,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
From a mere international negotiation perspective, this proposal both rightly captures one of the problems of the past WA negotiations - and fails to really offer a remedy. Let me explain (thread)
1) Let’s start with the good: the UK government negotiated a deal. But it could not deliver a parliamentary majority. Such a majority is needed because of the “meaningful vote” requirement in UK law. So Hunt correctly identifies the problem.
I would go further: Parliament had no voice in the negotiations, was not kept sufficiently informed about the negotiation process. And the rhetoric was consistently putting up hurdles that nobody could or would jump over.
Changing this - providing for meaningful participation in the process - would be vital. So much for the good. Let’s move over to the bad.
2) The proposal seems to be to now just change the composition of the negotiating team. Someone from the DUP, Someone from the SNP, Someone from Wales. Why not someone from SF...
Hunt is right to say that if the EU could negotiate a deal with all of these constituencies, they could sell it at home. Because now you’ve just moved the problem of the impossibility of finding a domestic consensus to the negotiating room.
Sadly, international negotiations alone cannot build the consensus that the national level fails to build. What would be the right approach? The negotiation team needs to keep in close contact. Consult with all of these groups - closely, honestly.
But the negotiating team itself needs to represent the one, common, joint UK position. Don’t just take my word for it...
