I am starting to question my intellect. I think I am missing the grey cells owned by the political elite. Why is it that I cannot see what is wrong with Teresa May’s deal apart from the obvious question of the Irish backstop (which I don’t think is an issue if we are genuinely committed to agreeing a sensible trading arrangement)?
As I am given to understand, triggering Article 50 started the race to create a divorce agreement with the EU, covering those obligations we have built-up in the course of 40 years of marriage. Also, the agreement should cover the many joint commitments we have – ranging from passport control to security and provisions for expats.
Unless I am mistaken, we also have financial commitments that we must meet (or we can renege on this and accept that we cannot be trusted by anybody ever again). The projected bill in 2016 ranged from zero (Brexiteer estimate) to over £60m (evidently a gross exaggeration). The UK and the EU have agreed upon £39m (or is it E39m?).
So, everybody has thrown a wobbler and echo’s what has emerged from the political establishment – it is a dreadful deal – but why? So far I have not actually heard any substance to these howls. I can understand why the Brexiteers dislike it - it gives a large amount of money to the EU when they had promised the electorate that there was no need to pay anything - the need to pay a divorce bill was 'project fear'. I fail to understand why Labour and the Lib-Dems find it so unpalatable other than opposing it is a good way to create internal strife in the Conservative Party.
Now we have Parliament voting on an indicative selection of options, most of which seem to me to be stage 2 (after the divorce agreement). I don’t think I can discern a single option other than ‘no deal’ that in any way represents the alternatives that the EU place before us. In the absence of a divorce deal the only option on the table is ‘no deal’ i.e. no agreement on travel, security, expats etc. Of course, that also means no money for the EU, which would be a real problem for us. If we fail to pay what we owe then why should the EU give us a ‘free trade deal’? The reality is that we will have to cough up if we want a free trade agreement, Norway Plus, Canada Plus Plus or whatever wishful thinking the politicians can come up with.
I fail to understand the political or economic sense of crashing out without a deal. I’ve heard prominent Brexiteers arguing that we should crash out and set UK tariffs at zero. What is the sense in that? Crash out and give away all our bargaining cards before going out into the world to seek ‘free trade deals’. If I was the rest of the world I would say – we don’t need a ‘free trade deal’ because we can export to the UK with no restrictions. 'That is great because we can restrict incoming UK goods with no penalty'.
It is the equivalent of unilateral disarmament followed by convening negotiations with armed countries to get them to disarm too. If I was in their position I would say to the UK ‘I’m reaaallly scared’! So, we then have to re-arm and ' hey presto' we have an arms race or a trade war. That is really bright!
Meanwhile, our manufacturing industry and agriculture will be cut off at the knees. All of this seems to me to be incoherent both in terms of economics and international relations. But then we have already lost it with BoJo and Farrage hurling insults in all sorts of directions whist others accuse people like me of treachery – an 'enemy of the people'.
The nearest analogy I can come up with is the weaker partner threatening to withhold agreement whilst expecting to negotiate ongoing conjugal rights! We are the laughing stock of the World and have shown ourselves eminently unsuitable for making any legal agreements with anybody!
