With seven days to go it seems surprising there isn't more of a rising panic. Talks are said to be continuing between May and Corbyn to try and find a 'compromise' solution. For an idea of how they're probably going, read this account (HERE) of the meeting the PM had with Nicola Sturgeon on Wednesday. The Scottish first minister emerged to tell waiting reporters that all she heard was Theresa May explaining why her deal 'was actually the best one'. In other words there is no compromise from her side.
For the ultra stubborn May, 'reaching out' means trying to convince others that you are right. This is why there will be no cross-party solution.
Meanwhile The European Union Withdrawal (No 5) Bill is slowly getting through the House of Lords despite the best efforts of Lords Lawson and Forsyth among others to filibuster it out of time. Remainer-leaning Lordships were said to be prepared to sit right through the night to 6:00 am this morning. I don't see news of it getting through yet but I assume it will later today.
In Brussels, Donald Tusk, president of the European Council is proposing a 'flexible' extension (HERE) of up to 12 months with the UK able to leave earlier if it's ready. This would give us time to hold the confirmatory vote that Labour are supposed to be demanding in the current talks. Let us hope the pieces are falling into place to give us a chance of avoiding the catastrophe of Brexit.
Tuesday's fractious cabinet meeting apparently included a discussion on 'ramping up' no deal planning - as if it was a genuine option and despite parliament specifically and repeatedly ruling it out. It is pure bravado and shows how far from reality some members of the cabinet are. It is precisely this sort of stuff that makes the Cooper/Letwin Bill so important. If it becomes law next week, I assume the government will still continue no-deal planning regardless even though the bill gives them a legal duty to avoid it.
Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary circulated a 14-page letter to members of the cabinet setting out the consequences, as the civil service see them, of the UK leaving without a deal. The Daily Mail (HERE) has seen a leaked copy and they say among the dire warnings are these:
The letter warns:
- No Deal would result in a 10 per cent spike in food prices and the collapse of some businesses that trade with the EU;
- The Government would come under pressure to bail out companies on the brink;
- It would hamper the ability of the police and security services to keep people safe;
- It would lead to the reintroduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland for the first time since 2007;
- A recession will hit the UK and the pound's depreciation will be 'more harmful' than in 2008;
- Our legal authorities and judicial system would be put under 'enormous pressure'.
I ask you which sane ministers of the crown would knowingly and wilfully inflict this on the British people? OK, some of them might but I don't think the PM or a majority of them would really do something so damaging to the national interests.
What is amazing to me is the way senior ministers and Brexiteers seem to think all the warnings are just an extension of project fear. David Davis has said it's all 'nonsense' (HERE). Treasury Secretary Liz Truss, has said, 'I don’t have any fear of No Deal'.
They cannot know the future any more than the rest of us but faced with wall-to-wall advice to be cautious, they are utterly reckless. People with no self-doubt are always the most dangerous aren't they?
They cannot know the future any more than the rest of us but faced with wall-to-wall advice to be cautious, they are utterly reckless. People with no self-doubt are always the most dangerous aren't they?
They obviously do not see themselves sitting before an inquiry in the coming years and being asked questions about what they knew or were advised by civil servants. For some it could prove very awkward. 'I thought it would be alright' isn't going to sound all that clever if Brexit goes badly wrong.
Finally, to see what happens to countries dealing with the EU, have a look at this article on Spiked, a rabid pro-Brexit website (HERE), written by a Swiss citizen about Switzerland's relation with Brussels. The article says Switzerland has already had its Brexit 'betrayal':
"It was in 2016 that Swiss parliamentarians flatly refused to implement what a majority of citizens had voted for in a 2014 referendum – the Mass Immigration Initiative. A majority had decided to impose quotas on EU migration and give priority to Swiss nationals in the job market. Yet two years later, our elected politicians decided to ‘implement’ the referendum result by instituting a priority for both Swiss nationals and EU migrants in the job market. Their excuse: discrimination is unacceptable. To rub piping hot fondue in the electorate’s wounds, they simultaneously ruled out any imposition of quotas on the grounds that bilateral agreements with the EU covering free movement would thereby be broken".
"It was in 2016 that Swiss parliamentarians flatly refused to implement what a majority of citizens had voted for in a 2014 referendum – the Mass Immigration Initiative. A majority had decided to impose quotas on EU migration and give priority to Swiss nationals in the job market. Yet two years later, our elected politicians decided to ‘implement’ the referendum result by instituting a priority for both Swiss nationals and EU migrants in the job market. Their excuse: discrimination is unacceptable. To rub piping hot fondue in the electorate’s wounds, they simultaneously ruled out any imposition of quotas on the grounds that bilateral agreements with the EU covering free movement would thereby be broken".
The EU stood it's ground and said if Switzerland implemented moves to prevent freedom of movement then all the 100+ bilateral agreements between them would be regarded as at an end. In other words, the Swiss would be facing the same cliff edge no deal that the UK faces. Parliamentarians did their duty
This is precisely what happens when politicians are confronted by an impossible task. Carry out the will of the people and break the national economy of betray the referendum? Charges of betrayal will always follow pragmatic decisions to save voters from the folly of their own decisions.
The UK is facing precisely the same decision that Switzerland has had to face. Do you give voters what they demanded even if you think they either didn't know or underestimated the adverse consequences? Will they thank you for damaging the national interests?
Let's hope our MPs have the same gumption as the Swiss to do the right thing.
And finally, I see Matt Ridley, brother-in-law to Owen Paterson, has an article on Brexit Central, again (HERE) on the betrayal theme, of which we shall hear so much for years to come. He accuses Theresa May of betraying the people 'who loyally believed she meant what she said about No Deal'.
"But more bizarre is that these worries [about the break-up of the UK] have existed all along. If the Prime Minister thinks the risk of direct rule in Northern Ireland (which is happening in practice anyway) trumps all other considerations, and rules out No Deal, then why did she not say so more than two years ago or at any time since? Instead, she said 108 times that we would leave the EU on 29th March, whatever happens; 50 times that she would not extend that date; and 32 times that No Deal is better than a bad deal. Not once did she say it was impossible".
Stupid doesn't even begin to cover it.
The no-deal-is-better-than-a-bad-deal mantra will surely go down in history as the most ridiculous hostage to fortune ever uttered by any leader. It will become a text book example of what politicians should not say. Of all May's many mistakes on Brexit, that one is right up there.
Let's hope our MPs have the same gumption as the Swiss to do the right thing.
And finally, I see Matt Ridley, brother-in-law to Owen Paterson, has an article on Brexit Central, again (HERE) on the betrayal theme, of which we shall hear so much for years to come. He accuses Theresa May of betraying the people 'who loyally believed she meant what she said about No Deal'.
"But more bizarre is that these worries [about the break-up of the UK] have existed all along. If the Prime Minister thinks the risk of direct rule in Northern Ireland (which is happening in practice anyway) trumps all other considerations, and rules out No Deal, then why did she not say so more than two years ago or at any time since? Instead, she said 108 times that we would leave the EU on 29th March, whatever happens; 50 times that she would not extend that date; and 32 times that No Deal is better than a bad deal. Not once did she say it was impossible".
Stupid doesn't even begin to cover it.
The no-deal-is-better-than-a-bad-deal mantra will surely go down in history as the most ridiculous hostage to fortune ever uttered by any leader. It will become a text book example of what politicians should not say. Of all May's many mistakes on Brexit, that one is right up there.
