The no-deal rhetoric is being stepped up on both sides. After Liam Fox saying the odds were 60/40 on a no-deal exit, David Davis (HERE) is saying the EU will be making a "massive miscalculation" if it thinks we won't walk away without a deal. Davis, if you remember him, was the one who thought it would all be very easy because German car makers would put pressure on the EU to give us everything we want. In the absence of any sign of pressure on Barnier, Davis has taken to issuing threats.
This is all laughable. We are really threatening self harm to ourselves and making the threats to the bloc that will be the beneficiary of no deal. We already see financial businesses moving operations into EU countries, all of whom are straining every muscle and laying out red carpet to attract them. Manufacturing is beginning to look at alternative sourcing and starting to plan for stockpiling parts or moving into Europe. The EU are pulling while we are pushing. Why should they concede anything?
Personally, I have never thought a no deal outcome likely. Whatever Rees-Mogg and the other Brexiteers say, the damage to this country's economy would be catastrophic and no political party could survive it. People expect a lot from politicians and are usually disappointed but at the very least they expect food and medicine to be available. If this is put at risk the consequences for the Conservatives would be dire. They know this.
No, no deal will never happen. Article 50 might be extended, or the transition period put in place by treaty or an agreement of sorts will be reached. But, and this is a very big but, every safety net will be in the gift of the EU. Fox, Davis et al would be well advised to remember this. They are going to look like fools whatever happens but every threat will only make them look even more foolish. We import about 30-40% of the food we eat from the EU and we are therefore biting the hand that feeds us. We can't eat money or find alternative sources overnight, so a deal, fudged or temporary will be found.
There is talk of the EU somehow breaching Article 8 of the Lisbon treaty - see this report (HERE) claiming the EU "must" - "develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries...". Here is Article 8 - note clause 2 which says "may" conclude specific agreements - a bit different, eh?
1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.
Brexiteers seem to think clause 1 gives neighbouring countries carte blanche to pick whatever they like from the Union acquis regardless of the treaty provisions. One also might say we had a special relationship but rejected it and the EU has already offered the best free trade deals within the red lines we set ourselves. If this is rejected it will be our fault not theirs.
And let's not forget the Interlaken principles first set out in 1987 (HERE) by External Relations Commissioner Willy de Clercq. There are three, as follows:
The first is that in developing relations with non-member states the EU will always prioritise its own internal integration. The EU’s interests come first.
The second is that the EU will always safeguard its own decision-making autonomy. In other words, involvement in the EU’s institutions – such as the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission – and decision-making processes is reserved for member states and member states alone. Non-member states have no say even if they are obliged to implement the EU’s decision
The third principle is that any relationship must be based on “a balance of benefits and obligations”. It is not for the non-member state to choose only those aspects of EU integration it likes. Relationships have to involve a balance. And, in practice, that balance is generally tipped very much towards the EU’s interests.
So, for what it's worth in my opinion you can forget about the UK leaving without a deal, but what you can expect is that as the cliff edge approaches, Fox, Davis, Rees-Mogg and all the others will begin to get very squeamish and will concede anything and everything to avoid going over. It's amazing what the instinct for self preservation will do.
The first is that in developing relations with non-member states the EU will always prioritise its own internal integration. The EU’s interests come first.
The second is that the EU will always safeguard its own decision-making autonomy. In other words, involvement in the EU’s institutions – such as the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission – and decision-making processes is reserved for member states and member states alone. Non-member states have no say even if they are obliged to implement the EU’s decision
The third principle is that any relationship must be based on “a balance of benefits and obligations”. It is not for the non-member state to choose only those aspects of EU integration it likes. Relationships have to involve a balance. And, in practice, that balance is generally tipped very much towards the EU’s interests.
So, for what it's worth in my opinion you can forget about the UK leaving without a deal, but what you can expect is that as the cliff edge approaches, Fox, Davis, Rees-Mogg and all the others will begin to get very squeamish and will concede anything and everything to avoid going over. It's amazing what the instinct for self preservation will do.
