The State of Brexit

The first Brexit secretary David Davis once compared talks with the EU to buying a house. He stated, “You don’t walk in and say, ‘I’m going to buy the house, now what’s the price’”. Whilst this might be true when buying a house, it is invalid to use as an analogy for Brexit where there is no “status quo” option. The seller already knows “I’m going to buy the house” because I’ve already burnt down my existing one. They know I can't live without a house, they know there are no alternative houses, and they know it will take me a long time to build a new one. So at best pretending not needing to buy the house looks like poor bluffing but at worst (as has happened) it starts to convince your own family that living without a house for a while is a valid option!

The Economist states that this argument “only works if the buyer has burned down their existing home and is negotiating to buy the only one on the market”. Many people believed Mrs May's constant "No deal is better a bad deal" which was an attempt to persuade the EU to give better terms. Instead, it only instilled in the British public's head this belief. If the current Brexit deal is not signed, the status-quo is swapped for a much less appealing alternative. This is the opposite of David Davis’ analogy.

The notion of Britain leaving the EU without a deal on the table is the most dangerous of all the Brexit fantasies. A no deal will very likely turn out to be a terrible deal. It will replace UK participation in the EU's' single market which has proved effective for decades with a bare-bones trading relationship. Although the current withdrawal deal only has a mere 3-page trade plan, it is a much-favoured plan to what Britain will be left with if a deal is not signed. Without the deal, trade will revert to World Trade Organisation rules. Therefore, while not being constrained by the EU rules, it would have to face the EU's tariffs. Although the UK would eventually adjust to this, it would be a painful transition. The EU's 10% tariffs would heavily hit industries such as car manufacturing. No-deal economists have suggested that the only method to bring benefit to consumers with trade would be for the Government to abolish all tariffs.

Arguably the most critical aspect to a no deal is the withdrawal by the UK from a large number of legal agreements with the EU. Without these agreements, the UK would have no rules of trade, aviation, financial contract clearing, immigration, medical regulation etc.

Now after a week of debates in the House of Commons, where is the UK left? After a deal that took a year and a half to make, it looks as though Parliament will throw out after less than a month’s deliberation. It seems that this vote the Prime minister is putting forward will be lost by a wide margin. This is partly due to the MP’s being elected to represent the interests of their constituents, and the vast majority of the British population disagrees strongly with the deal as it stands. Many in favour of the deal have argued that these MP’s should accept the deal as that is what the referendum decided. I believe the current deal must reflect the view of those who voted to leave initially, which for many leavers, it does not.

It is clear that the deal that Mrs May has constructed would leave the country far worse off than the already constructed one in place with the EU today. Since the deal was created, Mrs May has campaigned for it heavily trying to gain the support of the UK population and explain the merits of the deal, while also trying to gain backing from MP's. There have even been televised debates in the House of Commons. From the outside, this looks like a whole new referendum. Anybody not keeping up would presume there a new ballot would be taken after these weeks of Mrs May's campaigning. Mrs May has said that the MP's should consider what their constituents think, but so should she. She can't do this by just guessing what the people want, but rather by taking a vote.