Spuddling the facts, muddying the waters.

In his very cleverly worded piece in the Sunday Times of 18.8.19, entitled "...It casts itself as the good guy, but the EU's aim has been to humiliate and cheat..." Sir Peter Marshall, adopting frankly undiplomatic language states;

"...Our partners (The EU) also loaded the dice against us. Article 50(2) specifies that the European Council shall provide guidelines in the light of which “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State . . . [The agreement] shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council” (not the European Council, comprising heads of government, but the body a rung below, known as the council of ministers)…". The words in brackets are those of Sir Peter.

"...But they were not having that. The guidelines announced that the European Council “will remain permanently seized of the matter”. The whole withdrawal process was thus further prolonged by its subjection to the European Council’s ponderous timetable..."

Marshall's point is that the EU have deliberately made the negotiating of the EU Withdrawal Process as convoluted and difficult as possible. He appears to effect surprise that the EU would want to fight tooth and nail to protect the integrity of their Union and to make it difficult for members to leave whenever they wished.

His words are pretty clear, and he rings in a dubious interpretation of the meaning of the word 'Council', suggesting that it means something other than that which it became. What is clear is that Sir Peter appears to be of the opinion that the European Council, by remaining "...permanently seized of the matter..." was a matter for regret at the least, but he builds it up to support his wider allegation of bad faith and cheating.

Now consider his words in an earlier article he published in a piece called "...Light at the End of the Tunnel..?, published as a 'Brexit Briefing' on 28.3,18.

In the polemic it states; 

"...Sir Peter Marshall reviews the course of the negotiations over the year since invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. His assessment is “very positive”.

Maundy Thursday March 29^th marks the first anniversary of the despatch of the letter from the Prime Minister to the European Council triggering the Article 50 process. At the half way stage in the allotted span of two years for settling the withdrawal process, how should we assess our progress? The answer is “very positively”..".

Later in the piece it states;

"...the European Council wisely decided to remain seized of the matter of UK withdrawal throughout, instead of delegating it in effect from the board room to the shop floor, as specified in paragraph 2 of Article 50..."

Sir Peter chooses to interpret these words as meaning that the work should have been carried out by the Council of Ministers, but the legislation does not use those words at all, in fact there is no mention of the Council of Ministers, and this is only Sir Peter's interpretation. In any event, he says that the decision to keep the matter in the hands of the European Council, was a 'wise decision'.

So in March 2018, this former Mandarin thought the process '...is proceeding very positively..,' while now, he has significant cause to doubt the bona fides of our EU friends, and accuses them of bad faith and cheating.

So what is the truth?

My points here are only small ones, but from little acorns, etc, etc.

Having had quite a wide experience of the devious nature of some senior Mandarins in my career, I know only too well how they can swerve seamlessly around issues which do not appeal to them.