It seemed a bizarre spectacle to see MPs voting on soft Brexit options which mainly require a withdrawal agreement for them to work having voted down the only such agreement they are ever likely to get.
It was also irritating, but not surprising, to hear J Corbyn claiming that agreement is "bad for jobs... etc" in the debate on the third meaningful vote when the political declaration had been uncoupled. As the withdrawal agreement only covers the divorce bill, citizen rights and the Irish border, precisely what did Corbyn think was bad for jobs in it? Labour's nakedly opportunistic stance on Brexit was never more stark.
It must stick in May's craw to have to "reach out" to Labour in such circumstances, especially since it could turn the Tories internal stand off into outright civil (or not so civil) war.
But as Labour's stance is nonsensical (just go back and read what Barry Gardiner, the Shadow International Trade secretary, said about staying in a customs union with the EU before it became Labour party policy) it's hard to see how this latest move by May can bear any fruit, other than buying time as the EU may take it as evidence of political progress in the UK and therefore justifying a further extension. Or, God forbid, a flex-tension which keeps us in indefinite stasis. How would that be any better than being locked into the backstop?
I rather hope the talks with Labour don't bear fruit as the various soft Brexit options are, for me, the worst of all worlds leaving us paying in without influencing the EU rules or budget, subject to freedom of movement and unable to do our own trade deals. It would be, as Yanis Varoufakis mistakenly said about May's deal when he appeared on Question Time, the kind of deal you would only sign after being defeated in war.
But back to the indicative votes. It's worth remembering that more MPs voted for May's withdrawal agreement (minus the political declaration) than voted for any of the options put forward by MPs. 286 if you were wondering, Ken Clarke's daft permanent customs union got 273. The second referendum 'confirmatory vote' (which of course isn't a solution) got 280. But I admit, with trepidation, that Clarke's proposal could gain more backing from MPs.
But am I right in being implacably opposed to the customs union solution? In this week's Sunday Times David Smith, who I normally assume to be correct on everything, challenged the view that a customs union would restrict our ability to negotiate independent trade deals with third party countries. He quoted "trade expert" Sam Lowe of the Centre for European Reform saying that he is "tired of pointing out" that being in a customs union does not require the UK to sign up to the EU's common commercial policy under which it negotiates trade deals with other countries. The common external tariff would restrict our room for manoeuvre - we couldn't offer tariff concessions - but it wouldn't prevent trade deals being negotiated, particularly for services, the dominant part of Britain's economy. Now I accept that non-tariff barriers are as important as tariffs in international trade. Ah, but, David and Sam, what would prevent the EU changing their rules? And why should a country that doesn't export services do a deal with us when we can't attractively trade goods in return? I am more than sceptical.
Smith notes there are other disadvantages in a customs union. For a start it's "trade diversionary", favouring inefficient domestic producers over more efficient ones overseas, which applies particularly to agriculture. However, an increasing amount of even agricultural products are tariff free these days.
However, my real nightmare is a second "confirmatory" referendum which some MPs are arguing would be needed as they are second guessing what the public wants. That might be ok if we were offered various forms of Brexit but please don't make me choose between my two least favoured options, a very soft Brexit or Remain. For me these come a long way behind May's deal and no deal.
No deal may be daft isn't totally daft. It would reset the negotiation. After all the real problem is that the negotiation was badly handled, May overplaying her hand in the Commons having long since thrown it away with the EU. According to David Davis she over-ruled him in acquiescing to the EU's order of play, with trade deferred until after their priority items were agreed. As the Irish border can't be fixed without knowing the trading arrangements this was always set up to fail. It also conceded our most important bargaining chip - the money. She then practically threw away another of our more valuable chips, co-operation on security. A prompt no deal exit would clear that slate and it would be as urgent for them as us to discuss trade. Despite the Commons votes against no deal, redolent of King Canute, it could yet happen even though May has tried to throw that last negotiating card away as well. Has she ever played poker? (No need to answer that!)
I had lost most of any sympathy I had for the Tory ultra Brexiteers some time ago, as their stance has threatened to lose for good the thing they want most. So on balance I am still opposed to no deal, but not if the alternative is Common Market 2.0 when we voted to get out. May's deal isn't perfect but it is so much better than any of the other leave options that could be available.
As a final point of whimsy, it's been mooted that May's team would have to take a Labour spokesperson with them to convince the EU that any agreement would hold. They haven't reached agreement so it looks like it won't come to that tomorrow when May goes to Brussels to beg for - what exactly? But who would it have been I wonder? Jez would be unlikely to go himself but he'd be sure to confuse them. Sir Keir is the party Brexit spokesman but his startled rabbit in the headlights demeanour would surely not give the EU side any confidence about what was being said. How did this chap ever get to be a senior lawyer? If May really wants to get us out she should try to get them to send Diane Abbott.....
No comments:
Post a Comment