Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
A key section for me is the admission that inserting treaty-breaking clauses in the Internal Markets Bill, And briefing the Northern Ireland secretary to clearly admit it with the phrase “limited and specific” was a deliberate use of the “madman” strategy ... up to that point the EU simply didn’t believe there was any chance we would walk without a deal (thanks for nothing, Teresa May); after that, they had just enough nagging doubt to start taking our demands seriously.
It’s also interesting how deeply the EU’s Orwellian redefinition of sovereignty runs in that institution. As I’ve said all along, the problem has in large measure been down to their inability to understand what we actually mean by “sovereignty”. I know Orwell and 1984 is over-referenced in situations like this but the redefinition of terms so as to make opposition impossible is a bona fide part of that book. Newspeak as conceived by Orwell. |
I think our lack of preparations until too late in the day suggested that no deal was not really on the menu. The tinkering with the NI treaty may well have been an attempt to sow some doubts here.
What to me will be fascinating is what happens next. Certainly, in any disputes with the EU on the level playing front, any action the EU takes will have a far bigger impact on the UK than the other way roumd. Equally sovereign should not be confused with equally powerful.