There is no plan.
Or is there?
Certainly Douglas Carswell seems to think there is, and that its being ignored by people.
Robert Peston, has apparently been reliably told that May’s Brexit means Brexit equals:
- discretionary control over immigration policy;
- discretionary control over lawmaking;
- no compulsory contributions to the EU budget.
It would mean we could not be a member of the EU’s single market or the EEA like Norway. Nor could we have a Swiss type deal because of the requirements of free movement of people and contributions to the EU. This means we are headed to ‘Hard Brexit’ and a model closer to the yet to be concluded Canadian free trade deal.
He and others then went on to dismiss the idea based on other legalities, the time taken to get agreement and the fact it doesn’t include services.
The way in which trade deals are current done with the EU is that they are agreed by majority consensus unless they don’t fall within the current parameters of negotiation scope, which including services would do, and would therefore require the unanimous agreement of all 27 remaining members.
Not including services such as banking, lawyers and architects would leave us close to bust.
Certainly though, it looks like we are headed towards 'Hard Brexit' rather than a softer option. I wonder how many people voted for a hard exit? It is undeniably a minority...
The solution?
Well possibly the Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan or ‘Unilateral Continuity’ which apparently the Tory Right are getting all excited about as its being seriously considered.
It would effectively see us trigger a50 and then declare we were keeping everything the same. Minus paying into Brussels and Free Movement of People and EU law. It is actually currently the only option that fits with Peston’s report of May’s Three Pillars.
It would assume that we could assume our WTO status and this would be accepted without dispute by all 164 WTO members. Or at least with minimum renegotiations needed.
We would then declare our current trade agreements would stay the same in a ‘take it or leave it situation’ and taking the belief that law is on our side, meaning no one is likely to challenge it leaving us to just carry on trading as we are.
The problem with this is plan is not law but politics.
The plan would make us terribly popular as a nation (both with the EU and the rest of the WTO members) and ultimately could lead to the failure of the plan or bankrupt/destroy us in the process.
And Brussels insiders have already dismissed the plan, insisting it is illegal and would take it to court. The WTO yesterday also said the same thing when May said that the UK would become a 'free trader'.
There’s the rub. It might well be the case that the law is on our side in all respects. The truth is the EU really have no option but to challenge it. To not do so, would be crazy in terms of the continuation of the EU. What would be the point in making contributions to it, if you could get all the benefits without the apparent drawbacks? Surely it would at some point inevitably lead to the end of the EU?
What would happen in the meantime is the big question. We could get stuck in a battle where all trade to the EU was disrupted by a legal dispute. It would cause massive uncertainty for all concerned. And for how long.
What else could the rest of the EU do? They are entering the land of Shit Creek just as much as us.
Of course the threat of doing this, probably is our Big Bargaining Chip. Threaten the very existence of the EU and test the rest of Europe’s real commitment to it. The trouble is that of course the EU can’t be seen to give us a deal that good willingly so maybe it is the only option that the
UK has to achieve May’s pillars.
Interestingly this previously mentioned article directly refers to Unilateral Continuity as option b.
www.politico.eu/article/tory-dream-of-a-short-sharp-brexit-theresa-may-conservative/
I do think this back up the idea that this is the leverage idea to give us a hand to bargain with as in theory it means that the EU would be forced into a scenario where they either have to:
1) Accept the deal of unilateral continuity or propose one just as favourable to the UK which potentially might threaten the EU and undermines their own national interest (most likely reached through an EU Treaty of some description to avoid a50 and the hazards it raises for all parties) or
2) Allow the UK to go ahead with unilateral continuity and then challenge it in the courts – or force us to challenge a trade blockade - in the hope it would destroy the UK but might save the EU, however they might lose anyway getting burned in the process themselves by undermining their own national interest, and the EU might still be at risk of collapse.
It is a high stakes gamble. All or nothing. Quite literally. It’s very much British Imperialism returned. Irony of ironies.
The trouble is, looking at a50 we don’t have much room to do much else but grab the gun in the hands of the EU and wrestle them for it. Who, of the two of us, will end up being the death of when they get shot?
I note here, it means that we possibly don’t need as many negotiators as suggested nor possibly senior civil servants. It would mean 2 years or slightly longer is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Of course, we wouldn’t be THAT CRAZY? So say all the people who said we wouldn’t be that crazy to vote for Brexit in the first place forgetting we now live in the land of the crazy.
The only ray of light? The EU commission, France and Germany realise that creating a legal precedent is a worse option than making the case that the UK is somehow a ‘special case’ and they should therefore give us all our sweets and unicorns afterall. Thus proving that all us Remainers really were wrong all along.
The really big sticking point as to why it won’t work? Northern Ireland (and to a lesser extent Scotland), the fact we need Free Movement of People whether we want to admit it or not (for NI and certain industries like agriculture) and the practicalities of registering all current EU citizens so we can keep the new unwanted ones out.
It always comes back to these 3 points doesn’t it?
Nor does it take into account the issue of acquired rights and the legal position of British citizens abroad. Strangely enough, today May has ruled out the possibility of an 'Australian Style Points System'. Which is understandable actually as its completely unworkable and unenforceable due to the number of unregistered EU residents we currently have.
Nor does it take into account what the actions of MPs and Lords might take in blocking a50 and not playing ball. Indeed Merkel may be quietly waiting to see what happens for this very reason. Let the British play it out, see what they find, see if people oppose it and block it. See if the government does collapse as a result. Afterall, this option, is better for Germany than either a new EU Treaty or the Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan.
She would come out of it with her hands clean.
This is also why May will not make any announcement nor make any promises over EU citizens in the UK. They simply aren’t part of the plan. Not at this stage at least. So why bother talking about such a sticky issue?
And it also explains the lack of an alternative plan to Off The Top of The Cliff Plan too, at this stage. It’s all about who will blink first.
this morning when she said that the people of the UK voted Brexit because they wanted control over EU migration. 
