The Shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, says he would back second referendum; but only if it is a 'vote on the deal itself' and not if it includes a remain option [Guardian].
But such a proposal may be moot as the chance of a deal may well be unlikely. Indeed it seems, after Salzberg, that the most likely position Britain will find itself come March 2019 is one of crashing out of the EU and falling back on WTO rules.
Even before May arrived in Austria there were already suggestions that Theresa May's Chequers proposal would be rejected and a no-deal Brexit was on the cards [Guardian / FT].
Only ever three options
When Article 50 was invoked there many people thought that the two year period up to the point where Britain left was a 'negotiation' whereby Britain and the EU made a deal upon which both could agree and sign.
But this is not quite the case. As was said, and should have been understood by UK 'negotiators' from the outset, at the beginning of talks there would be no 'cherry-picking' and the 'four freedoms' - freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour - were inseparable.
Thus to be a part of the single market all four freedoms would have to be accepted.
Outside of the single market, one would have to negotiate a separate trade deal with the EU as other third countries have done.
Similarly there is the issue of the customs union, another important element of the EU Single Market. Under its rules, the EU operates as a trade bloc, operating common external tariffs and customs barriers, and negotiating trade deals as one. As a member of the Customs Union, the UK is not allowed to negotiate other bilateral trade deals, but it does benefit from having the same access to many other counties on an equal basis as the other EU member states [Institute for Government].
So there were only ever three deals on the table. That Britain remained as is; that Britain became a member of the EEA - thus not being a member of the EU but retaining access to the Single Market and Customs Union, or leaving 'without a deal' and falling back on WTO rules.
In summary those that think that they were in a negotiation with the EU were just plain wrong. They were not [Huffington Post].
Britain is essentially in a position where it tells the EU what of the acquis communautaire Britain is happy to sign up to, and the EU tells the UK what it can have in return.
[The Acquis Communautaire is the accumulated body of European Union (EU) law and obligations from 1958 to the present day. It comprises all the EU's treaties and laws (directives, regulations, decisions), declarations and resolutions, international agreements and the judgements of the Court of Justice.]
What the UK can have in return cannot be different from what other countries have in return for the same commitment to the EU's rules and regulations. This is partly because in some cases it would break WTO rules, but also because it would not be in the EU's interests and would be unfair to other member states.
Slogans & unworkable deals
The likes of David Davis had said early into the so-called 'negotiations' that he would like the UK to secure a free-trade deal with no tariffs when it leaves the EU in what he described as "Canada plus plus plus" - a reference to the free trade deal struck between Canada and the EU [BBC]
But such a proposal was obviously wishful thinking since Britain would have to be a third country before the EU could even begin to negotiate such a deal. Furthermore, Davis also seemed to overlook the fact that the Canada/EU trade deal took many years to finalise and does not cover all the sectors Britain might want access to.
Theresa May's red lines and almost immediate rejection of remaining in either the Single Market or Customs Union ruled out Britain becoming an EEA member.
She was also adamant in her position that she would 'respect the vote', declaring that "Brexit Means Brexit".
This could only ever mean one thing. Britain would leave without a deal and fall back on WTO rules.
Her other slogans reinforced this. In December 2016 she declared she would be seeking a "Red, White and Blue" Brexit [Guardian / Independent].
And in May 2017 she declared "No deal is better than a bad deal" and even incorporated this into the Tory Manifesto [Independent].
By proclaiming she sought a "Red, White and Blue" or bespoke Brexit, it was clear any offer would be rejected by the remaining 27 EU members since it would be seen as cherry-picking.
Kicking the can towards the cliff
Her proclamation that no deal was better that a bad deal was, for anyone that was awake, a clear sign that all the UK government was doing was kicking the can down the road, going through the motions, until such point that Britain left without a deal and fell back on WTO rules.
This seems to have been the plan from day one. Indeed it seems clear that Britain had no intention of signing up to any deal that the EU might have presented to the UK, not that it was ever the EU that needed to present an offer.
Indeed it has never been, under the auspices of Article 50, a requirement for the EU to present a deal. It remains entirely incumbent on Britain to present a plan and the EU to either ratify or reject it.
Theresa May's speech last week that inferred the EU had not treated Britain with respect was rather disingenuous.
She said for EU leaders to reject her plan with no alternative at this "late stage of negotiations" was "not acceptable". But she must known that her Chequers plan would have been rejected as it simply amounted to another cherry-picking exercise. But it appears she is clueless [Guardian].
"At this late stage in the negotiations, it is not acceptable to simply reject the other side's proposals without a detailed explanation and counter proposals," she tersely said during a statement on Friday after returning from Salzburg.
But she should know full well that it is not the EU's mandate, under Article 50, to offer "counter proposals". The EU27 merely have to say yes or no.
Much of Britain's right-wing press suggested the EU had humiliated Theresa May. But the simple truth is that the PM brought it upon herself by putting forward a plan that was clearly going to be rejected.
While the European Council President Donald Tusk had earlier made a joke about cherry-picking when he posted a picture on Instagram he later suggested a "compromise" was possible but the UK proposals had to be "reworked" [BBC].
Meanwhile the pound fell against the dollar and the euro following May's statement, an indication of the hurt that will result when Britain does crash out in March.
Clear statement needed
Labour's plan is no better
Jeremy Corbyn's plans to transform Britain's economy, should Labour win the next general election, by re-nationalising large sectors such as water, the post office and railways. But his plans are raising eyebrows and damaging the UK in the eyes of international investors who are already worried about the impact of Brexit on company profits and economic growth.
"Corbyn and McDonnell are viscerally anti-Europe; Corbyn voted against the European Union back in '74 and consistently since," says Posen. "If the Labour leadership were different you could have a remain vote, come back. But as long as the Labour leadership is these two nut jobs and it will remain these two nut jobs for the foreseeable future - run by the unions - you will not see a turnaround. So the UK is going to have to cope with the economic aspect."
But such a proposal may be moot as the chance of a deal may well be unlikely. Indeed it seems, after Salzberg, that the most likely position Britain will find itself come March 2019 is one of crashing out of the EU and falling back on WTO rules.
Even before May arrived in Austria there were already suggestions that Theresa May's Chequers proposal would be rejected and a no-deal Brexit was on the cards [Guardian / FT].
Only ever three options
When Article 50 was invoked there many people thought that the two year period up to the point where Britain left was a 'negotiation' whereby Britain and the EU made a deal upon which both could agree and sign.
But this is not quite the case. As was said, and should have been understood by UK 'negotiators' from the outset, at the beginning of talks there would be no 'cherry-picking' and the 'four freedoms' - freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour - were inseparable.
Thus to be a part of the single market all four freedoms would have to be accepted.
Outside of the single market, one would have to negotiate a separate trade deal with the EU as other third countries have done.
Similarly there is the issue of the customs union, another important element of the EU Single Market. Under its rules, the EU operates as a trade bloc, operating common external tariffs and customs barriers, and negotiating trade deals as one. As a member of the Customs Union, the UK is not allowed to negotiate other bilateral trade deals, but it does benefit from having the same access to many other counties on an equal basis as the other EU member states [Institute for Government].
So there were only ever three deals on the table. That Britain remained as is; that Britain became a member of the EEA - thus not being a member of the EU but retaining access to the Single Market and Customs Union, or leaving 'without a deal' and falling back on WTO rules.
In summary those that think that they were in a negotiation with the EU were just plain wrong. They were not [Huffington Post].
Britain is essentially in a position where it tells the EU what of the acquis communautaire Britain is happy to sign up to, and the EU tells the UK what it can have in return.
[The Acquis Communautaire is the accumulated body of European Union (EU) law and obligations from 1958 to the present day. It comprises all the EU's treaties and laws (directives, regulations, decisions), declarations and resolutions, international agreements and the judgements of the Court of Justice.]
What the UK can have in return cannot be different from what other countries have in return for the same commitment to the EU's rules and regulations. This is partly because in some cases it would break WTO rules, but also because it would not be in the EU's interests and would be unfair to other member states.
Slogans & unworkable deals
The likes of David Davis had said early into the so-called 'negotiations' that he would like the UK to secure a free-trade deal with no tariffs when it leaves the EU in what he described as "Canada plus plus plus" - a reference to the free trade deal struck between Canada and the EU [BBC]
But such a proposal was obviously wishful thinking since Britain would have to be a third country before the EU could even begin to negotiate such a deal. Furthermore, Davis also seemed to overlook the fact that the Canada/EU trade deal took many years to finalise and does not cover all the sectors Britain might want access to.
Theresa May's red lines and almost immediate rejection of remaining in either the Single Market or Customs Union ruled out Britain becoming an EEA member.
She was also adamant in her position that she would 'respect the vote', declaring that "Brexit Means Brexit".
This could only ever mean one thing. Britain would leave without a deal and fall back on WTO rules.
Her other slogans reinforced this. In December 2016 she declared she would be seeking a "Red, White and Blue" Brexit [Guardian / Independent].
And in May 2017 she declared "No deal is better than a bad deal" and even incorporated this into the Tory Manifesto [Independent].
By proclaiming she sought a "Red, White and Blue" or bespoke Brexit, it was clear any offer would be rejected by the remaining 27 EU members since it would be seen as cherry-picking.
Kicking the can towards the cliff
Her proclamation that no deal was better that a bad deal was, for anyone that was awake, a clear sign that all the UK government was doing was kicking the can down the road, going through the motions, until such point that Britain left without a deal and fell back on WTO rules.
This seems to have been the plan from day one. Indeed it seems clear that Britain had no intention of signing up to any deal that the EU might have presented to the UK, not that it was ever the EU that needed to present an offer.
Indeed it has never been, under the auspices of Article 50, a requirement for the EU to present a deal. It remains entirely incumbent on Britain to present a plan and the EU to either ratify or reject it.
Theresa May's speech last week that inferred the EU had not treated Britain with respect was rather disingenuous.
She said for EU leaders to reject her plan with no alternative at this "late stage of negotiations" was "not acceptable". But she must known that her Chequers plan would have been rejected as it simply amounted to another cherry-picking exercise. But it appears she is clueless [Guardian].
"At this late stage in the negotiations, it is not acceptable to simply reject the other side's proposals without a detailed explanation and counter proposals," she tersely said during a statement on Friday after returning from Salzburg.
But she should know full well that it is not the EU's mandate, under Article 50, to offer "counter proposals". The EU27 merely have to say yes or no.
Much of Britain's right-wing press suggested the EU had humiliated Theresa May. But the simple truth is that the PM brought it upon herself by putting forward a plan that was clearly going to be rejected.
While the European Council President Donald Tusk had earlier made a joke about cherry-picking when he posted a picture on Instagram he later suggested a "compromise" was possible but the UK proposals had to be "reworked" [BBC].
Meanwhile the pound fell against the dollar and the euro following May's statement, an indication of the hurt that will result when Britain does crash out in March.
Clear statement needed
If Britain is going to remain in the EU or EEA, thus the Single Market and Customs Union, the government need to put on the brakes and make clear to business that Britain's future is certain. If not the government have to make that clear also, even if that is an uncomfortable thing to hear.
With less than 6 months to go and it seeming all too certain that a hard, no-deal Brexit is on the cards, businesses may have to make some hard decisions now. To make decisions in March next year could prove too late and very costly for companies that remain and have to operate under WTO tariffs.
In January 2017 Theresa May walked into the Long Gallery, where Churchill threw his Coronation banquet in 1953, and announced her Brexit plan dressed in a suit which could only be described as pyjamas [Daily Mail].
With less than 6 months to go and it seeming all too certain that a hard, no-deal Brexit is on the cards, businesses may have to make some hard decisions now. To make decisions in March next year could prove too late and very costly for companies that remain and have to operate under WTO tariffs.
In January 2017 Theresa May walked into the Long Gallery, where Churchill threw his Coronation banquet in 1953, and announced her Brexit plan dressed in a suit which could only be described as pyjamas [Daily Mail].
Should her plan be rejected by the EU, she suggested she was to turn Britain into a low-tax Singapore of the west, essentially sleepwalking Britain back into the past. According to Adam Posen, an American economist and President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who spent three years as a policy maker at the Bank of England, this is a fantasy. "It won't make Britain like Hong Kong in the '70s. It will make Britain like Britain was in the '70s. That is a step backward, a step away from freedom and a step away from prosperity." [FT / tvnewswatch].
Labour's plan is no better
Jeremy Corbyn's plans to transform Britain's economy, should Labour win the next general election, by re-nationalising large sectors such as water, the post office and railways. But his plans are raising eyebrows and damaging the UK in the eyes of international investors who are already worried about the impact of Brexit on company profits and economic growth.
"Corbyn and McDonnell are viscerally anti-Europe; Corbyn voted against the European Union back in '74 and consistently since," says Posen. "If the Labour leadership were different you could have a remain vote, come back. But as long as the Labour leadership is these two nut jobs and it will remain these two nut jobs for the foreseeable future - run by the unions - you will not see a turnaround. So the UK is going to have to cope with the economic aspect."
With the prospect of another financial crash on the way, compounded by the US/China trade war and rising global debt, the future for Britain is far from bright.
tvnewswatch, London, UK
No comments:
Post a Comment