I'll use this a convenient demonstration about trust and Brexit:
1/
1/
For those of you who don't know about this, it's a case of a cyclist who returned an adverse result in a doping test of a substance that's allowed for medical purposes, but not at the concentrations found in him
2/
2/
('a cyclist' is somewhat misleading: he's won the last four Grand Tours and is seeking to win his fifth Tour de France, something only done by a couple of others (Lance Armstrong now doesn't count with his 7))
3/
3/
Key point is that he's on a team that set up with a very strong ethos that doping was A Bad Thing and should be avoided both in fact or by implication
4/
4/
However, this case has cast a big shadow over this ethos, esp as it comes after various other instances of dubious behaviour (google yourself silly about jiffy bags)
5/
5/
In short, much smoke, so maybe some fire.
And that shadow will cast far into the future
6/
And that shadow will cast far into the future
6/
The team will find (indeed, already does find) that its actions and motives are called into question and anything that looks dubious is minutely examined
7/
7/
Generally speaking, the benefit of the doubt is given less and less, for both the individual and the team
8/
8/
So, to pull this back to Brexit, I guess the parallels are obvious.
9/
9/
Even if UK can produce a viable plan in its White Paper next week, that doesn't resolve the trust issue and the large shadow of the past
10/
10/
The experience of the past two years will not be erased by one policy document, not least because words are not same as actions
11/
11/
If the aim is to secure a working and constructive relationship with EU, then UK will have to show itself to be reliable, rigorous and trustworthy for a long period, so EU can see this isn't just a play, but How Things Are
12/
12/
Just as Froome and Sky will find the questions about their actions continue for years to come, despite no formal case, so too will May and UK will find the same, even if they can deliver an Art.50 deal
/end
/end
