Not really. It's a nicely written piece and brings you closer but also shows why a lot of politicians are utterly misplaced in the Brexit negotiation (and why keeping them mostly out was a very good decision from EU side). /1
To be fair, it's often forgotten that politicians are humans and not manifestations of opportunistic evilness. However, there are a lot of ppl out there who're decent but w/ an incredibly low technical & conceptual skills. U like to drink a beer w/ them but their work's shit. /2
Under normal circumstances Davis would have been right to say that politicians are not supposed to be experts or incredibly intelligent, they show the direction and Civil Servants implement it. /3
However, Brexit is an anomaly and NOT normal. First, there is generally a lack of experience of dealings w/ EU as a third party. Politicians and negotiators seem to have made the mistake to approach it as a usual negotiations when they were inside EU. /4
Second, UK doesn't decide over the shape of the menue but over them particular choice from the menue and its implementation. EU decides on what is on offer, not UK. /5
And their priority is not undermining EU membership (hence SM integrity and prioritising vital interest of members as Ireland to third parties) and economic welfare (hence level playing field). UK's interest are not a value on its own to them. /6
If you follow @APHClarkson @KeohaneDan @Sime0nStylites @DavidHenigUK @ottocrat @odtorson @hhesterm or @OliverNorgrove you will understand why they put those priorities in that order. /7
You might say that this are details but they reverse the usual situation of politicians giving directions and civil servats implement. They can't implement what is not implementable since the direction chosen (e.g. CETA+ without backstop) doesn't exist. /8
The minister needs to be an expert, because in many ways Ireland and Germany and France will have more impact on the outcome of Brexit for UK than UK itself. To even have a bit of control, those actors need to be understood en detail. /9
Just then, and only then, the directions possible are known and can be decided upon (which is when civil servants can start to actually implement the decision). /10
Many of those vilified politicians might actually be nice or decent human beings, but they are utterly unsuited (and I refer not just to Leavers). They argue from a weird position of strengths UK had inside the EU. /11
Due to its sheer size, welfare and network it was one of the biggest veto players. Hence the opt outs and the membership discount. Without UK agreeing nothing moved, especially if changes were necessary UK was efficient in exploiting those situation. /12
Process within EU made them immune to sheer power play by other member states as e.g. Germany or France. Those times are over, outside EU there are little rules binding EU in how to treat third parties. This has to be understood before even attempting to negotiate. /13
Reading the article highlights two things: 1) Thank good he is not in charge anymore. 2) There are a lot of good but equally inadequate people who will make the Brexit conundrum worse. /14
With prioritising politics before knowing which policies are possible they lead the negotiations into the metaphorical abyss. /15
One of EU's strengths was to understand its power, define few red lines based on that and leave Barnier in charge who approach it as a civil servant: unspectacular, dull but efficient and most likely successful. /16
Even if there is no deal, it probably ends up w/ UK coming back and signing whatever fits EU's red lines. However, if EU wouldn't have the power surplus they have now - they would have similar problems as UK. /17
In any case the article illustrates the wider problem, highly recommended to read it. 18/18
Or to put it in other words 👇
