I don't think that even this is completely true, certainly at the highest level.
Possibly. It's probably a mix of different factors.
I still believe Boris and Gove wanted a slim defeat in order to stage a party political coup.
That's certainly believable, Boris especially was grooming himself to take the reins of power. And the best support for this idea is that when he had the chance to become PM he chose not to so the UK got May instead.
It was quite clear that being the PM who is responsible for Brexit is a poisoned chalice, the likelihood of getting anything close to the fanciful ideas presented during the campaign is next to none and you're almost guaranteed that you'll be crucified at the next election when it all goes tits up.
Tbh I think you can see that with Rees-Mogg. He's out there going on and on about Brexit and May's actions but then turns around and says that he doesn't want to be PM.
The actions of many other leaders of the Leave campaigns also suggests they "didn't want a victory, they just wanted to fight" as they line up foreign passports, residencies etc.
Yeah, makes sense.
All good points. I did not use the term punish, but the EU do have a policy that the UK must be left worse off after leaving the EU. I am sure this is 'pour encourager les autres' or rather discourage any others from leaving. The UK has to be made an example of, any punishment is just an 'unintended' consequence.
By definition the UK would be worse off when it comes to EU matters by leaving, it's just the level of worse-off-ness depends.
At the very least the UK can't leave and still expect to be able to directly influence EU policy as it is able to do now being part of the EU. Depending on what the UK wants to/does not want to accept their position will affect how much worse off they'll be.
I would disagree over the club metaphor; any analogy is always limited. In this case the members of the club will make the rules; an affiliate will have to follow the rules when in the club, but can be a member of other clubs. The argument that the UK cannot have a bespoke deal is nonsense all deals are bespoke; between the EU and Norway, the EU and Canada; the EU and Switzerland etc.
The problem isn't that the UK can't have a bespoke deal, it's that the bespoke deal they want would be better than a country being in the EU. To keep using the club analogy, what the UK wants is to be an affiliate of the club but not have to follow any of the rules of the club, nor have to listen to people who decide if you've broken the rules while in the club. It'd be fair to say that no club would accept such a position from an affiliate regardless of whether that affiliate was a former full member of the club.
Yes there are two issues. The GFA, and Brexit. The EU insisted on the linkage.
Because they are. Cross border policies undertaken by bodies empowered by the GFA and relevant legislation are going to be seriously affected by circumstances that would require a hard, or harder, border.
I do not think that the EU has provided a solution; except in saying that the UK has to remain part of the common travel / trade area and subject to the ECJ. Essentially the EU is saying that the UK can check out of the EU but it can never leave.
Tbh I think the main solution the EU has is that the UK doesn't leave. You list a second solution there, the third one was that NI remains in the customs union/EFTA while the rest of the UK leaves. All of these solutions have been shot down for one reason or another.
The Good Friday agreement is between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the EU is not party to the agreement. Ireland as part of the EU is entitled to participate in the negotiations between the UK and the EU, but the EU should not be party to negotiations between RoI and the UK.
They are in as much as the agreement is affected by Brexit. Effectively what's being asked from Ireland is how the UK is going to be able to uphold their end of the GFA given the changes in circumstances that will happen once the UK leaves.
I would argue that at most the EU should have said that the RoI like all other members of the EU ultimately would have a veto on any agreement.
But they already do have that. IIRC the final agreement requires unanimity from the Council of Europe. All you're suggesting is that the EU says that Ireland has the right to do something they already have the right to do.
The RoI could then have said that they would veto any agreement if no agreement over the GFA could be reached. It is not up to the EU to say whether any arrangements on the border between RoI and the UK meet the GFA that is a decision that the RoI and the UK need to come to.
Ireland, as a sovereign nation, has the right to ensure their interests are represented. Since their interests regarding the GFA rely on a deal that's able to fulfil those interests they are negotiating it now instead of just vetoing whatever gets decided on because nobody discussed them.
