Support a proper military Brexit – sign this petition

If the UK is to separate fully from the EU, this must include cutting any ties with the EU’s military which might compromise our ability to act independently.

In order to achieve this, the UK’s independent military capacity must be retained. We therefore encourage our members and supporters to sign this petition, which calls for a halt to proposed cuts to the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy’s amphibious assault ships

Photo by conner395

Brexit means Brexit (in name only)

Politicians, civil servants and Eurocrats, economical with the truth as ever, if not actually disingenuous, are doing their best to create a Brexit in name only.  Mrs May, Mr Davis and the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union (EU) are carrying on regardless. They appear oblivious to the contradictions in what they are saying and doing, and the obvious warning signs from Brussels.  The following merely illustrates the tip of a delusional, ill-informed myopia.

Mrs May in an interview broadcast on 2nd February 2018 on Channel Four said:

“ …..we have until March 2019, that is when we are leaving the European Union. 

… What we are going to be negotiating with the European Union is a free trade agreement with them that will be about a tariff free, a frictionless trading as possible. …..That’s the sort of deal I’m going to be negotiating……What we will have in future and that is what the next few months negotiating is about is a bespoke free trade agreement.”

The EU sees things somewhat differently and has remained consistent in its approach, although as time passes it appears to be getting increasingly uncompromising and demanding.  Its top priorities are the preservation of its own interests and obedience to its rules rather than accommodating the wayward United Kingdom. This is very apparent in recent report and their published text and slides on the EU’s view of the transitional period.

Mr Barnier (the EU’s chief negotiator) on his recent trip to London, repeating previous comments (for example), said:

“The only thing I can say – without the customs union, outside the single market – barriers to trade and goods and services are unavoidable.”

An all-singing, all-dancing free trade agreement is not likely to be the long term solution even if it can be negotiated. Furthermore, negotiations on such a deal can only start after the UK has formally left the EU, that is, after 29th March 2019 or later, as confirmed the EU’s Trade Commissioner back in 2016. The EU’s perspective on a free trade agreement with the UK is roughly on the lines of  ‘OK if it is a win for us and a lose for you’.  The Irish Times has recently been reporting on what the EU is up to, such as hamstringing our businesses and government, and retaining the right through the Common Fisheries Policy to plunder our Exclusive Economic Zone (i.e., the waters up to 200 nautical miles from the shoreline. or the median point where the sea is less than 400 nautical miles wide).  The EU’s demands go far beyond what is strictly necessary for trade.

Unbelievably Mrs May is likely to agree to this and much more. Time is not on her side. Also the unbreakable law of negotiations is against her as well – in other words, ‘money and concessions flow from the weakest (or more desperate) to the strongest party’.  The transition cave-in (aka agreement to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ of barriers to trade) effectively turns the UK into a powerless EU vassal state as explained here and here (where vassal status becomes permanent without a free trade agreement).  It looks like this could actually be less awful than the terms eventually on offer for an unfree trade agreement from an omnipotent EU to a subservient Mrs May-led UK.  Germany, in the form of Mrs Merkel, is already making disparaging jokes in semi-private about Mrs May.

That a domestically weak Mrs Merkel can lampoon our supposed ‘negotiating dreadnought’ points to an uncompromising EU/German-centric position.  And what Germany wants from the EU, Germany gets.  After all, the EU is a political construct which was designed to tame German nationalism, whilst facilitating its industrial, commercial and demographic clout, and at the same time giving France delusions of grandeur. Economic objectives are subordinate, not dominant to political objectives.  In considering a free trade agreement there should be no underestimating the EU’s continuing priorities of control-freak centralisation (under German hegemony), homogeneity and undermining national identities.  It is unlikely Mrs Merkel (or her eventual successors) will treat the UK kindly as this could encourage other Member States to rebel.

Yet the prospect of the UK becoming a permanent, powerless EU vassal state by indefinitely extending the transitional arrangement or by signing a one-sided free trade agreement is basically thanks to Mrs May’s dithering.  Although presumably Mr Davis and the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union had some input. Mrs May, for reasons never explained, decided that we must leave the Single Market (and by extension the European Economic Area, EEA). Remaining in the EEA by rejoining EFTA, the European Free Trade Association, is a much better proposition as a temporary or transitional measure. It would allow fairly frictionless trade and a breathing space in which to negotiate a suitable long-term trading relationship without being under duress.

The EFTA/EEA option allows for control of immigration through unilaterally invoking Article 112 (the Safeguard Measures) of the EEA Agreement.  The EFTA route to EEA membership gives members outside the EU a say in EU legislation affecting the EEA, is largely free (although ‘voluntarily’ Norway does contribute to regional development funds) and is outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The EEA Acquis or body of law is about a quarter of the total EU Acquis since it only relates to successful functioning of the EEA. And EFTA members make their own trade agreements with other countries.  Membership of the EEA solves the problem of maintaining a soft border in Ireland between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. It also gives us full control of fishing.

When Mrs May first rejected remaining in the Single Market, in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 she appears to have been unaware of the EFTA/EEA route and its possibilities. Unfortunately, she does appear both then and in her later Florence speech of 22nd September 2017, to have swallowed ‘hook, line and sinker’ the disingenuous line repeatedly peddled by the EU leaders about the four freedoms (of movement of goods, capital, services and people) being inviolable – they certainly are if you are a Member State of the EU but not for EFTA countries who can unilaterally invoke Article 112 of the EEA Agreement.

EU leaders and Mr Barnier in particular appear to have been both unhelpful and economical with the truth about the EFTA/EEA route. However, recently it appears the European Commission may be seriously evaluating the EFTA/EEA route for transitional arrangements for the UK as noted by an EFTA Court judge (Mr Carl Baudenbacher) giving evidence to the Commons Committee for Exiting the EU on 7th February 2018 and reported in the Telegraph on-line. It would be very ironic if it was the EU which finally pushed Mrs May into signing up even temporarily to a better proposition – i.e., EFTA/EEA membership –  than the one she is currently minded to pursue.

We can but hope that common sense will prevail for if not, no amount of spin will be able to conceal the truth about Mrs May’s submissive transition to an unfree trade agreement. There will obviously be a heavy political price to be paid in the next General Election in 2022 for short- changing the British people over Brexit through turning this country into a permanent EU Vassal State.

A Nation Once Again!

By Alan Smith. This article is used with full permission of the author.

Now that Parliament has agreed that the Government may negotiate the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, discussion on the subject is concentrating on the degrees of hardness that Brexit should take. I think we should step back from the detail and define the essence of Brexit, for which I offer the following, in the language of the Book of Common Prayer: “The Queen in Parliament has the chief power in the United Kingdom and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.”

Should the solution agreed with the EU leave the UK under the jurisdiction of any European court or under rules that give the EU the power to decide unilaterally the terms of future transactions between us, then the government will have violated the referendum decision. Any future agreement between the UK and the EU or its constituent states should be on the basis of two, or more, sovereign states freely agreeing one or more joint actions. The UK would then be free to negotiate treaties with other states throughout the world, taking care to ensure that we protect our essential industries against hostile trade policies.

The withdrawal of the UK from the jurisdiction of the various European  courts is necessary but not sufficient for our freedom. In my opinion it is also necessary to abolish our own Supreme Court and transfer its powers back to the House of Lords, reinstating the post of Lord Chancellor to the powers it held before Tony Blair’s ill-fated attempt to abolish it. That ws one of hte lighter moments in political life this century when Mr Blair announced the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor  and was then advised that it could not be done because certain actions had to be performed by the holder of that post. He quickly backtracked and now we have the post of “Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice”. I do not wish to belittle any of the holders of this post but the position is listed seventh in the  list of members of the Cabinet and may be held by politicians with ambitions to hold higher office. This contrasts with the previous post of Lord Chancellor held by a politician with no further political ambitions, who was a lawyer respected by the profession and who was therefore in a position to speak truth to power.

Leaving the EU does not mean that the UK is leaving Europe: in the Middle Ages, England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland were part of Christendom without being part of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no need  for us to have bad relations with those states that remain within the EU, but that depends, in part, on those states realizing that their interests are not necessarily the same as those of the great wen of Brussels. In particular, there is no reason for us not to continue to maintain armed forces on the continent of Europe for the defence of these states and ourselves. However, should Brussels seek to impose severe financial penalties on the UK for daring ot leave the EU it may be necessary for us to reappraise this position. In addition, should the EU proceed with the project of a “European Army” in such a way that it makes cooperation with NATO impossible, that too would raise the question of continued British forces on the continent as well as those of the USA.

The principal objection to the EU is that it is a project ploughing on towards a “United States of Europe” regardless of circumstances or the wishes of its member states. Europe is not eighteenth century America; the original thirteen states of the USA spoke the same language and joined together in a successful revolt against the same mother country. What worked there and then may not work here and now.

Was there an alternative to the EU and would it still be possible? Certainly there was significant support in the UK for the Gaullist idea of l’Europe des patries, a “Europe of nations.”  This would operate like the Commonwealth, with the nations of Europe cooperating on a variety of projects with a minimal secretariat to coordinate activities, unlike the vast army employed in Brussels. Whatever happens to Europe, we should maintain the idea of l’Europe des patries as a hope for the future.

The chaotic appearance of the present negotiations over Brexit may tempt us traditionalists to remain where we are. the drawback to this view is that “where we are” is on a moving train and only the illuminati know the destination.

Project Fear Mark 2??

The Buzz Feed website has obtained a leaked copy of the leaked Government analysis of different Brexit scenarios which claims that over the next 15 years, the UK would be poorer by 8% under “WTO rules”, 5% poorer under a Comprehensive trade deal with the EU and 2% poorer if we re-joined EFTA, which would allow us reasonably frictionless access to the EU’s single market.

However, this is hardly Project Fear Part 2.  Labour may be pushing for the Government to publish the findings, but they are wasting their time. The report matters not one iota.  Forecasting likely economic developments as far ahead as 2034 is an utter waste of taxpayers’ money.

I can say this with some confidence without having seen the report because government bodies and indeed many distinguished economists – especially if they carry the label “Keynesian” – have terrific form when it comes to making economic predictions which turn out to be utterly and completely wrong – even over a much shorter timescale than 15 years.

We recently pointed out that David Cameron had been caught on camera admitting that the first 18 months since the Brexit vote had not been anything like the disaster he had anticipated.  You don’t need long memories to recall Gordon Brown’s claim that there would be no more boom and bust – only a few years before the Great Recession erupted during his premiership. Going back to 1981, no fewer than 364 economists wrote a letter to the Times stating that Sir Geoffrey Howe, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer,  would cause mayhem if he raised taxes in the middle of a recession. It turned out that the controversial 1981 budget, far from exacerbating the recession, laid the foundation of the UK’s economic recovery under Margaret Thatcher.

What is more, it is asking the moon to expect civil servants to come up with a study showing Brexit to be beneficial. Steve Baker MP found himself in trouble for claiming that Treasury officials are conspiring against the government on Brexit, but like it or not, the Treasury has been reported on good authority as being keen to keep us in the Customs union, even though Civil servants are meant to implement, not decide policy.

John Mills is therefore correct in sharing our scepticism when commenting on the claim in the new report that “Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.” He says  “The whole piece rests on the above assertion. There is no description of the previous methodology or of the changes that make this analysis better. Is the methodology different from the one used previously to “prove” that the UK economy would tank if it did not join the Euro?”

Let us apply a bit of common sense to the UK’s economic prospects instead of listening to the so-called “experts”. In the shorter term, a slight dip in economic growth is likely in the post-Brexit period as things settle down, even if a satisfactory exit solution is agreed with the EU. Fisheries and agricultural  products are not covered by Single Market legislation and trade with the EU may be reduced here (although the fishing industry can begin its revival as soon as we leave, assuming Fishing for Leave’s proposals are eventually accepted by the government.) The delay in providing any guidelines about what deal the Government is expecting is causing firms to hold back on investment decisions and some firms in the City are already contemplating relocating staff to other locations. The City of London may see a slowdown in growth given the EU is none too keen to strike a trade deal involving financial services.

There is also the question of trade with those countries with whom the EU has negotiated trade deals. The EU is most reluctant to let the UK continue to participate in these deals post-Brexit and if new deals are not negotiated in time (or the countries in question do not agree to continuing to trade with the UK on the same basis), the economy may suffer here. As it happens, most of the UK’s most important trade partners outside the EU, including the USA, China and Japan have not negotiated a full-blown trade deal with the EU, although the EU has made more limited mutual recognition agreements with these countries, which we may need to replicate quickly.

All these factors do suggest that even the smoothest of Brexits could well see a slowdown in growth in early 2019, although this is a long way from saying a recession will occur. The UK economy has proved far more resilient than the promoters of “Project Fear” expected. Of course, if we crashed out of the EU, the consequences could be far more serious.

In the longer term, however, there is every reason to expect the UK to perform at least as well outside the EU as if we had remained a member state – if not better.  It will be far easier to reorientate our trade away from the sclerotic EU to the up-and-coming economies of Asia from outside the EU.  The massive deregulation advocated by some Brexiteers in the run-up to the referendum vote is not realistic, given how many  regulations originate from global bodies such as the WTO or the ILO, of which we will still be members. Some regulations could be scrapped or re-written if they originate from Brussels and are not in our national interest. We would also have the option to cut taxes to boost the economy in a way which would not be possible as an EU member state. VAT could be scrapped, for example.

Then thee is the issue of freedom. A strong correlation exists between freedom and prosperity. Freedom is a relative term, but being able to make our own laws, being able to remove those people holding real power via the ballot box if we don’t like them and our common law legal system will put us higher up the freedom index once we leave the EU. How tyrannical the EU is likely to become remains to be seen. Vladimir Bukovsky, the former Soviet dissident, said of the European Union, “I have lived in your future and it didn’t work.”  We are, of course, a long way from the gulags, the persecution of Christians and the extreme censorship of the former USSR, but a number of EU officials have made clear their disdain for real democracy. To quote one example, when the European Constitution was rejected in two referendums in France and the Netherlands,  Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French Prime Minister, said “Let’s be clear about this. The rejection of the constitution was a mistake that will have to be corrected.”

Given that we will be free from all this, it is inevitable that Brexit will have a positive effect our prosperity. It is ironic that the young people, who were the strongest supporters of remaining in the EU, are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of our leaving it. Mrs May has insisted that, in spite of these government studies, we will indeed leave the EU.  Mind you,  it would be a serious cause for concern if she had been influenced by it for, as one government minister said “It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependent on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

In other words, it isn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

 

Transition will eradicate British fishing Industry

Press release from Fishing for Leave
  • Fishermen’s Organistation Fishing for Leave say it is now unequivocal fact that the “Transition” means we will be trapped obeying all EU law including the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as some sort of vassal state
  • FFL cite EU could trap UK in protracted legal claims for ‘continuity of rights’. Continued CFP is existential threat to what is left of the British fishing industry and coastal communities.
  • Group claims EU will have little charity as the UK will be locked into “legal purgatory” in the CFP where EU could cull UK fleet and claim ‘surplus’ UK hasn’t capacity to catch.
  • FFL implore government and MP’s to refuse the “transition” terms and to exempt fisheries from them

Fishermen’s organization Fishing for Leave say the proposed “transition” is a grave constitutional danger and an “existential threat” to the survival of Britain’s fishing industry and coastal communities.

The group say it is now clear that the “transition”, which they have been warning for months, would give the UK a Brexit in name only. In a position of neither remaining as a member, as Article 50 terminates the UKs current membership on the 29th of March 2019, nor leaving as the terms of the transition say the UK must obey the entire Acquis (all EU law -old and new) including the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

**NOTES
The EU clearly stated their terms as announced on 29th of January;

12. any transitional arrangements…. should cover the whole of the Union Acquis…Any changes to the Acquis should automatically apply to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period.

17. The UK will no longer participate in or nominate or elect members of the Union institutions, nor participate in the decision-making or the governance of the Union bodies, offices and agencies.

20. Specific consultations should also be foreseen with regard to for the fixing of fishing opportunities during the transition period, in full respect of the Union acquis.

CLAUSE 12 & 20 CLEARLY SAYS WE WILL STILL HAVE TO RESPECT THE ACQUIS (i.e. THE CFP). CLAUSE 17 SAYS WE’LL HAVE NO SAY OR RECOURSE

Veteran Campaigner John Ashworth said
“Our primary concerns  is ‘Continuity of Rights’ under treaty law. We have always been concerned that adoption of all EU law onto the UK statute book could allow the EU to cite that rights acquired under the Acquis should continue to apply – the EU has stated this since its parliamentary briefing notes on Brexit in February 2016”.

“A “transition” period compounds this danger. As it is part of the deal after we leave the EU under Article 50 and it will have to be underwritten by a new ‘transition’ treaty between the two parties. Under the terms of the treaty the UK will have agreed to re-obey the entire Acquis after we terminate our current membership”

“As we will either not terminate the new ‘transition’ treaty nor have a clearly defined Article 50 get out  clause where “the treaties cease to apply”, then Article 70 of the Vienna Convention says “unless the treaty otherwise provides…..the termination of a treaty does not affect any rights, obligations or legal situations created through the treaty”..

“In addition to this Article 30 of the Vienna Convention provides that if a previous and latter treaty are not incompatible, and that the old treaty is not terminated then the rights of that treaty will still apply.”

“We will have created a continuity of rights by adopting all EU law and then agreeing to obey it as per the terms of a transition treaty. The EU could then argue for this in protracted litigation that would bind us into the CFP and hamstring the UK for years to come”.   

                                                                                                                                                                                     
Existential Threat to the Fishing Industry
Alan Hastings of FFL continued;
“If we fail to break free from the CFP the EU will be free to implement policy changes to our detriment. We doubt the EU27 would feel charitable to their political prisoner who has no representation but abundant fishing waters”.

The group say that the ill-conceived EU quota system and discard ban is the existential threat that could be used to finish what’s left of our Britain’s fishing fleet allowing the EU to claim the ‘surplus’ that Britain would no longer have the capacity to catch.

Alan highlighted;
“Rather than address the cause of discards – quotas, the EU has banned the symptoms – discards.

Now when a vessel exhausts its lowest quota it must cease fishing. ‘Choke species’ will see vessels tied up early and, according to official government Seafish statistics, 60% of the fleet will go bankrupt”.

If a sizeable portion of the UK fleet is lost international law under UNCLOS Article 62.2 which says;  ‘Where a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall… give other States access to the ‘surplus’.”

Fishing for Leave warns that between the EU having the opportunity to claim “continuity of rights” even if proved wrong they could drag out Britain being trapped in the CFP and its quota system and discard ban for enough time to fishing our fleet off.

Alan concluded;
Once we have lost our industry there is no way back from this Catch 22– if we do not have the fleet we cannot catch the “surplus” and if we do not have the “surplus” we cannot maintain a fleet. With this we will also lose a generation and their skills which are irretrievable.

The UK political establishment of all hues would not be forgiven for betraying coastal communities a second time.

“A transition destroys the opportunity of repatriating all Britain’s waters and resources worth between £6-8bn annually to national control. This would allow bespoke, environmentally fit-for-purpose UK policy that would benefit all fishermen to help rejuvenate our coastal communities”.

“As Minister, Eustice promised we could rebalance the shares of resources where we, have the EU fleet catching 60% of the fish in our waters but receive only 25% of the Total Allowable Catches even though we have 50% of the waters”

“This transition is the reverse of this and something exceptional that is within touching distance and what the public in constituencies across our land expect to see on this totemic and evocative issue”.

“The government and MPs must refuse the “transition” terms and exempt fisheries from them or we will consign another British industry to museum and memory.

“That Theresa May has known this all along means she, and her remain minded officials, are fully complicit in the embryonic stages of a second betrayal and sell out of Britain’s fishing industry”.

NOTE ON PM’s comments

For too long people have bought the government rhetoric. The PM and Ministers have repeated; “We will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy on March 29, 2019”.

This spin has never been a commitment nor indication of a clean Brexit for fisheries. Those who kept citing these words have been either mendacious or naive to the reality of a Transition.

The government has known all along what the transition meant. The PM always continues, that;
“Leaving the CFP and leaving the CAP” wouldn’t give the opportunity until post that implementation (transition) period – to actually introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom. The arrangement that pertains to fisheries during that implementation period will, of course, be part of the negotiations for that implementation period”.

We may officially “leave” the CFP on 29th March 2019 but we’ll re-obey entire EU Acquis as part of the “transition” period after Article 50 officially terminates the UKs membership – we will have left in name only.

Transition to a permanent EU vassal state?

Unless the proposed transitional deal is blown out of the water, the United Kingdom appears to be moving inexorably towards being a permanent European Union  Vassal State. Recent speeches and other statements by Mrs May and Mr Davis point strongly to this being the most likely outcome from their handling of the Brexit (or Article 50) negotiations.  All looks good on the surface, but they do not understand how the EU works and some worrying facts emerge when you analyse what they did and did not say. .

Mr Davis, reiterating Mrs May’s decision to leave the Single Market, in his Teesport Speech of the 26th January 2018  said:

“While the aim of the implementation period is to provide certainty and continuity, we must keep sight of the fact that this is a bridge to a new future partnership.

Where, crucially, the United Kingdom is outside of the single market, and outside of the customs union.”

He then went on to say:

“We want a good Brexit for business and a good Brexit for the British people and we will deliver that on a frictionless access to the Single Market and a freedom political and an economic freedom for the future.”

Clearly there is a contradiction here – it is not possible to have frictionless access whilst being outside the Single Market (or the European Economic Area, EEA) and being a ‘third country’. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has pointed this out on several occasions. For example, he said:

“A trade relationship with a country that does not belong to the European Union obviously involves frictions.”

Frictionless trade between members of the Single Market (and European Economic Area, EEA) occurs because of a common set of rules, regulations, processes or procedures, enforcement and overall EU surveillance. Accessing the EEA from outside its external borders involves complying with regulations, inspections and testing, processes and procedures, external tariffs, customs checks/clearance, VAT etc. intended for dealing with ‘third countries’.   These measures manage risks involved with ‘imports’ and sometimes are protectionist in nature.

The transition period (aka implementation period) clearly places this country into the status of a powerless EU Vassal State for 21 months after 29th March 2019 as explained here. However, if agreement on frictionless trade cannot be agreed during this period – which seems a certainty given Mr Barnier’s often repeated comments and how the EU normally treats ‘third countries’ – it will need to be extended potentially indefinitely.

Mrs May’s Davos speech on 25th January 2018 to the World Economic Forum provided the perfect audience to sell the opportunities presented by Brexit.  She could have outlined her vision, complete with objectives, timetable, planning and progress, in order to encourage her audience to invest here.  She could have addressed the principal concerns of business, for example, about market size and frictionless access to the EEA. She could have described (with specific detail) her vision for a ‘new, deep and special partnership’ with the EU which would have clarified and developed her Florence speech of 22nd September 2017.  Instead of which she focussed on artificial intelligence and making the Internet safer –  presumably her highest priorities.  Any business or political leader present, listening to and reflecting on the content could be forgiven for concluding that the UK government has nothing to offer, having already ceded control of Brexit negotiations to the EU and thus, any meaningful Brexit is not going to occur.

Artificial intelligence then is a very poor substitute for Brexit failure and even here Mrs May cannot easily offer unique government-supported opportunities for funding research and development nor can she use public sector procurement to facilitate innovation.  She can’t even protect the public sector from future Carillion fiascos. EU directives (laws) and gold-plating by her civil servants will interfere.

The transition proposals so far on offer from the EU (as explained here) are far worse than the alternative of remaining within the EEA through re-joining The European Free Trade Association (EFTA).   It is likely that the eventual transition deal (if it actually happens given  it is dependent upon Mrs May s accepting the EU’s outstanding Phase 1 conditions), will be even more onerous upon this country than already proposed.  The EU’s stance on transitional arrangements, manifested recently by the Annex to the Council Decision of 22nd May 2017 and published 29th January 2018, appears to be getting more uncompromising.  If accepted, Mrs May is likely to be forced into making further large payments into the EU’s budget, accepting continued freedom of movement of persons, taking on additional financial liabilities, remaining subject to the EU’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) and to the Common Fisheries Policy, transferring further responsibilities to the European Commission (typically defence and defence procurement, along with regulation of financial services), following the complete EU Acquis or body of existing and future law, and giving extra rights to EU citizens living here, etc..  Meanwhile, the UK will be prevented from negotiating free trade agreements around the world whilst being excluded from existing ones negotiated by the EU.

It was Mrs May’s decision to reject the EFTA/EEA option, even as a temporary measure. She first made this clear in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017.  The EFTA/EEA option allows for control of immigration through unilaterally invoking Article 112 (the Safeguard Measures) of the EEA Agreement.  The EFTA route to EEA membership gives members outside the EU a say in EU legislation affecting the EEA, is largely free (although ‘voluntarily’ Norway does contribute to regional development funds) and is outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The EEA Acquis or body of law is about a quarter of the total EU Acquis since it only relates to successful functioning of the EEA. In other words, the EEA component of the Acquis is only about trade and not political integration. Furthermore, EFTA members make their own trade agreements with other countries.  Membership of the EEA solves the problem of maintaining a soft border in Ireland between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.  The EFTA/EEA option was claimed to be the best choice for a Brexit economy in a recently leaked overly pessimistic draft government report EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing.

Unfortunately it appears that both Mrs May and Mr Davis are well and truly out of their depth.  The Department for (not) Exiting the European Union also seem to be lacking in essential competence, and is in line to face the blame for failings in getting a successful Brexit. At best, everyone is following a political Brexit whilst ignoring practicalities.  At some stage the number of Conservative MPs who will realise that the dire situation this country is facing is of their own government’s making will reach a critical mass.  At this point, there will either be an almighty rumpus following which some quite senior heads are likely to roll or else if the government persists on its stubborn course, the electorate will punish the Conservative Party severely in the next General Election in 2022 for short-changing the British people over Brexit through their acquiescence in turning this country into a permanent EU Vassal State.