Thread by @pmdfoster

Sir Ivan Rogers has crashed the Policy Scotland website with his 11,052 word #Brexit speech.

The link is below, but in the interim, here are some excerpts and some commentary - since, as you'd expect, it gives a shrewd account of where #Brexit is now/1

policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-…

First point is this speech is a plague on both houses - remainers and brexiteers - and a call for analysis based on what is possible, not on wishful thinking.

That will always lead to charges of 'defeatism', but while Rogers may be an Eeyore, he knows too much to be ignored /2

First substantive point. There has been a rise in 'no deal' rhetoric again - see @FraserNelson column for a synthesis of these renewed threats here

telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/…

...But Rogers isn't buying.../3

Next. UK ministers need to get to grips with a new paradigm - it was much easier to cherrypick as a member than a non member.

As one UK source said to me (exasperated by minister) "Trust us" cannot be turned into operational legal text. /4

They also need to realise that the EU has politics too.

Stop for a second and imagine that the EU may be as attached to the integrity of its own legal order as we Brits are of our 'sovereignty' /5

And on the question of 'sovereignty' - the idea that we exercise sovereignty by absenting ourselves from the tables and meeting rooms where we had a chance to exercise sovereignty is completely back-to-front. /6

The focus on the Customs Union is "absurd" given the UK's reliance on services, not goods trade.

Equally absurd is the idea that leaving a customs union with the EU will pay dividends that outweigh the costs. (Agriculture is the caveat here.) /7

And by-the-by, if we do deregulate and leverage services against agricultural tariffs, there will be winners and losers.

And the losers are not going to be the 'citizens of nowhere'. On the contrary. /8

As a sidenote to that, I recently chatted with boss of top UK trade association who confided that 'none' of his members want a US-UK trade deal as they'd get 'wiped' by US competition given their scale and light labour market regulation. /9

Rogers moots a CU carve out on Agri, but admits he's not sure it negotiable.

But if it is, he warns of the price of not being honest that the "sunny uplands" will be cold and shady for a lot of people who voted for Brexit. (Feels like a long shot in current environment) /10

Which bring Rogers, reluctantly onto the MaxFav v Customs Partnership questions - and the possible landing zones of where this negotiation is heading.

Shorter: 1) MaxFac will never fix N-S Irish border Q. 2) UK would never agree to NCP, so why would EU? [They won't] /11

So. If MaxFac can't ever fix Irish border and if (as Rogers asserts) that Irish would never surrender their ratchet by time-limiting the 'backstop' in a temporary extension of transition, what happens when the Brexiteers hit that buffer, as they surely will? /12

First if you want (as May clearly does want) no 'border' in the Irish Sea, then Customs Union (as now 'temporarily' agreed) won't cut it since customs accounts for <30% of border checks. Rest is regulation.

Ergo we are heading for "deep" regulatory alignment on goods. /13

Which brings us to the *crunch* question.

If the UK agreed a Customs Union with reg alignment, and paid-to-play (like Swiss or Norwegians) and accepted the ECJ oversight implied by alignment, could the EU give us a pass on Free Movement?

As Rogers notes, EU 'doctrine' is that this is cherry-picking, and the UK using the "unique" Irish backstop arrangements to create an all-UK solution that will undermine the Single Market...but, but.... /14

You can see a world where such an arrangement rather suits the EU, -
protects them on goods (where they run surplus) and keeps UK locked in a vassal/colonial relationship, without much on services./15

There are also peripheral Member States - like Hungary, now openly building a new democratic model - that could see the utility of that kind of 'associate' status in a world where the Eurozone core coalesces and 'outer' states seek to rebalance their rights/obligations. /16

Interesting to note that parts of Brussels, when they saw Amber Rudd's leaked migration plan (preferential access for EU) wondered if the time might come that the UK would offer this, in lieu of Free Movement. /17

Not at all clear, as Rogers says, where that negotiation ends, which is interesting coming from someone who understand the rule and the limits of what is possible. /18

Also worth recalling that Europe is in its own state of flux -
Italy is a problem, Macron has an agenda, and Angela Merkel, the true keeper of the Freedoms, is far from the powerhouse she once was. /19

And that the EU debate on Free Movement is not entirely static. France is fed up of the talent drain to London. The V4 have labour market shortages etc. But I digress. /20

As Rogers concludes, the reality is that Brexit will be a series of cliff-edges. And we must confront the real, not imagined choices, that leaving the EU poses. ENDS

PS...good news. The Policy Scotland website seems to be up again. Now don't rush all at once, but if you got an hour to spare,worth reading in full.