Thread by @jonworth

I see "the EU side was too defensive" is the next argument people close to Number 10 are briefing to supposed experts, to shift a bit more blame

Brigid Laffan partly puts that critique in its place in this thread, but I'd also ask: if it a problem the EU was somewhat defensive?

https://twitter.com/BrigidLaffan/status/1336262089464311812

The UK left, heading off to pastures new, leaving the EU largely where it was. The main prerogative for the EU was to make sure that what it saw as working - the four freedoms, essentially - were preserved. There is no problem with that.

There is also the problem that a positive future for the EU is fraught with problems - the EU does not have a complete and coherent vision for its own future, although it is likewise not going to collapse - it has a sort of defensive stability.

Also I cannot possibly see how the EU can have been proactive towards a UK that itself has nothing approaching a coherent vision of its own future. You might argue that May had more idea here than Johnson, but the clear message to the EU was "stay away".

There is also the delightful irony that the EU institutional setup - so diffuse and incapable of showing clear and decisive leadership - is exactly the way the UK wanted it, and pushed for (for example) during VGE's Convention on the Future of Europe.

The EU is stable but not decisive - by design. And Britain was at least in part responsible for that.

The UK, by contrast, is supposed to have solid majorities in the Commons that allow PM & Cabinet to chart a clear course, and take decisive action.

Yet here we are awaiting a Brexit decision delayed by fishing, with a cabal of Tory backbenchers holding Johnson hostage.

/ends