In other news it appears the Prime Minister has yet to make a choice between a deal and not. Don't worry PM, only tens of thousands of jobs riding on it... in.reuters.com/article/britai…
To be clear, no deal won't be 'accidental'. It will be either because the Prime Minister couldn't make up his mind whether to go for a deal that would cause problems in his party or no deal, or because he chooses no-deal. A deal is there if he wants it.
So why always blame the UK side, why is this not the EU's fault if no-deal? Well, the EU is the larger player, which matters in trade deals, has already softened on all the most unacceptable parts of their original proposal, and has done deals with virtually all neighbours.
No-deal is on the UK because we refused the extension of time, but more because it turned out the government's view of the world was incompatible with an EU deal - in particular their view of absolutist sovereignty for an EU deal only.
There is a fantasy EU for the Brexit-ultras (SPECTRE, basically) and a fantasy EU for the remain-ultras (a cuddly bunch who will change all their rules today just for a rejoining UK).
In the real, right now, business wants and needs the deal on offer.
The incendiary nature of such a move for relations with the EU and US can hardly be overstated. But that this is even considered suggests the UK government to be deadly serious about no-deal and breaking the withdrawal agreement. thecritic.co.uk/government-to-…
The biggest Brexit risk of coming months is a UK government which does not believe the EU or US really care about the UK breaching the Withdrawal Agreement, or will understand the government's (unique) point of view on what it signed.
UK government ministers can repeat their mentions of protecting the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like, the EU, Ireland, and the US disagree profoundly that proposed UK government measures achieve this, and for very good reason.
I have no idea why senior German politicians are currently undermining EU negotiators since such comments make no deal more likely in making the UK think the EU will give way at the last minute, which won't happen.
The public EU endgame of UK FTA negotiation - deadline confusion, ignoring rights of their own institutions, undermining each other - has been pretty shambolic.
Right, I promised what is a 'thin' FTA and why is the UK-EU not 'thin'. Here it is, not exactly @Usherwood class of picture, but will have to do for now. First, a very rough classification of Free Trade Agreements. Reduce tariffs, go a bit further than WTO is the summary.
Thus for example a UK-US FTA is likely to be mostly in the middle box. Not much extra market access from the US. Then we call it ambitious.
But with the EU? Most likely, from what we know, across the standard and enhanced boxes.
Final, most important point. Free Trade Agreements are nothing like a Customs Union or Single Market in terms of eliminating barriers to trade, however ambitious. That's why so many countries have chosen to go further. The UK is unusual in choosing to increase trade barriers.
This doesn't match what the EU has said. Again, maybe it will be right and a deal on fish will unlock a UK EU deal. Or maybe it is wrong but the UK side has decided fish is the most explicable reason for no deal. We simply don't know, and have to be a bit sceptical.
If the UK side are understating the difficulties of level playing field and governance in EU talks, thinking them on the verge of resolution because the EU will back down, that would be a repeat of something we have seen in these talks several times before.
Withrespect (or not) to the Labour Party's decision making processes, backing an EU FTA should be one of the easiest decisions they will make.
Far harder to decide if they are prepared to propose to challenge the government's approach to "sovereignty" theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
Why is an EU deal so easy to back - because having no trade deal with neighbours is so obviously nonsensical, something that practically every country in the world has recognised. That should also cover a no-deal policy. But will Labour go further? theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Part of the UK government's trade policy is to have the closest relations with majority white English speaking countries however far away. There are reasons - to take on the EU's regulatory power, join a new club. But most countries prefer deeper relations close to home.
As Charles has previously noted, I don't share the optimism he expresses here! Some technical progress doesn't I think make up for serious political and philosophical difficulties - on both sides. A big jump to a deal both parties can sell - achievable but very difficult.
The other part of the Brexit jigsaw. Same broad issue, technically achievable (though hard), politically extremely delicate particularly on the UK side. And mid-December completion is cutting things extremely fine.