Theresa May has made clear that immigration control is the redline in the UK's negotiation with the EU. She might as well say there is no negotiation to be had: we know the EU is not going to offer a deal of any consequence that does not involve free movement of people.
And we also now know that despite the enormous significance of this decision that she has no intention of consulting parliament on it. With a contempt for the opinion of MPs of which Charles I would have been proud she has declared that thus is an issue on which she can decide alone.
What does this mean?
First, it means there is no meaningful negotiation position left with the EU. I feel sorry for all those civil servants being tasked with futile discussions.
Second, the UK really will be outside the single market; it is hard to see any other option.
Third, the rest of the UK's politicians needs to catch up with this reality and quickly. Jeremy Corbyn may well be delighted with this outcome, but we have no clue how he would deal with it, whilst other parties now need to embrace the new certainty and also make clear where they stand.
Nowhere is this more important than in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
But it also means that the LibDems have a role again as the only likely pro EU party other than the Greens in England.
Whikst the role of a fractured UKIP is hard to discern.
The tectonic plates of UK politics are being rewritten extraordinarily rapidly without almost an iota of ideology, let alone a plan, underpinning the change. To describe this situation as dangerous is to serioyaly underestimate the risk, not least because just when we most needed an opposition that's the last thing we will have.
Some serious thinking on how the UK will survive this situation is needed, quickly. I am not too sure how many are even engaging with it though.
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:
Richard, this negotiation has disaster written all over it.
In a normal negotiation the worst outcome (from a sensible rational perspective) is known and appreciated by both parties. This forces the negotiation towards a sensible compromise that avoids the worst case scenario becoming reality. However in this case it seems that the two sides disagree hugely on what the worst outcome is. The worst outcome for the EU is clearly a soft deal on immigration that stokes the exit flames in other countries. For the EU the UK outside the single market looks a price worth paying to quash any support to leave in other member states. The worst sensible rational deal for the UK is clearly anything that gives limited single market access. But worryingly, for the those in the cabinet in charge of Brexit (particularly Liam Fox and David Davis) a hard Brexit is an attractive and maybe the most attractive option. Lack of single market access is seen as a price worth paying for full border control.
The pathway of the negotiation seems clear. The EU refuses to offer the single market without free movement of labour in the belief that the UK will not be so stupid as to opt to leave the single market. The UK refuses to back down on its claim for single market access without free movement of labour in the belief that the EU will not be so stupid as to see one of its major members leave. The result is the worst case scenario and we are heading towards a hard Brexit.
Your conclusion is spot on
That seems very likely. Economically, this will be a disaster, seeing how much foreign investment into the UK came about through the UK’s membership of the EU. So it would appear that, as with the referendum decision itself, dishonesty and stupidity are the order of the day. I wonder what all those Leave voters promised the earth by the liars of the Leave campaign are going to feel when the car manufacturers leave, and thousands of finance jobs go?
But again, I am totally unsurprised. after all, didn’t May herself say, a long time ago, that the Tory party risked being seen as ‘the nasty, stupid party’?
And meanwhile we have Trump promising to deport ‘millions’ within hours of taking office – if he ever does, of course.
But yes, you’re bang on the nail, Richard. I saw the news and then watched the dire “debate” on this on C4 News all the time wondering what the likes of Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and Mini (BMW), who located here because of access to the single market, might be thinking now their business model is about to be wasted. And there are many, many more companies in the same position of course. Will we now see some clear signs from them of their future intent now that we know the ‘in the single market but not in the EU (or EEA)’ option (which was never a real option anyway) is now well and truly dead?
I think the phoney war may be over soon Ivan
And the result may be uncomfortable
“immigration control is the redline in the UK’s negotiation” “Northern Ireland”
Last time I looked NI shared a common border with Ireland. I’m interested to see how they “square the circle” on this one. Why would the Irish be interested in closing the border? Would we see go-getting Irishmen conveying refugees (this is what it is all about) from the east coast of Ireland to the English/Scottish Mainland. Nobody has thought this through.
“Lack of single market access is seen as a price worth paying for full border control” – given the above (& what happens if/when Scotland exits the UK?) “full border control” is impossible under any circumstances.
What you will end up with is (possibly) NI exit from UK, Scotland exit UK – common and porous border with England – hard Brexit and still no resolution to the “immigration problem”
Look at what David Davies said back in the 1990s, him and Fox inhabit la la land wrt the EU. If you want to cock-up go to labour, if you want a 24 carat disaster – use the Tories – they deliver every time – like the burbons – forgotten nothing – know nothing.
I am absolutely convinced that the Tories do not know what they are doing.
I am also convinced that many of them are so comfortable as to be unconcerned anyway.
Imagine two different scenarios.
1: May is determined to make Brexit happen.
2. May realises taking us out of the EU would likely send us into recession and break up the UK which could quite possibly be the end of her career and so she wants to try and stay in the EU.
In these two scenarios, what course of action would she take? The answer for both scenarios is that she would say and do pretty much exactly what she has so far said and done.
If she really does secretly want us to stay in, then she has to give the appearance of really going for it, otherwise the right of her party would make life very difficult for her. If she really does want to stay in, then she might possibly have to use even stronger rhetoric in support of leaving than if she actually did want to leave — “the lady doth protest too much”
First Article 50 was going to be triggered the day after the referendum. Then in September when a new PM was announced. Then not before the end of the year. And so on … ?
So I’m not paying too much attention to what May says, and I’m still not convinced we are going to leave the EU.
The supposedly “single” market UK will be leaving has not yet been fully realised. Free movement of labour? – up to a point but all countries’ vocational qualifications and licences to practise aren’t yet recognised in all the others (and language proficiency will always be an obstacle), social-security coverage varies…; of goods? – up to a point but non-tariff distortions persist (eg some countries levy a car-tax, VAT rates differ…); of services? not by a long chalk AFAIK (and VAT again); of capital? – I’ve no idea.
The EU’s tariff-barrier will of course increase the price of British imports into the EU all other factors remainining equal. But will they? At least as important is the exchange-rate prevailing over any given period. Since the Brexit vote the £ has depreciated by c. 10% against the €, which augurs well for the competitivity of British export-prices longer-term.
Face it:- we’re going to be leaving, without retaining any special access to EU markets not available to non-EU countries in general. that being so it behoves UK to look for where gains are available to be made from our new situation (and I don’t mean becoming a tax-haven!), and begin availing ourselves of them energetically asap.
Since our imports will from now on be dearer, among the things urgently needing to be looked-at is where import substitution might be the way to go – requiring investment in new plant of course (while generating employment and possibly – who knows – new export opportunities).
I think I have said this before but when I was in HM Customs and Excise and the Single Market rules came in in 1993 a whole lot of forms and Customs declarations disappeared – is business really going to be happy for that to be reversed ? In the latter part of my career it was striking how many of the companies I dealt with were the UK subsidiaries of EU businesses, the proportion of truly British owned companies was much smaller, and if those EU businesses decide the UK is no longer worth maintaining a presence in then the consequences for employment could be significant
I agree with all that
And the problem is so few have real experience of these issues
It is interesting that John Redwood thinks that we could give assurances to EU citizens living here and then say no to more EU immigration. And then also say we don’t want anything to change. We’d remain EU members but for that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07qbcb6
about 17 minutes in.
That certainly keeps it simple! It puts the ball in the EU court to negotiate with the UK rather than the other way round.
It also suggests that immigration is the real reason for his Brexit.
And it also seems to support the idea that Britain has been a Euroland safety valve as the ‘recipient’ of its impoverishment and subsequent emigration.
John Redwood has lived in a land made of his own dreams for many years
His dreams do not come true