As I have already pointed out this morning, when we voted to leave the EU that is what we did. No conditions or red lines were attached to the voting paper. There were no footnotes. There was just a ‘do we want to leave?', to which the answer was an unfortunate ‘yes', only matched in its incomprehensibility as to meaning by our inability to answer that question.
The time has come when an answer is needed. Three things are certain.
The first is that May's red lines have to go. That is why the Commons need to take control of this process.
The second is that Labour will not be convinced by Remain.
The third is that a second referendum will fail to catch the nuances, again. It could only ask for a selection between No Deal, which seems unlikely to secure parliamentary support to get in the ballot, or a deal of some sort, and Remain.
That still leaves the question of a deal of what sort? One has to be considered.
The fact is that we now know that leaving the EU could create substantial economic disruption. The only businesses that disagree do not import or export. Quite astonishingly, the Conservative Party is betraying its entire business base by pursuing the policy that it is undertaking.
And the government also thinks there will be mayhem. That is why it is planning for it.
Trade unions happen to agree.
And we now know that leaving the EU could breach all our obligations in Ireland. I find it almost unfathomable that some actually think this acceptable.
And on the ground what we know is that this will massively hurt the well being of the people of this country.
So we still need a compromise.
Labour says that compromise is staying in a Customs Union. But that does not really work unless it is for all practical purposes the EU Customs Union.
It is true that staying in will prevent some new trade deals. But those deals are, anyway, just fictions of fevered imaginations and there is no serious study that says they could ever remotely replicate the benefit of being in the Customs Union.
The disruption will, however, persist even if we are in a Customs Union. And Northern Ireland ios not solved. Border checks also cover single market rules and so the disruption to trade would continue. Unless we stay in the single market for goods.
Goods are only 20% of our international trade. We would have services freedom.
And there is a precedent that says we would pay much less than we do now if we were in both the single market for goods and the customs union (Switzerland). And there is also a precdent that movement can be restricted. This is the so-called Jersey model that I have mentioned on this blog before. The best summary I can find this morning comes from the Centre for European Reform. As they put it:
- Services access for UK firms would need to be roughly the same as that of any other third country. The UK, theoretically, could take to the world and try to sign services-only trade deals.
- The UK would need to agree to follow all of the rules of the customs union, single market rules for goods and the EU's VAT regime. All industrial goods and agriculture would have to be covered. Anything less would create a situation where checks on origin and standards, among other things, would still be required at the border.
- The UK would have to agree to rules on state aid, industrial emissions and social and employment laws, to avoid the charge of environmental and social ‘dumping'.
- The agreement would need a surveillance mechanism, to check that the UK is complying with EU rules, and a court to settle disputes between the EU and the UK. Any new court would have to take account of the case law of the European Court of Justice.
- The EU would insist upon a financial contribution to the economic development of Central and Eastern Europe, among other things. The Swiss, for example, contribute around half the UK's current payments per head. They have a similar level of access to the single market as the proposal outlined here.
- The biggest question is whether the EU would insist upon free movement of EU workers as it stands, or whether it might be possible for the UK to negotiate controls on free movement, in exchange for the obvious damage that this agreement would do to the City of London.
This means free-flowing trade at ports. Our well-being is secured.
It means we have left the EU.
We take control of migration.
We save money.
We solve the Irish border issue.
The referendum is honoured.
No tariffs would be payable.
So what are the downsides? There are three.
First, the Tories would self destruct.
Second, Corbyn can't bring himself to say this.
Third, there is then no obvious route to an agreement.
And then May has the nerve to say politics will be discredited if she does not get her way.
Politics could find a way through this.
At the price of two party leaders, and maybe their parties.
That is a price I would willingly pay.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Some very interesting points Richard. But why the swipe at Jeremy again? He isn’t PM and I thought Labour was advocating customs union and single market? I agree that the 2nd Ref supporters are getting off Scot free. Haven’t really been challenged on what the options would be on their ballot paper. Three, four, even five options? What would happen if outcome was vote for May’s deal?
Yes, a swipe at Corbyn because he is leader of the opposition – an official position in which he is clearly failing to oppose
And no is not proposing the single market
Catch up
Richard, re. this:
“The second is that Labour will not be convinced by Remain”
You don’t know that. As it stands most Labour MP’s and about 72% of party members favour a 2nd vote which is basically now (like it or not) the Remain vote by default.
Its easy to snipe from a a partisan viewpoint but much harder to walk the tightrope of leadership in a divided party – and that, to be fair, applies to both leaders.
Corbyn is still going through the motions of appeasing the Leavers in his voting base by pretending to exhaust the non-referendum options. No-one thought the no-confidence vote would pass but they went through with it anyway . As for this business about him being a life-long Lexiteer, it won’t make any difference in the end. He faced down a majority of Labour MP’s in the “chicken coup” period because he knew that he had the support of members but he can’t face down a large majority of MP’s AND most of the party members AND most of the Labour voters. No one in his position can. He knows that, everyone does, or should.
In the meantime the slowly unwinding theatre of it all is tedious and frustrating but both leaders are in an invidious position (for now). Can we not be at least a little bit realistic about that?
I admire your confidence in a process going on
I hope you are right….
Roger re. this:
” 2nd Ref supporters are getting off Scot free. Haven’t really been challenged on what the options would be on their ballot paper.”
Challenge accepted. Here you go:
SHOULD THE UNITED KINGDOM REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION OR LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION?
REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION [ ]
LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION [ ]
If that looks the same as the last one it is because it is the same as the last one and why? Because the acceptance and terms of an agreement with the EU or any treaty or any trade deal with any other nation is the prerogative of the Parliament and always has been. That is the case in the UK and in any other country or legislature that you may care to mention.
In this particular case it would be completely impractical to put the terms of an agreement with the EU to the public because trade deals and international agreements are frequently changed and amended over time according to negotiations between the countries involved. That goes for bilateral and multilateral deals.
If you gave the public a choice between Remain and “a deal of some sort” and the “deal” won then you would be stuck with that precise deal forever or obliged to go back to the public yet again in order to amend or renew it. The whole idea of that is unconventional, impractical and unnecessary.
The terms and acceptance of agreements made with the EU, US, Canada or anyone else are the business of Parliament. That is a time-honoured principle and should remain so.
There is no way of formulating a successful question…..
Or deciding how many questions there should be
One?
Or more, in parts?
There is no need to do so.
Richard,
I’m certainly hoping some sort of compromise can be arranged and this doesn’t seem too far off the mark.
However, I’d add the following to your list of problems:
First I don’t think many leavers want to be subject to the European Court of justice, no matter how tangentially. That said I suspect most normal voters aren’t super cognisant of this so maybe it’s not as big an issue as more politically aware individuals believe?
Second I think that the EU feels they are on the home straight to forcing a second referendum and avoiding brexit altogether. They therefore are unlikely to compromise on freedom of movement at this stage IMHO. I believe freedom of movement is a redline for a large proportion of the leave voting public so this is the real biggy.
I also think it’s unfortunate but inevitable that brinkmanship is going to have to play a role in this. Opposing sides are so entrenched that real fear is likely the only way to dislodge them and bring them to a the table to compromise. It’ll be a fine balancing act and there’s a very real risk one or more parties will misjudge their strength and their opponents’ resolve. In particular I think the EU is liable to push too hard and gamble with to thin an edge.
I think the UK/EU could do the Citigroup solution when they took over The Travellers insurance group which is to allow the UK to restrict migration and the free staying in a country in anticipation of the EU changing parts of this element of its four freedoms. Change is needed as its an EU wide mess with hard borders going up, climate change migration growing and the wide differences between East and West and North and Southern europe. Changes include Eg. extending right to get a passport from 5 years to 10 and rights to benefits on a receive as you paid basis.
Europe are only now realising the true implications of free movement (the issue is the equal rights when they arrived in a richer EU country), in a modern world. Remember 26/28 countrys delayed equal treatment /movement legal enforcement for as long as possible. 10 years and a bit.
Good proposal Richard and I would make the best of the EUs hole that they have dug for themselves by their own intellectual arrogance that everything they set in law was perfect regardless of what happens on the ground away from the ivory towers of Brussels.
The problem is the 27 headed EU cannot agree this as they are trapped in rules of unanimity whilst having right wing dictators/law breakers/freedom of media killers.
IMO The EU needs a split, to get back to a smaller EEC based on a smaller manageable group whilst lower tariffs and trade with the rest of the world.
Copy the existing laws, ditch the misguided parts and get to a BeneBrits and Northern European Community group maybe excluding Germany returning to its own currency for Germany.
The 27 cannot agree or do it by themselves because of their arrogance and assumptions. So yet again its down to the UK to save Europe from itself.
I am nit sure what you are agreeing with that I said
But I am not agreeing with you
The Glass Stegal Act from the 1930a wisely forbade banks from joining with insurers because they gambled the insurers assets away.
The problem arose when Citibank commited fraud and was forbidden to roll over dollar loan notes. Rather than raising vast cash/go bust Citibank needed a large cash filled asset to fill the tier 1 gap. So Citibank with the Feds support announced the merger of Citibank with Travellers Group and the merger was allowed despite the existing laws forbidding it but no one else was allowed to make such an acquisition or merger until the Glass Stegal Act law was repealed.
The change in law then took about two years to arrive. That change fueled the overgearing of US and UK banks.
So two elegant solutions
1) EU and UK agree a future EU wide change in migration/residence law which the EU intend to do anyway and in the mean time Britain gets the migration control early as the only native speaker destination of the worlds business language. Rip up article 50.
Alternatively
2) rip up Article 50 and then despite our fine history very openly flout the EU laws acting as if we were a fully independent sovereign state, not pay any fines, adopt only what we want and wait until the EU kicks us out. (1-2 years unless one country objects). Vowing never to return to the current EU political set up for 30+ years. A lose lose for the EU. Wait for the EU’s ‘gunboats’ to go up the Thames. A lose lose for International Law globally. (precedents for flouting law and not being fined even by France, Germany, Italy, Hungary . . . .)
On the subject of party collapse: I personally believe both Labour and Conservatives should reorganize to better represent their core support.
I’ve said it before but the neoliberal centrists from both Labour and Conservatives should join the Lib Dems and the rump of both Labour and Conservatives should form two more radical parties on the fringes of the new centrist party.
Unfortunately I think decades of triangulation will prevent this step being taken. Perhaps the fallout from Brexit can force such a rearrangement? Could that go on to be seen as one overwhelmingly good thing to come out of Brexit?
I’m sorry but Corbyn is not the problem.
May is the problem.
She has repeatedly tried to get around the sovereignty of Parliament.
She refuses to do the decent thing and step down. The vote of confidence vote was a joke. Convinced are we? Not really. All May is doing is sticking two fingers up at us all.
Her party – a minority Government from day one of the 2010 election had to create an act of parliament to defend their position. In other words they helped themselves before anyone else.
And she continues to lie about her position and her intentions. She still talks above the heads of the MPs.
If this was a Labour or Green Government, it would have been hounded out by now.
The situation we are in now is emergent. That is to say there is more to come and we may yet be surprised and delighted enough to be hopeful yet.
OK – it might be good that Corbyn is pushed out, but do you think his potential replacements are interested in ideas like GQE and a jobs guarantee? I see no evidence of it at all. And then what?
I accept she is a much bigger problem than Corbyn right now
The trouble is he is not the solution
And that is why she can get away with being a problem
Really?
If Corbyn was the solution, I tell you that May would be exactly the same and so would her party.
It would help however if Corbyn made it clear what he would do. But there could be a high price for that. His rejection of a no deal is however instructive to certain extent.
The 6% poll lead – I do not know what bearing it has on what Parliament should do at the moment. What we are seeing is Parliament struggling with the issue internally. And the Daily Mail sells very well. May’s camp is just as self-contradictory with even ‘Spreadsheet Phil’ telling the business community that a no deal is off the table.
I can see why Corbyn will push for a GE because it could very well end Tory rule (and it needs to end and it was not that far off). But that is just an intention given Tory arrogance and intransigence based on their belief that they are the natural party of rule in the UK.
I think that Corbyn will only play his true party hand if he gets a GE. But this does look more self serving to sections of the country.
For me, ending BREXIT is the only option I would be satisfied with. It was never worth the trouble and still isn’t. The Tory party must take the blame. So I’m not really with Corbyn’s current stance – I just think that the Tories have trodden on democracy and parliamentary sovereignty over and over again.
I also think that she is holding out to build up pressure on the EU. This is high stakes stuff.
Agreed Pilgrim, Especially your original comment there.
By what logic is ‘damage to the city of London’ a bad thing?
As for the costs to achieve your Remain (and no reform) position – it will almost certainly be a Tory win at the next General Election. This would be an election where the large majority of the marginals that Labour needs to win are in heavily leave voting constituencies and where the benefits of any increased backing from #FBPE types would be too diffuse to make any difference elsewhere (even if they weren’t all a bunch of centre-right I’m-alright-Jackers anyway).
This is the reality that Corbyn has to deal with – and he’s absolutely right to be very worried indeed.
http://statsforlefties.blogspot.com/2018/11/do-i-stay-or-do-i-go-labours-brexit.html
Have you not noticed that Corbyn is 6 points behind now because he has no policy?
And maybe, just maybe, I think the country more important than Corbyn anyway
One opinion poll puts Labour 6 points behind, 4 others have them leading, plus in the event of a general election with more balanced coverage a bounce (though probably smaller) like last time could be reasonably expected.
I do know that the polls are saying , but I’d note that the next GE will be won or lost in constituencies, not by whatever (self-serving) treatments pollsters choose to use to adjust their numbers by at the moment.
Like it or not, the constituencies that Labour must win are almost all heavily Leave voting areas. We all may wish it were not the case, but to ignore the realities of the situation (as you appear to be) is reckless in the extreme.
Who, specifically do you think could replace Corbyn and bring about the change you want?
I have no idea
Labour is desperately short of talent
Labour are actually three points ahead according to Survation. As they were the only one to call the GE correctly, they are the only one who have any credibility.
Interesting that you seem to be quoting yougov…the only pollster putting Labour 6-points behind.
The others are much smaller, either leading or failing, by only a few points.
It probably helps the conservatives a lot, having a pollster practically owned by a supporter of theirs….
Mind, they did get quite near to the 2017 general election result….but since the history of opinion polls is that they generally get it wrong….
Freedom of movement is of course what people tend to disagree with…..although they also seem to think it applies to the entire global population, instead of the EU 27(28). But since the population of the UK seems to be content to work in TescSainsMorrAldLid etc, and not go into higher education and then, for instance, to medicine or science as a career, they had better get used to it.
Leaving, and the subsequent collapse of the economy, may be the slap on the face the country needs (except most will just blame someone else, as usual).
My thoughts, at the moment, are that we are going to crash-out in a no-deal departure. May is not going to change much, and many in the conservative and other parties seem to desire no-deal to anything else.
It may be interesting to see what a £160 billion drop in GDP does…bearing in mind that the 2008 crash reduced GDP by only 2%…
Still, with both parties frantically trying to outwit each other (while both having no wits at all), all options seem open (except staying in)
I see a second referendum as being pretty much the same outcome as the last, with either one or the other only getting a few points above the other, and solving nothing at all.
Still, with all political parties that matter being more interested more in outsmarting each other, I doubt we will manage to do much at all until after 29/3/2019…..and good luck to managing to rejoin at a later date….
I was referring to a trend
I admit I do not follow polls in detail
Graham Burnby-Crouch says:
“One opinion poll puts Labour 6 points behind, 4 others have them leading”
Indeed and the polls leading into the 2017 GE were pretty useless either way. The main indicator is that the Tories definitely do not want an election (are not confident of winning it) and therefore, with the laws being what they are, there is not going to be one. Its all a moot point anyway.
Not always a fan of your EU opinions but i think I agree with most of this. I think it is the freedom of movement of people (described by Bernie Sanders quite well imo as for the benefit of the likes of the Koch brothers) and of capital which are the most problematic to Socialist policies.
I don’t think that this is very far from where the Labour party are, and therefore the swipe at Jeremy is unnecessary.
You think you know where Labour are?
All they can say is “all options are still on the table’
And that is nowhere…
I am so bored of hearing that
I think they have been clearer than that and believe that they have been communicating with people in the EU, “A” Customs union and access to the free market, have also been repeatedly mentioned aims and these are not far from what you argue for and indeed need only be tweaked to reach the same end point.
“The UK would need to agree to follow all of the rules of the customs union, single market rules for goods and the EU’s VAT regime”.
“It means we have left the EU.”
Can you really not see the contradiction here? Leaving means not being bound by those rules. Otherwise we are still in but no longer have any say. The whole point of ‘take back control’ was so that the public can now choose what type of trade policy they want to vote for, instead of being forced to carry on with the same one regardless of which party is in government.
No one said that in 2016
No one at all
The ‘sticky’ phrase “Take back control” was indeed key to the result.
It was designed just to trigger the predictable response of Loss Aversion, any further meaning is then open to interpretation/argument, also the focus remains on the loss, especially in someone used to experiencing loss, any potential gain to an action thereafter becomes less important.
A perfect phrase, if somewhat cynical.
The Berlin Wall fell, and in this case ironically Freedom of Movement restored, when Günter Schabowski uttered a single word ‘Sofort’ (immediately) by mistake!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTBnOoBEJP0
“Take back control” was by design, Berlin Wall by mistake, Gettysburg address only 271 words.
Words matter a lot, though arguments demand a loser.
Relentless rational scenarios for Remaining, the bread and butter of better educated people (themselves now scared and angry?), are received as belligerent and are being repeatedly Trumped by glib responses, a considered and emotional approach from remainers however may well open the floodgates to a reconciliation both sides of this question are actually desperately seeking.
I can’t remember a politician saying “Sorry, I cocked up”.
Not looking too good though…
Caroline Lucas
â€@CarolineLucas
Just come out of Downing St after robust discussion with PM.
I urged her to take no deal off the table & stop blackmailing MPs.
I raised rights of 3 million & pressed hard on a #PeoplesVote
But sadly these talks are coming far too late & no sign PM is willing to compromise
“But sadly these talks are coming far too late & no sign PM is willing to compromise.”
That’s the nub of the entire Brexit fiasco: it was a UK-wide decision and hence a UK-wide problem which should have been managed as a UK national project. To do that implies involving opinion from across the political and business spectrums and from all nations/regions of the UK; in short consensual management.
Instead it was appropriated by the Tories and catastrophically mismanaged as a Conservative Party project. Given their customary assumption of their right to govern, they ignored opinions from outside of their “tent” and conducted their project in an adversarial manner. They compounded that error by failing to apply the basic principles of project management. God knows, there are tens of thousands of highly experienced project managers in the UK, but all evidence points to a complete absence of sensible risk management processes. Where were the risk registers, why were financial impact assessments produced only towards the end of the project? I could go on, but we all know where we are: we’re all still asking what happens next and, at the eleventh hour, there are still no clear answers. The elitist “we know better” attitude never works in the long-term.
The adversarial approach, which characterises Westminster politics, is clearly a factor in the UK’s relationship with the EU. Most if not all the EU member states have PR systems and are used to coalition/minority governments where consensual politics are necessary for government in the national interest. FFS, it’s a fact of life in Scotland’s politics too, so there’s no excuse for our sub-prime minister to be unaware of how it works. The UK’s input to the EU’s political process could and should have been more positive and influential all along, but that requires teamwork and team-thinking and that didn’t happen in part because of the UK’s stand-offish attitude which many Europeans view as elitist self-importance.
Sadly with split ministers instead of forming a small War cabinet we have each minister foisting their own opinion on ministrys e.g. sabotage ‘leaving’ so its so ghastly looking we wont leave. The PM has then shrunk the team to one man making it a guarenteed mess when he is up against 54 professional international trade negotiators. Such a mess forces the UK into a binary choice of no deal exit or ripping up the Article 50 as the offered deal is so one sided. Like predicting the outcome of markets the outcome is where each sides pushing balance out. In this current case ending up making a massive mess that favours both a hard Brexit and more so an article 50 rip up.
The Brexit boat is sailing whilst having half the crew are in the stern axing a hole.
It was either all for one or a messy split.
A sad example being the MOD Defence selling off for £85K (Cost £185m) the Navys flagship and only helicopter ship HMS Ocean in December 2017 to Brazil – which is the only way to police the North Seas vastness from invading fishing trawlers covering a radius of about 600miles and deploying boarding parties with chinooks.
Where is the mandate for Theresa “Black-Mayler” to hold the country and Parliament hostage by threatening a No Deal? It isn’t there and she is behaving like a fascist. A great many British people have lost their lives over several hundred years fighting against fascism starting with the English Civil War.