The fantasy that we would easily negotiate a beneficial new deal with the EU is dead. And since the prospect of leaving without a deal is now being raised by Brexiteers as the way in which we should 'honour' the referendum result (although in my opinion a no deal Brexit is just not thinkable), people are starting to look back on what the Vote Leave campaign actually said on the matter. As usual, they seem to have conveniently forgotten what it was they committed to.
 |
| Vote Leave - Why Vote Leave? Leaflet 2016 |
A Vote Leave pamphlet from the referendum campaign (HERE) had page 11 (left) showing a number of important things. First they say we will be part of a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey. Secondly, they say Brexit will be a careful change not a sudden stop. Thirdly they say the terms of the new deal will be negotiated before the Article 50 process is started. Finally, they say they love Europe but not the EU - but these are or very shortly will be, one and the same thing as I once explained (HERE).
Even if you disagree with the last point, we now know the first two are definitely wrong if we leave without a deal.
As for negotiating the terms of a new deal before triggering Article 50 this is not so much wrong as absolutely and completely ludicrous.
Although Vote Leave never had a plan for how to reach their goal, and more or less everybody on their side said everything and promised anything, one thing we can be clear on is that nobody said we would contemplate leaving without a deal. Now that the argument is polarising between no deal and no Brexit, this page should go up on billboards all over Britain.
Incidentally, this whole thing was raised in an article for Prospect Magazine in January this year. See it HERE.
Now, I want to point you to a Tweet, actually by Liz Truss, the Brexiteer Chief Secretary to The Treasury, who as you can see below, criticised the CBI for warning about a no-deal Brexit and suggesting they should focus instead on the Labour party as the declared enemy of business.
The business community may well perceive Corbyn as a threat but I'm not sure he is anywhere close to the threat level of Johnson. A BoJo premiership would be highly unpredictable as well as humiliating as the idiot stumbled about the world stage with his shirt flap hanging out and hair that Krusty the clown might have picked out as a wig.
There is a section of The Tory party, Boris and Adams included I think (they are of a single mind aren't they - and it's Boris') that claims the no deal threat is only a negotiating tactic to get a good deal. How often have we heard the old car showroom argument? Now Trump is sticking his oar in (HERE) and is saying in a Sunday Times interview:
"If you don't get the deal you want, if you don't get a fair deal, then you walk away."
He actually thinks Nigel Farage would help achieve a good deal for us, which shows the leader of the free world is a complete whing-ding. Farage's reputation in Brussels is about as low as you can get.
Trump also does not seem to understand that we are not refusing a deal (good or bad) and walking back to the status quo - we are disappearing into a legal and commercial oblivion. The Article 50 negotiations are unlike any that have gone before. Normally, negotiations on trade and matters of mutual interest are on the basis that relations are going to improve after a treaty is signed, but if it isn't neither side has lost anything.
Brexit is different.
It is as if inside the car dealership, you are negotiating to buy a new car, worse than the one you arrived in by the way, but when the negotiations on the price breakdown without agreement, you not only lose the vehicle you want, you also lose the one you've got. Walking away does not return you to the status quo ante, it puts you in a far worse position.
Triggering Article 50 was more akin to a bet. It was a gamble that we would end up better off, able to enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the downsides, always a dubious prospect.
Looked at like this Trump would no doubt say you shouldn't have agreed to enter into such talks when the odds are not just stacked against you but it's actually impossible to win.
The house has all the cards, the dealer, the table and the chips. We are not going to come out winning.
Although Vote Leave never had a plan for how to reach their goal, and more or less everybody on their side said everything and promised anything, one thing we can be clear on is that nobody said we would contemplate leaving without a deal. Now that the argument is polarising between no deal and no Brexit, this page should go up on billboards all over Britain.
Incidentally, this whole thing was raised in an article for Prospect Magazine in January this year. See it HERE.
Now, I want to point you to a Tweet, actually by Liz Truss, the Brexiteer Chief Secretary to The Treasury, who as you can see below, criticised the CBI for warning about a no-deal Brexit and suggesting they should focus instead on the Labour party as the declared enemy of business.
However, this isn't about Liz Truss, she's irrelevant - in more ways than one - and is doing no more than one might expect. No, this is about Nigel Adams who amazingly 'liked' the tweet. Let's remember he supports Boris Johnson for prime minister, the man whose famous one word policy for business starts with a capital F.If I were the CBI I'd be focussing on the threat of a Labour party that has declared business the enemy, condemned profit-making and said it will appropriate private property. #therealthreattobusiness https://t.co/kgd3y5vIt3— Liz Truss (@trussliz) 31 May 2019
The business community may well perceive Corbyn as a threat but I'm not sure he is anywhere close to the threat level of Johnson. A BoJo premiership would be highly unpredictable as well as humiliating as the idiot stumbled about the world stage with his shirt flap hanging out and hair that Krusty the clown might have picked out as a wig.
There is a section of The Tory party, Boris and Adams included I think (they are of a single mind aren't they - and it's Boris') that claims the no deal threat is only a negotiating tactic to get a good deal. How often have we heard the old car showroom argument? Now Trump is sticking his oar in (HERE) and is saying in a Sunday Times interview:
"If you don't get the deal you want, if you don't get a fair deal, then you walk away."
He actually thinks Nigel Farage would help achieve a good deal for us, which shows the leader of the free world is a complete whing-ding. Farage's reputation in Brussels is about as low as you can get.
Trump also does not seem to understand that we are not refusing a deal (good or bad) and walking back to the status quo - we are disappearing into a legal and commercial oblivion. The Article 50 negotiations are unlike any that have gone before. Normally, negotiations on trade and matters of mutual interest are on the basis that relations are going to improve after a treaty is signed, but if it isn't neither side has lost anything.
Brexit is different.
It is as if inside the car dealership, you are negotiating to buy a new car, worse than the one you arrived in by the way, but when the negotiations on the price breakdown without agreement, you not only lose the vehicle you want, you also lose the one you've got. Walking away does not return you to the status quo ante, it puts you in a far worse position.
Triggering Article 50 was more akin to a bet. It was a gamble that we would end up better off, able to enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the downsides, always a dubious prospect.
Looked at like this Trump would no doubt say you shouldn't have agreed to enter into such talks when the odds are not just stacked against you but it's actually impossible to win.
The house has all the cards, the dealer, the table and the chips. We are not going to come out winning.
