'No deal better than bad deal' approach to Brexit 'unsubstantiated' The UK government's "no deal is better than a bad deal" approach to Brexit negotiations has been slammed by a cross-party parliamentary committee report, which today called the claim "unsubstantiated". Committee chairman Hilary Benn said Blighty is about to enter into "enormously important and complex negotiations" covering …
"It must be fun being a European leader at the moment."
Not something Theresa May will know about for very much longer.
Eh? The Tories have a historically huge lead over Labour unseen since May 1983 (Labour were sevn or eight points above where they are today in early 1983, even after the Falklands effect, believe it or not.) May is also the darling of the sewer press at the moment -- unless they're preparing a reverse ferret over this morning's bombshell that freedom of movement & rights to work & residency are likely to remain well past 2020 -- so at the moment she's in about as solid a position as any British PM's been in my lifetime.
Now, by 2020, I personally am of the opinion that the wheels will have completely come off the Brexit bandwagon and everyone will be looking around for someone to blame for coming up with the crazy idea in the first place. My prediction is that the Lib Dems will make a massive resurgence in 2020, due to deserting Tory voters who would never vote for a Corbyn Lab party in a million years. I've been wrong before, I'll be there again, etc etc., but... well, we'll see.
Just waiting for France to start making noises about the Channel Islands just to watch the UK press meltdown yet again.
There are 27 separate shopping lists, and we now know what is on Spain's. Brave talk comes cheap, but is the UK really going to die in a ditch in these negotiations over a population the size of Chichester, especially as Gibraltar's economy is shafted if there is no open border with Spain. If I lived in Gibraltar, I would be starting Spanish lessons.
The Spanish don't have a leg to stand on considering their autonomous outposts of Ceuta and Melilla on the north coast of Morocco - they are part of the EU, being Spanish, but the Moroccans want them back.
The other thing it would be local area Spanish economy that would take a beating if the border was closed because of the number of people from there that work on the rock.
The Spanish don't have a leg to stand on considering their autonomous outposts of Ceuta and Melilla on the north coast of Morocco - they are part of the EU, being Spanish, but the Moroccans want them back.
The other thing it would be local area Spanish economy that would take a beating if the border was closed because of the number of people from there that work on the rock.
Winning the moral argument is nothing in politics, clout is all that counts, as the Moroccans have discovered, as have our own Diego Garcians. Gibraltar is very important to the Spanish, and Spanish politicians will win far more votes across the country by steps to gain Gibraltar than they will lose from the people who live just next door to it, plus it will only actually screw one or two seats in the Congress of Deputies. A bit like losing the parliamentary seat in Bristol North West, but gaining many others.
Some of you fell for the distraction. Spain hasn't threatened to take back Gibraltar. They've threatened to veto any trade deal including Gibraltar they don't like, specifically calling out that continuing to be a tax haven parked on their border will not be allowed.
What Howard was threatening was in effect, to send snatch crews over a hard border to herd workers into Gibraltar and ram border/customs barriers with lorries full of goods. In short to become pirates and smugglers.
Laughable and the direct result of Hammond+May threatening to become a tax haven moored just off the continent.
I didn't say that France would try and invade the Channel islands, just mention them and wait as the UK press tries to top itself with hyperbole and jingoism.
We invaded some of these places hundreds of years ago damnit! How could any other country possibly lay claim to them? We didn't leave Europe because we wanted to have to play by the same rules as civilised countries*!
(* If anyone spots a civilised country, please inform your nearest member of the UN security council who will bomb the shit out of them pour encourager les autres)
Spain has a particular and legitimate interest in their border with Gibraltar.
Just as Ireland has their border with NI. Or France with the Channel Tunnel.
We already know the terms of the NI border will need agreement from the Irish. We take it for granted that we deal with France over the tunnel. Yet some prize idiots go nuclear over Spain and Gibraltar!
The Channel Islands have never been inside EU in any shape or form. They just take part in freedom of movement for the British citizen living on the islands, it doesn't work the other way around. The Channel Islands also take part in the customs union of the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union#Channel_Islands
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rules-topic/territorial-status-eu-countries-certain-territories_en
I can also see on the EU list that I was wrong in part about Gibraltar. It's not part of the customs union so customs inspection applies to it (no change after March 2019).
@ Smooth Newt, This is going to get considerable worse than that once UK is out of EU. Once UK is out of the EU all persons living in Gibraltar are going to require a visa permit and work permit to continue to work in Spain and to travel over the border to Spain.
There is also going to be more strict passport and customs check on the Spain side (and UK side equally) once UK is out of the EU. Tariff on both sides of the border and other details that might show them self as things move along.
Due to Gibraltar and UK on whole not being in Schengen there is already a passport control on Spain/Gibraltar border.
Gibraltar status is protected by a treaty from the 18th century. That treaty name is "Treaty of Utrecht".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Utrecht
It's a negotiation.
Would you walk into a negotiation with a lot of your decisions on the table or would you play it close to your chest not ruling out anything?
Stating that we would do a deal come what may is a bit of a daft thing to say when you are trying to negotiate the best deal possible because the EU would rightly take the piss, the same as if the EU said it would definitely make a deal then we would take the piss.
It's the same argument with stating that EU nationals can stay after we leave before we have secured the rights of people in the EU.
I know politicians cans sometimes be thick but this getting beyond a joke now.
I know politicians cans sometimes be thick but this getting beyond a joke now.
They're not thick, they know exactly what they're doing. Taking a certain position may be eminently stupid, but if a politician can a) make political capital with a valued constituency, and/or b) lob a grenade into some business that they are opposed to by taking that position, then they will take it regardless.
If we did piss away our negotiating position by making unilateral choices prior to the negotiations, and end up with a crap deal as a result, those same politicians would be first in line to criticise.
Well, you try to maintain goodwill before you walk into the negotiations or you can make a lot of angry noises. Just be aware that the politicians on the other side also have to win elections and that their local Boulevard papers will match all belligerent statements word for word.
Great Britain has to renegotiate the bigger part of its foreign relations while any other EU country only worries about a small part of their future. It won't be pretty.
Well, you try to maintain goodwill before you walk into the negotiations or you can make a lot of angry noises. Just be aware that the politicians on the other side also have to win elections and that their local Boulevard papers will match all belligerent statements word for word.
This works both ways. There's far too many people on this side of the Channel having a go at May, who's broadly said as little as possible. It was the Commission that bunged the €60 billion ludicrous-grenade into the press, not May. Merkel and Hollande have both shot their mouths off about making sure they're "tough" (Hollande will be out of office before anything's even started) - and that's why May has tried to say the less said the better. Of course she's got her own unruly backbenchers (and some front-benchers) too - plus the very level-headed (and not at all hysterical) British press...
But the biggest issue so far has been that €60bn. Which may not even be a bill. After all, we're leaving in 2019 already - most of it is committments as part of the 2014-2020 budget - so we only have to sign an transitional membership period of 1 year, and all but a few billions of that exit bill disappear.
I'd say one reason May has made the point about walking away is that I don't think her government could surive paying €60 upfront in order to leave. And who would be the next government were that to happen? Which is why the loud talk from Brussels about no deal before the money is agreed is not what it says in the draft negotiation agreement published by Donald Tusk. Because I don't see May being able to agree that huge a payout with absolutely nothing to show for it in return. So if the EU play the tough-guy they'll be the ones that nuke the negotiations. Which would be bad for everybody.
Who knows what Spain want. It could just be that they will only give up on Gibraltar if we give them continuing access to our very valuable fishing grounds. After all they did a lot of vetoing EEC agreements after they'd first joined in order to get the fishing access they wanted. Or it could be they want to knacker Gibraltar's financial services - as if their own tax evaders won't suddenly find somewhere else to park the cash.
Or they may try to push for negotiations on joint sovereignty. Which would be bloody stupid. Gibraltar voted to remain, all they needed to do was wait a few years, and maybe that might started to look attractive. If they try the blackmail approach, they don't exactly make themselves look like an inviting partner. A bit like with Argentina and the Falklands. A few years of being nice and constructive, might actually win some local support. It's only 5-10 years since Spain were last blocking the border, and making people wait 2-4 hours to cross.
What would be nice is if everybody calmed down, got a sense of proportion and waited to see what happened - rather than making shit up.
Ignoring the facts isn't a good place to start. There are three separate deals to be done: the deal to leave the EU; the deal over assets and liabilities; some kind of free trade deal for after leaving. The first two have to be concluded before the third can start so talking about what the trade deal might entail at the moment is not only erroneous but possibly even counter-productive.
"It's the same argument with stating that EU nationals can stay after we leave before we have secured the rights of people in the EU."
It is however this is politics and there's all kinds of ways and means of giving away what you're after in subtext without officially stating or agreeing to anything before you have to. The whole thing with the House of Lords recommending we guarantee EU citizens rights was quite likely just a pre-planned piece of political theater in my opinion. It was a subtle of way unofficially saying to the EU that we are very keen to do a straight trade of the continued rights of UK citizens in the EU for that of EU citizens in the UK, without having to officially state it before the negotiations.
I suspect the current Gibraltar noise is much the same, the Spanish don't even remotely expect us to change position on Gibraltar but they're making a public fuss over it now before the actual negotiations start to set the stage for something they actually want and think they can get.
The early stages of political negotiations happen as much in the media as they do in actual meetings of politicians.
Is there that much to negotiate really? A lot of EU laws are set by EU and implemented individually by the individual states. A Brexited UK is not obliged to repeal any of those laws, but can repeal / amend them on a case by case basis depending on what they want, without this being impacted by the 2-year Brexit deadline.
With regards to cross-border stuff - ie movement of goods, services and people, the UK has already committed to close it's borders, and EU is already committed to close down free trade if free movement of people is blocked, so negotiation on the main points is limited, it will be down to the fine details. If no trade deal can be negotiated by the end of the two years, UK will just be out of EU and legally within the EU have the same status as Somalia* or South Sudan* . That would be bad for EU, but absolutely terrible for UK.
Any deal that the UK can put together is far far better than no deal at all
* Just examples. I have no idea if these countries actually do have any trade deals with EU that would make their legal situation vis-a-vis the EU actually better than a post-Brexit UK
The UK can just walk away though and pursue trade relations with whatever comes their way. This is bad for the UK but also bad for the EU countries. Spain might fancy a bit of sabre rattling but they don't want to lose a chunk of revenue either and they WILL lose revenue.
The problem is, any deal needs to be agreed by the member states and some have vetoes. 2 years is nowhere near enough time for simple decisions, never mind 27 separate trade deals. WTO rules here we come.
If you are looking for who has trade deals with the EU then you will have a very short list. In fact it's a list that manages to miss pretty much all the major world economies.
Last time I checked the biggest economies where there was a deal in force were South Korea and Mexico. There is plenty of talk from the EU but so far they have been incompetent when it comes to actually agreeing anything, no great surprise given it's membership.
The USA, China, India, Japan etc don't have trade deals but still manage to sell and buy with the EU.
Maybe a deal that screws the City of London and prevents us from trading with the rest of the world would be worse than having to trade on the same bases as the USA and China?
> If you are looking for who has trade deals with the EU then you will have a very short list. In fact it's a list that manages to miss pretty much all the major world economies.
That is completely false, the EU trades on WTO terms with only eight nations. You mention the US; the EU has over 80 trade deals with the US.
The original Brexit letter was framed in exactly the same terms as anyone who has gone through a divorce may be familiar with. Sorry to go, It's not you, I just need my own space, Hope we can be friends afterwards. etc..
Then the realisation of disentangling shared lives kicks in, we have two sides that by definition don't agree and they are suddenly shocked to find that the other half feels they have a call on assets you thought we're all yours etc.. "Gibraltar (funny name for a dog) no we can't share him, he's all mine and he loves me.even though his kennel is at the bottom of your garden." Cue the Lawyers.
What Theresa and Co haven't quite cottoned on to yet is this is could be less like a divorce and more like a split between two cohabitees. Yes we shared 43 years together and had a joint bank account but, as any ex-cohabitee knows, that doesn't matter a rats' arse, so I think it's best we go our own ways now.
I have this vision of Theresa and Co looking in Newsagent windows for a Studio (aka bedsit) flat, No Dogs, No Visitors after Mar'19.
But is it an incorrect analysis of the situation?
Yes we can walk away with WTO terms, and if we don't reach agreement in 2 years that is our only option (short of the other 26 agreeing unanimously to keep on talking). And while that might be good for the government in terms of appeasing voters fixated on immigration / free movement of people, it would be a serious blow to our industry that has major trading relationships with the EU after 40 odd years.
"But is it an incorrect analysis of the situation?"
Yes. The only way found to claim we would be worse off outside the EU on that run up to the referendum was to assume we made bad policy choices (usually sticking with EU policies or worse). Outside of the normal risks of the world (we all face) our success or failure is based on the policy decisions in this country.
"And while that might be good for the government in terms of appeasing voters fixated on immigration / free movement of people, it would be a serious blow to our industry that has major trading relationships with the EU after 40 odd years."
This is the problem with skewing the market badly, we become dependent and incapable. Same arguments are made for cheap money after the financial crash and the addiction it creates (think boiling a frog). The slow death becomes the preferred option over correcting the situation. Yet industry does seem to be coping and doing well due to the brexit vote and the currency adjustment. And border control is only one of many good reasons to get out. Surely it would be better to have border controls based on equality instead of the positive discrimination for a few and discriminating against the rest of the world.
@ allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
"Well, now that you mention it..."
Very true. Now it is about responsibility and for people to actually vote for who they think will look after the country. It might make some people feel better to push that responsibility onto the EU but now we cant blame them for stupid policies once they are not the ones making them for us.
"[...] but now we cant blame them for stupid policies once they are not the ones making them for us."
It seems that some of the dissatisfaction with "EU rules" missed the point that it was often the UK's interpretation of those directives that were onerous.
A farmer was keen on BREXIT because the EU body "DEFRA" had been slow in making his subsidy payments. He failed to realise that DEFRA is a UK Government body - and the EU had already fined it for its failures to make the subsidy payments in a timely fashion.
But is it an incorrect analysis of the situation?
The real issue is that the government seems to have not done any analysis, or any that it is willing to show to Parliament! and so the government was unable to substantiate its claim "no deal is better than a bad deal".
The report said: "The government has talked about walking away from a bad deal, but has not yet explained what terms would be demonstrably worse for the UK than 'no deal'."
Thus what the committee is actually doing is to challenge Brexit Secretary David Davis, who is on record as saying:
"a responsible government should prepare for all potential outcomes".
"We have also been analysing the impact of different scenarios on different sectors of the economy,"
"We are clear that no deal is not what we want or expect, but that it would be better than a deal which sought to punish the UK."
So if David Davis is telling the truth, he will be able to supply the committee with the analysis that substantiates the governments claim, within the next 24 hours, otherwise we can quite rightly call David Davis a liar!
"Yes. The only way found to claim we would be worse off outside the EU on that run up to the referendum was to assume we made bad policy choices (usually sticking with EU policies or worse). Outside of the normal risks of the world (we all face) our success or failure is based on the policy decisions in this country."
Brexit make uk.gov suddenly competent shock?
Ha Ha.
And I guess the price hikes that could impact the average GB Joe, if the UK bombs out into WTO trading, wouldn't really affect the illiberal brexit elite who pushed for this over the last 30 years.
BTW Are you gearing up for the post-brexit hordes of Indian Visa-Free visitors to the UK codejunky?
They are coming right for you!!! SCARY!!!!
@ Dr_N
"Brexit make uk.gov suddenly competent shock?"
I dont recall making that claim. Oddly the gov is the party we elect so maybe we as voters need to do better at voting?
"And I guess the price hikes that could impact the average GB Joe, if the UK bombs out into WTO trading, wouldn't really affect the illiberal brexit elite who pushed for this over the last 30 years."
May not affect the brexit elite nor the remain elite, and both will have liberal and illiberal in them. You may have forgotten that the currency was considered overvalued before the referendum was announced. While the price hikes are part of us being in the EU there is no good reason not to have prices fall once we are out.
"BTW Are you gearing up for the post-brexit hordes of Indian Visa-Free visitors to the UK codejunky?"
Are you still banging on about immigration? Whenever you want to discuss brexit you seem to be focused on immigration and foreigners visas. I dont fear immigrants. Importing skilled people actually helps us in the world. I am not however a fan of uncontrolled immigration and cant say I am a fan of discrimination against the world in favour of 'preferred' countries. Too much like racism/xenophobia to me.
@ Roland6
I am not going to try and defend david davis. Since the EU is not an economic marvel it is irritating that david doesnt just get economists to point this out and by default of being out of that we are better off. I wonder if the problem is to do with the threats from the EU but even then we still seem better off. Maybe when the leadership is willing to commit to national actions (e.g. corporate rate reduction) they can do it but I am only guessing at the delay.
@codejunky
"cant say I am a fan of discrimination against the world in favour of 'preferred' countries. Too much like racism/xenophobia to me."
I guess you know a lot about racism/xenophobia given your "visa waiver travel==scary immigrant hordes" story peddling in the run up to the brexit vote. An expert even?
If I do seem to bang on about it it's because that looks to me like the type of BS that help swing the vote.
Still it's all to play for now in the GB-begging/pleading-with-former-colonies-and-dominions stakes now. Let's see if the "Go Home!" voters are more welcoming of some darker skinned visitors, eh?
@ Dr_N
"If I do seem to bang on about it it's because that looks to me like the type of BS that help swing the vote."
Yet again the only thing you write about is racism and xenophobia, you sound obsessed. Why not consider the economic and democratic issues? You seem to assume people ignored all these good reasons to vote out and are instead all horrible little racists. If you cant get beyond your immigration issues then again I think our discussion is over.
This post has been deleted by its author
@codejunky
Despite the claims of a "clear majority" the vote for Brexit was just +/- 2 percentage points. So subtracting the xenophobic and the vague, ill-defined and Jingoistic reasons to vote Out leaves a pretty large majority of the population who did not make a decision to vote leave, having considered the "economic and democratic" issues.
And your other post's phrase about "die hard EU lovers" actually says far more about where your own views come from than maybe you realise.
When a football manager fields a second string team and loses, they have no excuse to moan about losing. We lost..Brexit won, so we must Brexit. And take the consequences. My own prediction is that the the Brexit voters will actually be the ones hardest hit by those consequences. But we'll see.
@ Terry 6
"Despite the claims of a "clear majority" the vote for Brexit was just +/- 2 percentage points."
I find the clear majority argument interesting. This was a democratic vote requiring a majority. Very high turn out on a subject people cared about and while the official campaigns were shameful the first vote on this subject returned a result.
"So subtracting the xenophobic and the vague, ill-defined and Jingoistic reasons to vote Out leaves a pretty large majority of the population who did not make a decision to vote leave"
Ok. So subtract those who caved to the threats of remain, subtract those who believed the economic reports which seemed light on reality and subtract those relying on EU funding and that is a lot less voting to remain. We can play this game but it isnt productive and only serves to give a false explanation as to why the 'wrong' result was democratically voted.
"And your other post's phrase about "die hard EU lovers" actually says far more about where your own views come from than maybe you realise."
I hope it does come across clearly. Just as there are die hard EU haters who would reject the EU on racism grounds etc there are die hard EU lovers who will ignore every huge failing of the EU and still want to be part of it. Those who are not die hard (read almost fanatical) are normal people who will hold an opinion which is not set in stone but based on the information they receive. And since I do still hope the remain crowd will pick themselves up and join with the leave voters who are not racist but want to open up to the world and ditch the bad policies. What concerns me is the remain voters who didnt get their way and now seem determined that the UK must fall and seem to want the racists to be in charge.
"My own prediction is that the the Brexit voters will actually be the ones hardest hit by those consequences."
To be honest I dont know the consequences. I strongly believe it is the choices the voters make of our leadership and the leaderships competence which will decide our future. It could be better, it could be worse but that is relative to now. In my opinion the EU will continue to struggle and pile up problems as they have shown little desire to do anything else. They could surprise and massively reform into a union that can work but that is not what they have now and they know it.
@codejunky
"Yet again the only thing you write about is racism and xenophobia, you sound obsessed."
Oh codejunky. It's not obsession. It's bitter disappointment in how easy it was to whip up the send-them-home brigade with the kind of lies you propagated. And then lied about propagating.
There more of this dark "alternative fact" mongering coming down the pipe in the coming years, I'm sure.
So you'll be pretty busy, I guess.
@ Dr_N
"Oh codejunky. It's not obsession. It's bitter disappointment in how easy it was to whip up the send-them-home brigade with the kind of lies you propagated."
So you bring up your favourite topic (immigration) and seek to blame me? I have told you before I will not be the racist you seem to want me to be. If you are only able to discuss against a racist then you will need to find someone else.
"There more of this dark "alternative fact" mongering coming down the pipe in the coming years, I'm sure."
I dont doubt it. I wonder if the EU president (well one of them) will continue on that this is the end of western civilisation. Or the other presidents comments that brexit might bring down the EU. Or the many threats being levelled against us and then begging us to change our minds yet again. I am glad the rhetoric changed from the hopeful fantasy 'the UK will be worse off outside the EU' to 'We must make sure the UK is worse off than in the EU'. It demonstrates that this is not a club that we were a member of but a bunch of thugs or mafia holding itself together by fear not hope.
"So you'll be pretty busy, I guess."
Probably. Can you believe people still believe the lies that we need to reapply to the WTO! Or that the aims of the gov and BoE since the last recession are finally being realised yet are being sold to the people as bad things! But the truth will out and the lie is harder to maintain as the doom of leaving the EU isnt arriving.
"Probably. Can you believe people still believe the lies that we need to reapply to the WTO!"
Now you're just deliberately lying, by distorting the argument and dismissing a straw man - implying that there's no problem.
We are WTO members, but will need to agree tariffs from scratch. _That's_ what everyone has been banging on about.
"So you bring up your favourite topic (immigration) and seek to blame me? I have told you before I will not be the racist you seem to want me to be. If you are only able to discuss against a racist then you will need to find someone else."
No one is accusing you of being a racist! I'm sure you have plenty of "minority friends".
I'm accusing you of lying and propagating stories about visa free travel that conflate it with freedom of movement so as to whip up the racist voters, is all.
It worked well very will for the brexit vote. I'm sure it will be of use in the future votes too.
Carry on!
@ Dr_N
"No one is accusing you of being a racist! I'm sure you have plenty of "minority friends"."
Good to know because your comments on multiple topics seem to suggest you think I have a problem with foreigners. And as my list of friends from the UK is so much shorter than my list of friends who came here from various countries having to deal with the visa system and not positively discriminated for because they are not from the special little club. As a UK citizen I have had to vouch for a few of my friends and the hassle they have to put up with to contribute here would put me off bothering.
"I'm accusing you of lying and propagating stories about visa free travel that conflate it with freedom of movement so as to whip up the racist voters, is all."
I think you are again referring to when Turkey had the EU over a barrel and the EU politicians were telling each other (pretty publicly) that they should not be bullied by Turkey. This being the mighty EU trembling from 1 country. The same EU tackling a migration issue caused by Germany by bribing asylum seekers to leave and Germany demanding other members of the EU should be forced to take these migrants. I can understand being a fan of the EU you may not like uncomfortable truths but pointing these things out isnt racist. Or maybe in this over PC alternative fact world it is, where votes should be ignored because they returned the 'wrong' result and scaremongering/threats are acceptable as long as it is for the 'good' cause?
"This is the problem with skewing the market badly, we become dependent and incapable."
UK was most of the way there before joining, didn't go to the IMF just for lolz.
It is now more dependent in a very significant way, the huge growth of financial services. Breaking free of WTO trade is what allowed that, 44 years later in a world full of free trade deals there are very few truly liberal deals covering services.
You're right, 44 years has left the UK economy hopelessly skewed, in the most vulnerable way if subjected to plain WTO rules and in a sector least likely to benefit from bilateral deals.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
