A long time ago I wrote a post on the basis of Brexit ending up not delivering what anyone voted for in 2016, with nobody happy with the outcome. The 48.1% who voted to remain will certainly be unhappy. From polls we know now that 55% think it has all been a mistake. This leaves 45% who are, presumably, still happy to carry on to whatever destination we are aiming for - at the moment.
I feel sorry for the 45% because that number is only going to get smaller.
You can see why from two articles published recently by enthusiastic Brexiteers on rabidly pro-Brexit websites attacking the deal that the PM is desperately trying to force through parliament at the moment. They particularly hate the political declaration setting out roughly what our future relationship will be.
First, an anonymous civil servant writes for Brexit Central (HERE) attacking the non-binding declaration about which they say:
"It is therefore unwise to dismiss the Political Declaration as a 'vague wish-list'. It is far from vague and binds the UK into most areas of EU policy (in many cases under EU law); and should any form of the current draft Withdrawal Agreement pass a second meaningful vote, this Political Declaration will undoubtedly form the basis for the future relationship".
And at another pro-Brexit website, Briefings for Brexit (HERE) a Harry Western argues the same thing:
"Regulation: Far from freeing the UK from EU regulations, the WA, if passed, would mean the UK remained subject to vast swathes of EU regulation – with no say in shaping those regulations. Under the so-called ‘level playing field provisions’, the UK would remain subject to all existing and new EU competition rules, and subject to a host of regulations on taxation, the environment, labour and social standards. This would greatly limit the UK’s ability to enhance its global competitiveness through better regulation".
I can hardly criticise either of these articles because I wrote a letter (HERE), published in The Selby Times in December, saying more or less the same thing. This is part of it:
"So, the political declaration is littered with references to deep regulatory and customs cooperation, aligning with Union rules, structured cooperation on regulatory matters and equivalence frameworks. It talks of common principles for standardisation, technical regulations, conformity assessment, accreditation, market surveillance, metrology and labeling. Plus, it seeks access to at least ten EU Agencies from defence to chemicals for which we have offered to pay".
This for me is still the central unresolvable problem.
If we want to retain close commercial ties with the EU we will have to replicate and adopt their rules and regulations over which we have given up control. If we do not, there is the absolute certainty of permanent long term damage to jobs and industry in this country. Even if it were conceivable to separate ourselves as far as possible under a Canada style FTA we are going to look ridiculous as one of only two countries in Europe which are not members of the EU, the SM, the CU and which are not accession or candidate nations - the other one is Belarus - see HERE.
We are going to look sulky, resentful and churlish at best and stupid at worst.
The Withdrawal Agreement was supposed to unify the country and be, in effect all things to all men.
In truth it is unacceptable to either side and as time goes on more and more voters will recognise it.
