On calls to rule out "no deal"
There have been suggestions from a number of quarters that the Prime Minister should rule out what the people making the call refer to as a "No deal" Brexit and those who like the idea call a "WTO Brexit."
At the risk of annoying anyone from either of those groups who reads this, I don't think either is being reasonable.
You could have made a case for a properly managed exit from the EU in which Britain trades with the remaining EU countries on World Trade Organisation terms without a formal trade deal.
What you cannot do is leave without any agreement with France, Belgium on how we are going to manage trade across the Channel and not expect any disruption in Kent, at Eurostar and the channel ports.
Similarly, if Britain leaves the EU without a trade deal in place I don't believe that either side is going to erect a "hard border," e.g. put up checkpoints or any other form of high friction infrastructure along the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
What Article 50 will do on 29th March if it is not revoked or withdrawn and no other course of action is agreed isn't a properly managed WTO Brexit, it is crashing out without a deal.
Like those people who have been calling on the PM to rule out such a course of action I don't regard this as my preferred option. But it isn't up to me and it isn't up to her either.
Under Article 50, that's what happens unless a majority of the House of Commons, and the EU, agree something else by 29th March.
Mrs May did put forward something which would have prevented a "No Deal" Brexit this week, and the vast majority of the MPs who have been demanding that she rule out a "No Deal" Brexit were among those who voted her proposals down.
Those who want to avoid a "No Deal" Brexit need to work together to find a proposal which can both be agreed by the House of Commons and by the EU.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that the referendum result should be respected and we need to find a form of Brexit which can pass the House of Commons.
At the risk of annoying anyone from either of those groups who reads this, I don't think either is being reasonable.
You could have made a case for a properly managed exit from the EU in which Britain trades with the remaining EU countries on World Trade Organisation terms without a formal trade deal.
What you cannot do is leave without any agreement with France, Belgium on how we are going to manage trade across the Channel and not expect any disruption in Kent, at Eurostar and the channel ports.
Similarly, if Britain leaves the EU without a trade deal in place I don't believe that either side is going to erect a "hard border," e.g. put up checkpoints or any other form of high friction infrastructure along the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
What you cannot do, however, is
- Leave the EU without any agreement on how we are going to manage the border in Ireland,
- not put up any infrastructure at the border, and
- still claim that Britain has "taken back control of our borders."
What Article 50 will do on 29th March if it is not revoked or withdrawn and no other course of action is agreed isn't a properly managed WTO Brexit, it is crashing out without a deal.
Like those people who have been calling on the PM to rule out such a course of action I don't regard this as my preferred option. But it isn't up to me and it isn't up to her either.
Under Article 50, that's what happens unless a majority of the House of Commons, and the EU, agree something else by 29th March.
Mrs May did put forward something which would have prevented a "No Deal" Brexit this week, and the vast majority of the MPs who have been demanding that she rule out a "No Deal" Brexit were among those who voted her proposals down.
Those who want to avoid a "No Deal" Brexit need to work together to find a proposal which can both be agreed by the House of Commons and by the EU.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that the referendum result should be respected and we need to find a form of Brexit which can pass the House of Commons.
Comments