There is a lot of focus in the media this morning on BoJo's article in The Telegraph - behind a paywall but examined in The Guardian HERE. He effectively rubbishes the prime minister's Chequers proposal again and follows similar attacks by David Davis and other Brexiteers. It doesn't say anything new and in typical BoJo style doesn't actually come up with a plan. It's a continuation of his thirty year grumble about the EU, he doesn't like it but can't think what would replace it. To fire up his supporters he says we will pay £39 billion for "two thirds of diddly squat". It is the rattle of a simple man.
Norman Smith, the BBC's political correspondent, speaking about it on Radio 4 this morning says it's not impossible for the PM to push the Chequers plan through. He says Brexiteers will be told it's Chequers or no Brexit, while remainers will be told it's Chequers or no deal. He doesn't seem to realise the EU have already rejected it anyway and there is no majority in parliament for it either. The Chequers plan came after two years of thinking about little else, we shouldn't overlook that.
Barnier had an interview with the German newspaper the FAZ, reported by Sky News (HERE) where he said he is "strongly opposed" to the Chequers plan and once again spelled it out:
"However, Mr Barnier suggested the UK's proposals for future regulatory alignment on goods, while remaining outside the single market, threatened the EU's future".
There are reports also that Barnier has told Raab the UK can have one of the existing models that is either Norway, Switzerland, Canada or Ukraine but anything else risks these third countries (and others) demanding renegotiation of their agreements. I don't know why it's so difficult for us to accept the inescapable logic of the EU's position.
We keep coming back to the same issue at the heart of Brexit. Are we going to remain close, following EU rules inside the SM and the CU or do we separate completely and negotiate a free trade deal or WTO rules. Either we are a 'vassal state" as BoJo would have it or we shoot ourselves in the economic foot or head. This is the choice that we still haven't faced up to and has not been explained to the British people. Remainers want the former and Brexiteers want the latter. One side or other MUST win, there is not and never was any common ground or middle way.
The EU are gambling that when it comes to it we (or rather the PM, cabinet, parliament and people in that order) will opt for the former. And logic would tell us that when the economic consequences of the latter become obvious, we should. But logic may not be enough.
If Brexiteers succeed, and let's be honest they might, we will find that:
(A) we are the ONLY country in Europe without being in EFTA/EEA, an association agreement or a customs union and not in the process of negotiating accession.
(B) we will be in the regulatory orbit of the greatest standards producing body in the world and will find ourselves having to follow most EU regulations anyway (as well as our own new and unique ones) plus all the additional paperwork that trading as a third country means
(C) Border delays will hit trade, especially just in time manufacturing and fresh foods and this will impact our economy adversely forever.
What is it about the British psyche that makes us the odd one out? What possible benefits can Brexiteers and leavers see that the populations of thirty plus countries, close to 600 million people, cannot?
At some point, rushing quickly towards us, the government will have to explain the essential choice and it's impact in a way that people can understand. Only then will we be able to make a rational choice and that, if we want a close relationship, must be to remain in the EU. Being in the EEA and having no vote and little influence makes no sense at all.
