Sam Lowe @samuelmarclowe
As predicted, a political declaration that leaves open all possible future relationships (so therefore locks in nothing) is now being sold as a win.
Me and @AgataGostynska have a piece out about the political declaration on Monday (that I kinda wish we had published yesterday, now) - so keep an eye out if you’re into that kind of thing.
(To be clear, the government doesn’t really have a choice here. The political declaration was never going to be binding, and ambiguity might even work to May’s advantage, ultimately.)
The Columnist @sime0nstylites
Morning. Some quick thoughts on the Tim Shipman (best informed journalist re the Conservatives IMV) piece in the ST.
It’s rather presented (except the DD part at the end) as good Brexit news for the govt. Though worth noting that the ‘senior sources say...’ are (by implication) rather likely to be from a wing of, well, the government.
Anyway, let’s look at the various elements. Apparently, the CU for the whole UK is done. Is this good news? Not wholly. Not if you’re a free trading Brexiteer. And wasn’t there a manifesto pledge not to...
Apparently also TM is on course to agree a Future Economic Partnership (FEP - new acronym alert) that will keep open the prospect of a Canada type Deal as well as a Chequers type Deal AND is something of the order of fifty pages long.
Re the length of the doc (ie 50 pages vs something shorter and more ‘vague), treat with caution. I can write you something very vague in fifty pages and something very detailed in 1 page.
As for keeping Canada and Chequers open, this is, I suspect, a clue that the document will not be definitive but will instead simply ‘outline how a new trade deal would balance market access and border checks...’
The ‘secret plan’ will allegedly also include an ‘exit clause’ for the CU. I will fall off my column in surprise if this is a unilateral option and if there’s no backstop provision.
And...it will apparently also enable GB vs NI regulatory checks to occur ‘in-market’ vs at a border. Will this work for the DUP? I’m sceptical - surely their fundamental point is there should be no difference vs where the difference is checked.
Much of this has been rumoured for a while. Is this a good deal? I rather think not.
More on that in otiose detail here:
1. The curious case of the unpopular Brexit Deal that everyone seems to think will happen. Why it will, why it might not, and, most importantly, why it shouldn’t. [Thread]
2. It’s difficult to think of any of the Brexit tribes to whom the rumoured Brexit deal will positively appeal. Putting it differently, will anyone say, “Wow, that’s a really great deal.”
3. It’s greatest attribute is that it involves, well, leaving. That of course makes it unpalatable to Remainers although if that train hasn’t quite left the station, the doors are shut, the whistle’s blown, and the wheels are ‘a rolling.
4. It’s second greatest attribute is that it is, well, a deal. Aside from extreme Brexit enthusiasts, No Deal is a scenario of such biblical terribleness that anything that isn’t it is a half decent result.
5. It’s third greatest attribute is that it involves a transition period, albeit one that is too short. Let’s savour for a moment the irony of a deal being good because it mandates a period of no change.
6. But does anyone think this Deal is going to be a good deal let alone a great deal?
7. Strike 1. It’s unlikely to provide any clear view about the post transition arrangement with the EU. This is unhelpful, to say the least, for anyone who has cause to be concerned about the future relationship (NB this includes all impacted businesses).
8. Strike 2. It will involve an Irish backstop. Depending on your view, that may or may not be a good thing, but the backstop condition will almost certainly be operative (see Strike 1, also, there’s not enough time) and that means...
9. Strike 2 (Cont) ...Either a ‘temporary’ customs union, a concept generally loathed by Leavers) or an extension to transition, perpetuating the expedient but dissatisfactory combination of effective membership without representation.
10. Strike 3. There’s probably a majority out there for ‘just get on with it so we don’t have to talk about it anymore.’ But I have bad news. This Brexit is unclear, imprecise and unstable. We’re going to be talking about it for years and years to come.
11. Does the Deal represent the ‘will of the people’? Now I’m a will of the people sceptic but does anyone think that an indeterminate transition, no clue re future relationship, and possible temporary CU Brexit is remotely close to what people voted for?
12. And yet, here is this not very good and quite possibly bad deal that many smart and thoughtful people think is going to happen. And they’re probably right. Why is that?
13. Despite the government’s shambolic ineptitude, none of the opposing forces have managed to come up with a plan that actually works.
14. The ERG’s plan falls over because of the backstop. The Boles EEA plan is failing because of ‘temporary’. The 2nd referendum plan has, so far, failed to generate enough public support. And as for Labour - let’s be generous and say there’s a direction rather than a plan.
15. This is a bit ironic (maybe sad, possibly tragic) because there are other plans that actually work. Michel Barnier has a whole diagram of them. You might not like them - Canada + backstop, Norway etc - but they do actually work.
16. And who’s to say that any of the actually workable alternatives are better or worse than the planned deal or more or less representative of the will of the people, or, god forbid, actually a good deal. We have never really had that debate.
17. Instead, the apparently compelling argument for the Deal is that if parlt doesn’t vote for it then there’ll be No Deal, and, ironically, we now seem to be told by govt that quite apart from not being a walk in the park, No Deal would be a 1970s disaster movie type event.
18. I am astonished that people are buying the argument that the only alternative to the Deal is No Deal.
19. People argue there are no other deals available. But that’s simply not the case. They say there’s not enough time. But we have until March and there’s the possibility of A50 extension or even revocation.
20. Apparently, the EU will not negotiate a different deal. Is that true? Yes and no. Will the EU negotiate a deal that involves compromising their red lines or worsening their position? No. Will they negotiate a different deal that’s consistent with their objectives? Yes.
21. Instead, we’re staring at the miserable alternative of a deal that no one seems to like. The govt position is no better than, ‘It’s the best that we could do.’ But, really, is it the best we can do? We can, and we must, do better. /ends