As I mentioned earlier, one of the big issues for our future relationship with the EU is the so-called "frictionless trade" which is shorthand for essentially keeping the benefits of what we have now. The PM has talked about it a lot and it's mentioned in her Mansion House speech in March this year - "So we have thought seriously about how our commitment to a frictionless border can best be delivered".
"The point about "frictionless" is important. It was reiterated as non-negotiable to business leaders meeting the PM last week, and is viewed by them as a politically acceptable synonym for ongoing acceptance of single market rules and a customs union to maintain trading conditions for those industries with advanced manufacturing supply chains".
I think this is how she has been able to keep the car industry for example, on side for so long in spite of a lot of scepticism. I underline Islam's words "non-negotiable" which I take to mean that we will get this regardless of whatever deal is agreed.
Also underlined is his definition of what he thought the business leaders understood as "frictionless" which is ongoing acceptance of single market rules and a customs union.
It's yet another circle to square. Mrs May has repeatedly said we would leave the single market and the customs union but last week she again uses a word which her audience take to mean we will get all the benefits of frictionless trade that only the SM and CU deliver. It all sounds too good to be true.
Brexiteers who fear we are in for Brexit-in-name-only (BRINO) worry that they are going to be betrayed and with some justification. If car makers have said clearly that without "frictionless" trade their business model is dead, they will have some considerable pull, much more than the loony no-deal Brexiteers. The loss of 800,000 jobs and 12% of exports would be a mortal blow to Brexit anyway but also to the government itself.
The EU cannot afford to give us a deal involving frictionless trade without SM and CU membership since it would open up all of the FTAs it has with Canada, South Korea, Japan, Singapore and probably Norway, Switzerland and Iceland too.
So, if frictionless trade really is non-negotiable and the EU (the only ones who can guarantee it) stand their ground and say following the rules and being in the CU are the only way of doing it, then we have a very big choice coming up. Somebody is going to be very disappointed.
Faisal Islam's article by the way is about how government whips are using the threat that parliament voting her deal down risks two entirely incompatible things happening. Remainers have been told a no vote could mean a no-deal Brexit, while Brexiteers are told a no vote might mean no Brexit at all.
Both of these cannot be true at the same time but it's the same logical inconsistency that has dogged the negotiations right from the off, isn't it?
