A Barnier type of person would do the UK well, because you got to give it to the EU: they have an EXCELLENT chief negotiator: he's on the job, into the details and sticking to facts only, leaving out the high emotions both during the press moments as well as behind closed doors…
I actually have said this in the past on these boards, and Farage has actually said it to him as well apparently
I know you did, but meanwhile the UK could to be moving in the opposite direction, even considering appointing political ambassadors now.
Which by the way wouldn't have been the case as a EU member either, given the opt out granted on that front.
I'm not sure to what you are referring to here, can you clarify please
I'm refering to the fact the UK was not supposed to participate in the concept of an ever closer union as a EU member any longer, as per opt-out secured by DC just prior to the referendum.
It might have gone unnoticed in the campaign, and it is yet another one of the elements of a potential solution to the current mess which has long been forgotten, but there are a whole lot of building blocks which have been put on the desk of the UK by the EU to build its future with Europe with.
However, as the position of those in power keeps on hardening, they seem to have wiped all of them aside without having anything to replace them with.
One of the building blocks which has not been picked up, but might still be interesting nevertheless, is the one in which the EU initially offered the UK to have the backstop apply only to NI.
It was first accepted and later dropped again by the British government, not because of Tory opposition, but DUP opposition, even though it would have ment both NI as well as the rest of the UK would have been able to carry on on the basis of what their people had wanted, protected the GFA and allowed the UK to persue that all important independent trade policy.
In scenarios where the DUP is no longer needed to prop up a Tory government, what is there to prevent this idea to resurface?
A BoJo lead government seems likely to be brought down rather quickly, meaning new majorities could come into play...
Another idea from the EU is that the UK needn't pick its FINAL position from the famous slide on the different stages of EU collaboration yet.
The UK could for instance decide to just drop down one step (to the Norway+ model) by the end of October, thus honnouring it promise to leave, while at the same time and due to the nature of this model, avoid having to sign up to the contentious issues surrounding the backstop contained within the WA.
It can then take its time to sort out whether it wants to remain at that stage, or drop down further on the ladder of integration, all while building a majority at home for whatever it takes in return to be able to take any such further step(s).
Such a phased approach to Brexit would certainly avoid a disruptive cliffedge and would guarantee there's always a majority for each step taken as well as the end stage, while it would also allow for a more organically shaped outcome than the rather binary and undefined approach which has been taken ever since the referendum and which is leading to a complete gridlock.
Of course, it does mean that the discussion about Europe isn't likely going to go away soon in the UK, but the idea that it would otherwise have been off the frontpages in case of a hard Brexit, is quite fanciful anyway, so it doesn't really change a lot either in real life.
Can you show a single treaty that the EU can’t leave voluntarily without the consent of a third party nation.
All EU treaties will have an exit clause of some description
You're ill-informed if you think that is the case!
The most well-known EU treaty without an exit clause is the one on the introduction of the euro!
As Mario Draghi notoriously had to remind the markets with a now very famous quote: "the euro is IRREVERSIBLE and the ECB stands ready to do whatever it takes to prove that... and believe me: when we act, it will be enough"