Thanks for your input, fitzy. Always worth reading. Here's the text of that article. I particularly like the reference to the "apocalyptic rhetoric" from Brussels and the calm statement that what Juncker has said about different galaxies is "overblown". Now there's a surprise, not.
The article
"The EU member states are 27, and yet they manage to speak with one voice. Minutes into their meeting on Saturday, European heads of state and government agreed their Brexit negotiation position. Britain is only one, yet the government is struggling to convey a message to Brussels that does not get lost in translation. EU sources have told The Times that they hear one thing from civil servants, then another from Theresa May. That is concerning.
Last Wednesday the prime minister sat down to dinner with Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, and Michel Barnier, chief Brexit negotiator. They were confounded by an apparent volte-face from the UK on the sequencing of talks. Oliver Robbins, the mandarin overseeing Brexit, had reportedly offered assurances that the “withdrawal settlement”, covering issues like Britain’s divorce bill and citizens’ rights, could be addressed before the start of trade talks. At dinner Mrs May is reported to have said otherwise.
EU diplomats also say that they are confused over the roles assigned to the British negotiating team. “We do not know who to call,” one diplomat said. Downing Street claims that there is nothing to be confused about, explaining that the prime minister will lead the negotiations, supported by the secretary of state and senior officials. EU negotiators could be forgiven for thinking that clears up little. Mrs May made a promising start to negotiations with her letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council. Now she has been tripped up by a failure to be clear on mechanics and process. It should not be that difficult to explain.
The gritty detail of negotiations is likely to be handled by neither David Davis nor Mrs May, but civil servants. Mr Davis’s job should be to direct his diplomats on anything of a political, not technical, nature. He will make his decisions in the knowledge that he holds his position only at Mrs May’s pleasure, and must retain her confidence to survive. Mrs May surely appreciates that she cannot be in the room for every word of the negotiation, but the last word will always be hers.
If mixed messages from Britain are dismaying, the apocalyptic rhetoric from Brussels should be taken with a pinch of salt. Mr Juncker has weighed in with his characteristic brio, accusing Mrs May of living in a “different galaxy”. He claims that “no deal” is now more likely than agreement.
That is overblown. Even the two disagreements that seem most intractable can be resolved. The first is over money. Britain will almost certainly pay something to the EU to cover financial commitments already made. The EU thinks that the sum should be big. The UK thinks that it should be small. Neither side has budged on this yet, but no wonder: talks have barely begun.
The second sticking point is sequencing. The UK — or Mrs May, at least — says that trade talks should run at the same time as exit talks. The EU says that the divorce deal, including the bill, must be settled first. In time, both sides are likely to row back a little. The first day of talks will not be about trade. It is also unnecessary, however, to proscribe any such talks until billions of euros have changed hands. Negotiators could perfectly well agree a set of principles for the calculation of the divorce bill first, then delegate the spreadsheet fiddling to technocrats while pressing on with talks about the future. Compromises will be possible — so long as the government is able to make its position clear."
