David Hannay is a member of the House of Lords and former UK ambassador to the EU and UN.
If the likelihood of crashing out the EU with no deal at all is to be measured in column inches devoted to the subject by the media, then the evidence of recent days suggests that outcome is getting more likely. It may be. But this means of measurement is a crude one. It takes no account of the extent to which fear of a no-deal Brexit is being promoted by the government, as a tool for parliamentary and public opinion management and manipulation.
Of course some of the concern and commentary is entirely legitimate. There is an increasingly short time before the proposed exit date of March 29 2019, and also doubts as to whether the prime minister’s claim that only “5%” of issues remain to be settled may conceal more than it reveals. Her figure may in any case be quantitatively accurate but qualitatively wrong, containing as it does the conundrum of the Irish backstop.
In fact much evidence points to the government’s negotiating strategy not being “no deal is better than a bad deal” but rather “any deal is better than no deal”. If that is so, we can expect a deal to be struck following more concessions to meet the EU’s red lines, but this is more likely in December than November.
And then, when the deal is brought before Parliament for a meaningful vote, all that alarm and despondency over the consequences of a no-deal outcome will be deployed as part of the binary choice which the prime minister wishes to impose on parliament. A choice between the deal negotiated, however bad, and chaos.
Write to your MP to
demand a People's Vote
writethiswrong.co.uk
But that is a false choice, based on the government’s insistent refusal to test in negotiation other alternatives to the Chequers plan. That includes alternatives based on remaining within the customs union and/or the single market, as well as its adamantine objections to giving the electorate the final say on the outcome.
No deal would indeed be a terrible outcome, with nothing but negative consequences for our economy and for our international standing. But talking up the likelihood of it occurring is going to be a crucial part of reconciling Parliament and the country to a deal which many will not like.
And do not forget the rather large sums of money – more than £4 billion, augmented in the budget – is being spent on precautions for an outcome which the government is quietly determined to avoid. That’s rather a high insurance premium, particularly when some of the stopgap measures being canvassed are so utterly unconvincing.
A lot will be at stake in the weeks ahead. And the need to avoid a no deal outcome will be an integral part of the equation. But not all the no-deal speculation should be taken at face value. And we should not be lured into thinking this is a straight either/or choice on the government’s terms.
Edited by Luke Lythgoe
Re: the government’s “adamantine objections to giving the electorate the final say on the outcome”
Written statement HCWS342 on 13 Dec 2017 by Mr David Davis, then Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union:
“How will the Withdrawal Agreement be approved and brought into force?
…
The EU’s chief negotiator … has said that he wants to have finalised the Withdrawal Agreement by October 2018. In Europe, the agreement will then require the consent of the European Parliament…
…”
Are there MEPs out there who have adamantine objections to the British government’s NOT giving the electorate the final say on the outcome?
Cameron was so confident he could deliver a yes vote he made no provisions for a no vote,then as soon as he’s destroyed years of investment and integration he sails off into the sunset.Thanks a bunch
Any concession to the EU which treats Northern Ireland differently to the rest of the UK would be contrary to the Act of Union.
“… all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aip/Geo3/40/38/part/6
So unless and until the EU accepts the UK’s frankly ridiculous and unworkable proposals, there cannot be any agreement. There will be no deal.
The only possible workaround would be to put the hard border between Scotland and England, which actually suits everyone but nobody seems to be considering.
* NI would not be a special case, so the DUP, the Peace Process, the Act of Union, and Ireland in general would be satisfied.
* The Scots voted to stay in the EU, so they’d be happy with that.
* Polling suggests the English would readily jettison the Union if that was the price to pay for Brexit, so a mere customs border would be nothing.
* Logistically, the border between Scotland/England is far shorter than the one between NI and the Republic of Ireland, and has very few crossing points in comparison too.
Won’t happen though. The Union is dead.