No Deal? She cannot be serious

When this all started, I wonder what we all thought “negotiation” meant? I suspect it meant different things to different people. It certainly seems to have meant different things to the EU negotiators and the UK Government.

For the EU it was most likely a simple term, meaning something like “discussions to reach an agreement”. A bit like the the negotiation each of us holds with a mobile phone company when we want to change contract: do you want plan A with the free, unlimited phonecalls or plan B with the pricey calls but as much data as you like?

What the phone companies conspicuously don't offer is – what would you like and how much would you like to pay? Cherry-picking, to use the colloquial. Yet, for the UK Government, “negotiation” meant each side coming up with creative, logic-busting options for a bespoke deal that would satisfy the UK's penchant for cakeism. Even though everyone knew the Leave campaign was built on lies and fantasies, Mrs May and her team actually expected the EU to undermine itself in order to help her deliver.

It was never going to happen.

From her extraordinary tantrum on Friday, alone at the lectern in Number Ten, it is clear that Mrs May is still in the wrong conversation. She still thinks it is up to the EU to sort this out and offer something. The whole foundational assumption of her approach is wrong.

The EU and its Single Market are existing rules-based structures. They will certainly be weaker without the UK as a member. However, not so weak as if they destroy their very nature from within. As commentators have tirelessly pointed out, you can't leave a club and then expect the club to change its rules. A club has no meaning or value to its members if non-members can get the same benefits. Why on earth should the EU make us an offer? The truth is, if we leave with no deal at all, they will have a considerable amount of aggro on one border and some revenue issues, but the integrity of their structures will remain sound and it's business as usual with the remaining 27 states. The UK on the other hand will have nothing.

“Project Fear” as it was so recklessly dubbed was nothing of the sort. It was Project Reality and, frankly, understated. The Leavers are still failing to grasp just how crucial the EU is to everything. One of the latest revelations is that credit cards issued by UK banks will not work in the EU in the event of No Deal. This isn't because anyone will be punishing us. It's because the only reason they do work now is because of EU agreements. There is nothing to stop us having a new agreement to get them working again in the future – but that is precisely what a deal entails. By definition, No Deal means we haven't yet got a new agreement. And before you scoff and say “Ah, but the Americans can use their cards and they're not in the EU” - true, but that is because they have an agreement with the EU. Much of our interaction around the world is conducted under the EU umbrella – so with no deal, it all falls away. This is where the aviation issue comes in – our planes fly under EU agreements and our pilots are recognised by EU regulation. In the event of No Deal, it all stops. And to reiterate – yes, it can ALL be replaced. Of course it can. But it all takes time and the phrase No Deal encapsulates the point – nothing new has been agreed, therefore we have nothing. No deals, no agreements, no cooperations, no processes and systems at all.

Go back into the mobile phone world for a moment. Let's say you cancel your contract with company A because you don't like something about their service. As you quite sensibly argue, plenty of people are not with company A and they manage to make phone calls. But then, you fail to agree a new contract with company B, or indeed with any of companies C-Z. On cut-off day, March 29th 2019, you will simply have no phone service at all. And that is not the problem of the phone companies – it's yours. You are the only one suffering.

Once you get your head round this, you realise that No Deal is insane. It is unthinkable. And all of May's posturing at the lectern on Friday looks embarrassingly like a toddler tantrum. She can't possibly allow No Deal. She, her cronies and the Tory Party would be finished, permanently.

And if she truly believed it would be ok, why was she getting stressed at all? If she truly believed it would all be fine, she'd presumably be rather relaxed. After all, No Deal would mean she could give up trying, not have to go to any more humiliating meetings like Salzburg. She could just get on with running this brave little country which answers to no-one but itself in this imaginary world where everything suddenly gets better outside the EU.

Why wasn't she beaming with delight on Friday? Didn't she just get let off homework for the rest of her life?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brexit Apathy

“The death of democracy...will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” These words of Robert M Hutchins seem rather pertinent to our current situation. Every day I ask myself again whether it's time to “let it go” and accept Brexit. And every time I ask that question, two big issues rise up to block the way. The first is the unbelievably cavalier way in which the individuals most affected by this are being treated – the EU nationals who live in the UK and the UK nationals who live in other EU countries. We have, as the saying goes, thrown them under a bus. And when you consider the stir caused this week by CCTV footage of a London jogger doing exactly that to a woman on the pavement, it brings home what a shocking analogy it is. As long as the politicians insist on playing games of chess with real peoples' lives, there will be millions of us who dig in our heels and say “unacceptable”. The second big stumbling block to accepting the out
Read more

Windrush - twig or branch?

I can't stop thinking about the so-called Windrush scandal. I say so-called, because I think there's a danger that we have got hold of the wrong end of the stick if this is 'only' about the Windrush generation. Or rather, we have grabbed firmly on to the twig, but if we run with that, it will snap away, leaving the main branch, the bigger point, unmoved. Don't get me wrong - the Windrush scandal is certainly shocking. The way individuals have been treated correlates with my definition of criminal. But these individual cases are but twigs from a thicker branch of systemic hostility to "the other". If we allow ourselves to be focused on individual cases, we allow Theresa May and the Government and, in fact, ourselves, off the hook. If the concern is that person A is deported in error, an apology can be made, decisions reversed and even, potentially, compensation made. And there the story dies, with no hint of "lessons having been lear
Read more

Brexit - Secret Option Number Three

There's talk of riots if Brexit doesn't go ahead. It's hard to know whether this is a serious possibility – a proposed protest at the Supreme Court in December was hastily cancelled at the last minute when barely a few dozen showed any interest. But let's just for a moment assume it is a real and credible possibility. The prevailing narrative over-simplifies the choice – implement the result of the referendum or don't. Implement it and cause certain impoverishment to our nation. Ignore it, and risk riots and undermining the cause of democracy. But why is our vision so narrow? What if there is a secret option number three? There are five Ws that help us get to the bottom of a story – What? When? Who? Where? And Why? The first four are essentially fact-based and are in themselves often rather dull. They are answered easily enough with regard to the referendum result. The interesting question is the last one – “why”. And over a year later, we are still no clearer
Read more