next few years will see a lot of change in the EU. They will be forced to respond to Brexit, the rise of populism, anti EU feeling etc. I believe the EU will improve much of what is wrong, and will become stronger - in many ways at our expense.
In ten years time, we will be looking across the channel at their economy, at their living standards, at their advantages and we will be wondering how on earth we were stupid enough to walk away from it.
The irony is that it needed us to leave in order for them to change. We will bring about the changes that the UK wanted, by not being there to benefit from those changes. In years to come we will want to rejoin, but if we are allowed to, it will be on terms much worse than those we had before we left.
Forget a second referendum, we need a general election
The UK's future in the hands of Messrs Davis, Fox and Johnson. Put in place by a Prime Minister with no mandate. The democratic way forward is not a second referendum but an immediate general election. The current parliament has no legitimacy. The party manifestos on which it was elected are irrelevant in a completely charged political situation. Let the parties lay out their proposals for us for negotiations with the EU and let us choose our future.
‘We will crash out with no deal’
I can see no positive outcome from these negotiations, with the possible exception of mutually agreed rights for current residents. We will indeed crash out of the EU, with no deal at all, and a probable and damaging descent into mutual boycotts. The EU has used trade as a weapon to enforce centralisation in a way that the UK can't take. The only terms on which we can retain any trading relationship at all are those of capitulation.
The biggest problems are going to be the lack of a coherent negotiating position by the UK (rather than a wish-list), the lack of skilled negotiators and the failure of the Government to engage in expectation management. The third of these problems has the potential to result in a very nasty backlash. Brexit supporters have been told again and again that the UK is going to get a fabulous' cake and eat it' deal and then lots of money will be available for the NHS and other things. TM and the Brexiteers have fallen into exactly the same trap that DC did when he went to negotiate with the EU prior to the referendum - they have promised something that can't be delivered. Time will tell if the right-wing press will pretend that the final deal is a good one or simply tear the Government to shreds for not delivering.