THERE was never a viable “soft Brexit” on the table.
In actual fact, there should never have been a Brexit referendum, not until the Irish question had seen a final, satisfactory, solution. The Tories, in an act of supreme arrogance, chose to ignore that bit of reality. Cameron should have simply told his rebels: talk to the DUP, Sinn Fein, then get the Republic at the table over that Good Friday thing, sort that out, I’ll put my name on the deal. Brexit referendum after.
Long grass – kicked.
Instead we are in a place where, when we strip away the waffling spin of England’s media and political class, then consider the EU’s predictably firm and unwavering stance, well, an idiot could have foreseen that the options the UK Government assumed it had, in its blind assertion of its God-given right to dictate, were utterly illusory. After triggering Article 50 London “knew” a Canada-style deal, a Norwegian deal, a bespoke (smorgasbord) deal, a hard Brexit or no Brexit would all be available. Westminster would choose. Was it ever wrong.
Starting with the poorest option, a “hard Brexit”, it’s an accepted economic disaster and unmitigated act of self-harm, yet it is the one path which any London government of the day can choose to walk.
No negotiation required.
It will simply happen, absent any move to the contrary.
The “next worst”, the Canada-style, had hints of possibility, but only with either Irish re-unification or a new customs area in the Irish Sea. As the Irish, predictably, won’t accept a hard border of any type between them and the North, this leaves any incumbent UK Government in a fair bit of a pickle. Effectively, it’s just not available. The EU supports the Good Friday Agreement. Westminster prefers to flush it.
A Norwegian-style deal equals saying goodbye to the rebates, to many subsidies, while continuing to pay in, but likely at a higher net level, all while losing that voice (and veto) at the top table, and having to accept the “four freedoms”. Effectively, giving away (literally) the farm (and fishing) while getting nothing in return, except the privilege of being gagged.
What PM could accept it? How could it possibly be spun as a success?
Lastly, there’s the (possible) option of withdrawing that Article 50 notice, if the EU agrees, although we should expect the UK to lose its rebates and privileges. Then we’re back to where we were in 2016, just paying substantially more. The probable road block to this scenario is two-fold. Westminster is a breath from bankruptcy, we essentially live in a failed austerity state, surviving on bankers’ cash. Realistically, we can’t pay much more. Then there’s the fact (again) of how such an unmitigated disaster could be sold to the public at large.
Reality says we’ve a hard Brexit or no Brexit coming, because the EU has categorically ruled out cherry-picking (the bespoke/smorgasbord deal) while making it clear the decision to leave is not irreversible.
We only have to wait and see if Westminster will jump back, or if England and Wales will throw us all from a cliff.
While we wait, another Tory PM teeters on that Brexit ledge and behind her, the loyal party takes a week to decide who’ll push first. Each MP wants someone else to shove, for who wants her seat by the poisoned chalice?
Irrespective of the final leadership, the only outcome now visible entails a UK PM demanding a huge and very public helping of European humble pie, then having a hissy fit if they don’t get it before April/ Oh, and perhaps they’ll have a side of second-class EU citizenship to go with it.
Should we really tie ourselves to such back-stabbing, cowardly incompetence?
A MacGregor
East Kilbride
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel