Post Brexit vote: Deciphering the messages

Voices, voices. The First Minister in Dublin. Her Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, in Holyrood. UK Ministers, reportedly seeking to have their cake and eat it too. And of course the verdict from Malta.

Malta? Yes, Malta. A (continuing) member of the European Union. And the state which will hold the EU presidency from the beginning of 2017 - including the period when Brexit is due to be triggered.

In reading the words delivered by Joseph Muscat, the Maltese Prime Minister, one can almost hear the exasperation.

Quite bluntly, he says that the terms of any Brexit deal cannot be superior to EU membership. They must be overtly inferior.

Protecting interests

Why so? Because other member states fear that any diamond deal for the UK could foster Euro-scepticism in their own ranks. Scepticism which is either incipient or already entrenched.

Further, Mr Muscat's comments reflect a further facet. Regardless of the endless debate in the UK, the other 27 members of the EU are not obsessing about the precise terms of Brexit. Rather they are much, much more concerned to protect their own interests and the slightly ragged remains of l'esprit communautaire.

In these islands, we have become so embroiled in deciphering the emergent negotiating stance of the UK government - plus the Scottish dimension - that we risk losing sight of the other parties in the bargain. While we consider the one or the two, we should remember the other 27.

Which brings us neatly to the photograb of written comments apparently compiled by an aide to a Tory MP during a meeting in the Department for Exiting the European Union. (Congrats to the photographer who got the pic.)

The theme was to the effect that the UK's Brexit objective was to eat cake, while still retaining it. Naturally, the scrawled memo has been dismissed by UKG. Not our views. Nothing to do with us.

Really? In the absence of explicit statements from Ministers, it seems a pretty fair representation of the UK position.

The PM says she wants to leave the EU while protecting UK economic interests to the maximum. What is that, in broad terms, if not seeking to devour one's gateau while trying to conserve it too?

Options ahead

And Scotland? In Dublin, Nicola Sturgeon said that the response to Brexit would define both Scotland and Ireland for generations to come. A potential offer of Scottish independence, she said, remained firmly on the table.

Giving evidence at Holyrood, Mike Russell added a degree of structure to the Scottish government strategy. There was, he said, an approach short of independence (for now) which involved a hierarchy.

Option one, stay where we are, if feasible. This mirrored the view, expressed by the FM in Dublin, that Brexit was not welcome, that it was not a Good Thing.

• Look back at Mike Russell giving evidence at Holyrood

Russell option two was for the UK to retain access to the single market via the European Economic Area. This reflects the strategy - and the practical reality - that the EU will deal with the member state. Which led neatly on to option three, that Scotland remains in the single market, if the UK does not.

This drew critical attacks from Opposition members in the Holyrood committee. How, precisely, asked Labour? Given the choice, asked the Tories, would Mr Russell opt for the single market of the EU - or the single market of the UK?

Mr Russell deftly dealt with both - although it is unlikely that the inquisitors were satisfied. The Minister said those who said Scottish membership of the single market was impossible were reflecting the EU of the past, not the EU which might be necessary in the post-Brexit future. Nothing, he said, was off the table.

And the other dilemma? It would not, according to Mr Russell, arise in those terms.