What a strange mix we had from The Telegraph yesterday. The editorial column predicted the coming Brexit endgame and warned of a constitutional crisis, libelously claiming that John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, has 'eschewed impartiality' on Brexit and alleging he has said he will fight to stop a no deal Brexit 'with every breath in my body'. As far as I know it was proroguing parliament Bercow was talking about, not a no deal Brexit at all. I wonder if he'll sue? I do hope so.
The Telegraph, a staunchly traditional supporter of the British constitution, such as it is, ought to be applauding poor old Bercow, not castigating him. But of course, they 'eschewed impartiality' on Brexit years ago and would see half of us imprisoned and the nation a blasted wasteland rather than admit Brexit is a disaster. They have also eschewed self-awareness.
Reading the ridiculous broadsheet nowadays is like peering into the house magazine of a secure mental institution.
Allister Heath, editor of The Sunday Telegraph, says there will be no place for arch-remainers in the Conservative party after Brexit which means that Farage will have achieved something which no politician has ever done before. He will have single handedly made a reverse takeover of another political party. Essentially what Heath is saying is the Tories must split, albeit five years too late for Britain.
Reading the ridiculous broadsheet nowadays is like peering into the house magazine of a secure mental institution.
Allister Heath, editor of The Sunday Telegraph, says there will be no place for arch-remainers in the Conservative party after Brexit which means that Farage will have achieved something which no politician has ever done before. He will have single handedly made a reverse takeover of another political party. Essentially what Heath is saying is the Tories must split, albeit five years too late for Britain.
In the same edition, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says the EU risks 'losing' Britain for half a century and begins as if we're about to slip down the back of the European sofa like a 50p piece. He says unless the EU changes course fast and offers us 'an amicable separation on terms of mutual recognition' we will 'be drawn deep into the North American orbit'. He then goes off writing in the style of Jane Austen, saying the Americans have 'wooed us with sweet whisperings' and if the EU are not careful we will find a 'better suitor'. What are we doing? Parading ourselves at a ball? Mrs Bennett would be delighted.
Unfortunately, for Ambrose, his article appeared on the same day as a representative of the powerful US farm lobby says Britain 'must' accept US food standards if there is to be a trade deal. It turns out the USA is closer to the cad Wickham than D'Arcy.
It is more blame shifting although not quite as blunt as that employed by Dominic Raab. If we crash out without a deal into the arms of a bunch of reactionary white supremacists it will be the fault of the EU.
It is more blame shifting although not quite as blunt as that employed by Dominic Raab. If we crash out without a deal into the arms of a bunch of reactionary white supremacists it will be the fault of the EU.
But Mr Evans-Pritchard's article poses the central Brexit dilemma. We desperately need a trade deal with a large market, having rejected the one we had with the EU. Getting another one will be Johnson's top priority. China is out of the question. So, are we to align ourselves with the orange climate change denying moron at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, return to using feet and inches and accept US food standards or do we go for a close relationship with Brussels? We cannot have both.
It's clear what Mr E-P wants, and I assume the Barclay brothers too, otherwise he wouldn't have penned the article and The Telegraph wouldn't have printed it. He wants a deal with the EU which preserves access to the single market, through 'mutual recognition'. Nothing else makes sense for a nation 26 miles off the north west coast of Europe. There is already close regulatory alignment and common standards on matters where the EU have legislated for harmonisation. But for everything else, goods are traded on the basis of this 'mutual recognition of standards'.
Anything made in one EU country is automatically legal everywhere in the EU28. But no third country has this elevated status and the EU27 are not about to grant us, a non-member after Brexit, something that only members have. British companies will find that after October 31st they will have to comply with up to 27 other national standards.
Mr E-P and Johnson will find out that it will make life very difficult for many businesses who don't even realise this is the case.
But back to the question of where we park ourselves after Brexit. Will the great British public be happy with GM crops (The Daily Mail used to call it Frankenstein food), hormone fed beef and chlorinated chicken? Imported at prices which will drive many UK farmers out of business? This is going to be a very hard sell indeed.
Ken Clarke recognised all this a long time ago and spelled it out once again on 13th March this year in the House of Commons:
"If the virtue of no deal is meant to be leaving to have a trade agreement with, say, the United States, I can tell the House that I have been involved in trade negotiations with the United States under President Obama, and it is protectionist. The Americans are not dying to open up any of their market to us; they will want us to open up our food market to them. We will not be making regulations here. The Americans will not let the House of Commons decide on animal welfare or food standards. Those are nothing to do with us. We made an agreement. The House of Representatives and the Senate, along with the powerful American food lobby, will decide what the welfare standards for animals and the standards for food should be. We will not get a trade deal with the United States unless we agree to that."
We will give up membership of a market where we help to set the standards and so create a level playing field for farmers to compete fairly, for a trade deal with the USA where we voluntarily accept standards we have no say in while playing on a surface much like a hill rising steeply against us. This is known as 'taking back control'.
And Ken Clarke is right about protectionism. This scholarly article from 2018 explains that America is not the free trader that every Brexiteer thinks it is. Britain led the world in free trading between 1860 and 1914 but as the US has grown wealthier the groups that are most likely to be damaged by genuine free trade pressurise the government to erect tariff barriers. Trump is doing this for steel workers at the moment but he certainly isn't the first and won't be the last.
This explains why the USA has trade deals with just 20 countries while the EU has deals with 70 and with plenty more on the way.
The Telegraph is right to predict the endgame. It is coming in the next three months.
The Telegraph is right to predict the endgame. It is coming in the next three months.
