Last week we were told the Brexiteers were going to publish an alternative plan to the Chequers proposals with a rolling programme of speeches and announcements to publicise it (HERE) starting this weekend. The government seemed less than impressed at the time and now I see why. The 'plan' has been abandoned apparently because they couldn't agree! Fancy that! The Times are reporting it (HERE) behind a paywall but the gist of their report is below.
"Conservative Eurosceptics have abandoned their plan to publish an alternative Chequers blueprint. Tory members of the European Research Group had been due to put their names to a single document setting out their own proposals for a limited Brexit deal with the European Union. The plan was shelved amid divisions over strategy and fears among some MPs that it would provide ammunition for Downing Street and pro-European groups to attack their proposals.
"The group is instead planning a programme of events, starting with a speech on Wednesday by David Davis, the former Brexit secretary.
"Mr Davis is expected to criticise the government’s approach to the Northern Irish backstop and will suggest that EU officials could be allowed in UK ports to inspect goods travelling to the province as part of an alternative maximum facilitation customs agreement.
"The idea has been dismissed by Downing Street, which argues that it would not deal with the real concerns the EU has about the Irish border.
"Senior sources in the ERG admitted that its strategy had “evolved” since MPs returned to Westminster on Tuesday. It is understood that a 140-page document setting out an alternative to Chequers was shelved on Thursday".
"It was due to advocate abandoning Chequers in favour of trying to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the EU along the lines agreed with Canada. The paper is understood to have made clear that if the EU was not prepared to soften its red lines on Ireland, or proposed less favourable terms than Canada, then the UK would leave without a deal. A concern among some MPs was understood to have been the position of Boris Johnson. He had made clear that he did not intend publicly to endorse the plan.
Some time ago I read an opinion piece about the referendum arguing that the 48% who voted remain was actually the largest group. They knew precisely what they were voting for. The 52% who voted leave was actually a coalition of fuzzy groups who didn't want to remain but could not agree what leave meant. So, perhaps 20% for example, wanted to leave under any circumstances (the no-dealers), while others, perhaps another 20% wanted a free trade agreement while the rest would have been happy in the EEA. I think there is truth in this.
Now the 'coalition' is having problems coalescing around a common plan.
The odd thing about this is that BoJo and JRM and the ardent Brexiteers always blame remainers for blocking progress. What this shows is that even when you put a 100% committed group of Brexiteers together, they can't agree what Brexit means. Makes an omnishambles look like a Swiss watch doesn't it?
I think it means TINA - Or There Is No Alternative - to Chequers, or at least not one that they can think of on the spur of the moment (speaking in geological time that is). They've only had thirty years to think about it and many of us must have struggled with a problem a like that. It's not easy is it?
