On the EU side, there has been some posturing too

Mrs May and some members of her team have gone on record to say “No deal is better than a bad deal”, but realistically, “no deal” was never an option. The worst scenario would have been an incomplete, partial deal and with neither side wanting a cliff-edge scenario in March 2019, even this would not be anyone’s preferred option. For all the dire warnings of Yanis Varoufakis, Greece’s former Finance Minister, the UK is not Greece.  We would suffer more than EU-27 from a non-deal, but it would not be in the EU’s interests to be obstructive and prevent an agreement being signed.

To prove the point, it is now emerging that some of the tough rhetoric from the EU side which we heard in the immediate post-referendum period has turned out to be little more than posturing. Barely three months ago, it was widely reported that Spain would be given  a right of veto over the final deal with the UK and would have the full support of the other EU member states if it chose to take a tough line over Gibraltar. Recently, however, Alfonso Dastis, Spain’s Foreign Minister,  has stated that his country will not block any Brexit deal and that talks over Gibraltar’s future will be handled on a bilateral basis. “The issue of Gibraltar doesn’t have to be the first, nor the most important point during talks,” he said.

Another example of hot air is the EU’s apparent desire to remove the lucrative €uro clearing business from the City of London to somewhere within the Eurozone.  This would have been a political gesture rather than an economic necessity. After all, most clearing in the Saudi Riyal takes place in London without any heart-searching in Riyadh. Writing in City AM, however, Mark Field, the City of London’s MP claims that “All of the EU politicians and financiers I have spoken to understand that this is a risk not worth taking. They express no desire to prevent euro-denominated trades from being cleared in London and indeed privately rail against the notion that such business might be forcibly moved to Paris.” He also points out that “Most sensible players implicitly understand that if London is undermined, key participants in the financial services industry will move not to Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris but to New York, Singapore or Shanghai.” Absolutely. In or out of the EU, London  will remain Europe’s principal centre for financial services for the foreseeable future.

On the surface, however, it does appear that the EU has turned the corner after its recent problems. Its economy is performing better than at any time since the Great Recession of 2008 and eurosceptic parties in the Netherlands and France failed to make any breakthrough in recent elections. France’s new President, Emmanuel Macron, is a strong supporter of the EU and his triumph is encouraging the Eurozone to consider pressing on with further integration. Even Germany’s ever-cautious Angela Merkel recently indicated that she would “consider a common finance minister, if the circumstances are right,” adding “we could also consider a Eurozone budget if it is clear that we are really strengthening the structure of the economy and doing sensible things”. 

Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, has also adopted a very upbeat note in his invitation to the EU’s leaders for the next meeting. “It is fair to say that we will meet in a different political context from that of a few months ago, when the anti-EU forces were on the rise. The current developments on the continent seem to indicate that we are slowly turning the corner. In many of our countries, the political parties that have built their strength on anti-EU sentiments are beginning to diminish. We are witnessing the return of the EU rather as a solution, not a problem.”

There is a big “but”, however. A recent survey by Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank, pointed to a wide gap between the opinions of the EU’s “élite” (defined as leading figures from politics, media, business and civil society) and the general public and even the élite is not as optimistic as Mr Tusk’s words would have us believe.  Only 34% of the public feel they have benefitted from the EU, compared with 71% of the élite while a majority of the public (54%) think their country was a better place to live 20 years ago, which in some cases means before their country joined the EU.

The study also finds 48% of the public wants the EU to hand back powers to member states, while only 31% of the élite are keen on this idea. Less than 1 in 4 of the general public support extra powers for the EU and even among the élite, the figure is a mere 37%. What is more, among the élite, almost one in two (46%) thinks that another country will leave the EU within the next decade. The figure for the general public is 58%.

While the groundwork for the survey was undertaken between December 2016 and February 2017 – in other words, before the Dutch and French elections – it still painted a rather fragile picture of the EU, suggesting that Donald Tusk’s comments may be somewhat over-optimistic. To prove the point, less than a week after Macron’s triumph, several members of his cabinet have already quit. If plans for further Eurozone integration do fall foul of public opinion, any revival of enthusiasm for the EU project among the general public may prove short-lived.

None of this reduces the challenges facing the UK government in the Brexit negotiations. Indeed some have argued that a strong EU may be more willing to grant a favourable deal to the UK than one which believes itself to be on the back foot. What we can say is that it is far from certain that the UK’s negotiators will necessarily spend all the next 21 months facing representatives of an organisation which is self-confident or even united.

Photo by D-Stanley

And they’re off!

Today, our formal negotiations to leave the EU begin in Brussels. David Davis is meeting with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. Mr Davis said he is beginning his task “in a positive frame of mind“.

So there is finally something concrete to report after a ten days of confusion and speculation since the inconclusive General Election result. This. however, is where the certainty ends. It is almost a year since the Brexit vote and we do not know the shape of the planned Brexit deal. Of course, it is quite possible that this is a deliberate strategy to “keep our power dry”. Daniel Hannan, writing in the Daily Mail, claims that the Civil Servants have “had a year to prepare for these talks, and have put it to good effect.

We must hope so, but detail is thin on the ground. Although Philip Hammond, the Chancellor. has been widely reported as supporting ongoing membership of the Customs Union, he recently insisted that this was not the case. Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, he said, “And by the way, we’ll be leaving the customs union. The question is not whether we’re leaving the customs union, the question is what do we put in its place.” The subject of the customs union was barely mentioned in the referendum campaign last year. It has always been a red herring. For all the otherwise mixed messages of last year’s assorted leave campaigns, virtually everyone was agreed that freedom to determine our trading arrangements would be one of the principal benefits of Brexit and that remaining in the Customs Union would place unacceptable restrictions on any such future arrangements.

The Single Market is another matter, however. Mr Hammond also insisted that we would be leaving this too. Fair enough, but it would be good to know what sort of relationship exactly he and the Civil Servants have agreed to seek if they are to avoid what he called “those cliff edges.”

He also hinted that some transitional arrangement would be sought. “We will need some kind of transitional structures and the European Union needs to understand that as well. This is not a British ask or a British demand, it’s a statement of common sense, that if we’re going to radically change the way we work together we need to get there via a slope, not via a cliff edge. That’s good for business on both sides of the English Channel.” He appeared to rule out remaining in the customs union, even as part of a transitional arrangement, but was vaguer about the Single Market – deliberately so? We will no doubt know more in due course.

This does pose the question about how much influence say he, or even Mrs May, will have. The loss of the Tories’ overall majority leaves the government more beholden to Parliament  – including Tory backbenchers – than before. Some have gone on record – anonymously – that any backpedalling on, or dilution of Brexit by the Prime Minister will result in a leadership challenge.

Mrs May will therefore have her work cut out to appease some more hard line Brexiteers, but on the other hand, she will need to keep on board those MPs are less enthusiastic about leaving the EU, who will doubtless seek to exploit any features of the end deal which would negatively affect the economy in general and jobs in particular.

Labour, however, says it will not seek to derail Brexit. During the election campaign, Jeremy Corbyn was campaigning for a different sort of Brexit but never offered any hint that he would try to undermine it.  There are two issues at play here. First, personally, Mr Corbyn has never been a supporter of the EU project. As we have pointed out, his contribution to the remain campaign was at best lukewarm and in reality, a negative one.  More to the point, outside the big cities, support for Brexit was strong in Labour-voting constituencies and Corbyn and his team rightly realised that unless he emphasised his commitment to Brexit, votes – and potentially seats – could be lost in the constituencies which historically have been Labour’s heartland. This tactic succeeded and consequentially, those Labour MPs who dislike both Corbyn and Brexit must realise that their room for manoevre is rather limited given that their party did much better than was widely predicted two months ago.

Emmanuel Macron, the seemingly all conquering French President, insisted that “the door remains open” to the UK abandoning Brexit and remaining in the EU. Dan Hannan strongly rebutted this offer. “The idea that Britain might crawl back to Brussels, apologising for its mistake, shows an extraordinary misreading of our character, our history – and public opinion,” he wrote.

It’s not just our history and character. One does not often find oneself in agreement with John Major, but during a recent interview on BBC’s Radio 4, he made the point  that the EU has never really been a big priority for most UK voters. Ask any veteran UKIP candidate or even the Lib Dems, whose pitch to the supposed “48%” in the recent General Election campaign fell rather flat, and they would concur 100%. A vocal minority notwithstanding, most people, whichever way they voted in June last year, just want the government to get on with it.

And this is what it is finally doing. We can but hope that everyone will be satisfied with the result.

 

Photo by rogerblake2

Fishing for Leave Threatens Another Flotilla if Establishment Continues to Prevaricate

Contact: Alan Hastings, press@ffl.org.uk, 07827 399 408

 

A year ago the Fishing for Leave Flotilla proceeded up the Thames to the heart of our capital with a flotilla of 30 vessels.

To take our cry for a better future to the heart of government as the most prominent demonstration of the Brexit campaign – if the government does not start to deliver or backslides on Brexit we’ll be back!

The vessels represented all sizes, sectors and all areas, making a tremendous effort and sacrifice and coming together as never before with dignity to answer their country’s call when others shamefully would not.  Some suggested it was the difference in the vote.

The SFF and NFFO that purport to represent the industry continued their ambivalence towards British withdrawal and hid behind the guise of ‘neutrality’ despite 90% of their members crying to escape the EU.

The sight of all types and sizes of vessels from all areas of the country proceeding through an icon of Britain at Tower Bridge made many hearts swell with pride and eyes fill with tears.

Had it not been for Fishing for Leave there would have been no voice for the most pro-Brexit industry. FFL has continued unabated since, representing our industry vociferously in the corridors of power.

HOWEVER, we still have our grave concerns on the commitment of the political establishment to Brexit. The ridiculous and unnecessary election and its result has inflamed calls to remain and ignore the wishes of the British people and the rhetoric is still not being matched by results with continued prevarication on the way forward.

FFL  have challenged and brought the issues below to the fore but so far, all we have had is words not action –

  • The London Fisheries Convention 1964 – there is a manifesto commitment but the 2 years notice that should have been given to concur with Article 50 has still not been served and there is now a danger of an overlap of continued EU access to UK waters on withdrawal.
  • The Great Repeal Bill proposes to adopt all EU law including the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy into UK law. If we are leaving the CFP, why run the risk of adopting it? Despite highlighting that adopting EU law would bind Britain to them under international treaty law the government ploughs ahead to a diplomatic disaster regardless.
  •  The deliberately ambiguous wording of the Conservative manifesto which means the UK would only “exercise sovereign control” waters only to 12 miles not the full 200 or midline limit.

Fishing will be one of the acid tests of the success of Brexit. FFL will continue to go forward and hope that the election leads to a fulfilment not a cop-out. Brexit and the will of the people cannot be backslid on post-election.

It is disconcerting the political establishment is now at fever pitch for “soft”/No Brexit. We are in perilous territory and after a discussion FFL are considering further demonstrations to ensure the politicians fulfil the will of our industry and country.

We will take whatever action necessary. Should there be a backsliding, we’ll be back up the Thames to bring London to a halt!

Brexiteers need a re-think on regulation

Over the last few years, if there is one thing I have learned about trade, it is that it is complex. If there is one thing I have learned in the last year particularly is that it’s even more complex than that. What has marked the trade debate on the Brexit side is an absence of concern for non-tariff barriers. Self-styled Brexiteer economists speak only in terms of tariffs – ignoring the all important non-tariff barriers, the costs of which far exceed the average tariff.

Over the last twenty years the global effort in trade has been geared toward the eradication of non-tariff barriers through regulatory harmonisation. There is enormous social and economic utility in it, the benefits of which we all enjoy on a daily basis.

As much as regulation is central to Brexit, it is now central to trade. This is an aspect largely lost on Tories who have an instinctive aversion to regulation of any kind. They believe the removal of regulation enhances commerce – rather than harmonisation and refinement. It is part of the liberal “free market” tendency.

An especially topical example of this is reported by The Independent with housing minister Brandon Lewis having declined to bring in regulation forcing developers to fit sprinklers to buildings. He said it was not the Government’s responsibility. He told MPs: “We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation”. Seventeen residents of Grenfell Tower are now dead.

Then we have the deregulation enthusiast Jacob Rees Mogg telling us that Britain could slash environmental and safety standards. This is absolutely what we must not do. In order to enjoy continued free movement of goods we will need to maintain a close alignment with EU standards. Divergence will only increase the likelihood of goods being stopped for customs inspections.

Furthermore, we might very well find that if we relax our standards on imports, the EUs risk assessment rating on UK produce is heightened resulting either in embargoes or a higher inspection rate. Any trade deals we do with third countries will have to be carefully measured against the trade we could potentially lose.

We cannot sign trade deals for their own sake. Any new deals will have to be forensically analysed for their potential impact on existing trade. We cannot expect to conclude any rapid deals, certainly not unless we are prepared to throw massive resources at them – which may prove economically neutral.

More to the point, with the advent of increasingly globalised standards, the scope for deviation is nothing like Rees-Mogg assumes. At best we can secure carve outs to protect specific sectors but we are obliged by a number of global accords on anything from emissions standards to maritime pollution. We also have to play by WTO rules.

In the mind of the well-meaning Tory, with an aversion to regulation, all these green measures are all part of the climate change hysteria. We should note, however, that climate change notwithstanding, pollution is a very real threat to our health and prosperity. Deaths around the world from air pollution, particularly in India and the Far East are spiralling. We do not have the same problems – but that is no accident.

Then we have measures like the International Maritime Organisation’s Ballast Water Management Convention. Invasive aquatic species present a major threat to the marine ecosystems, and shipping has been identified as a major pathway for introducing species to new environments. The problem increased as trade and traffic volume expanded over the last few decades and in particular with the introduction of steel hulls, allowing vessels to use water instead of solid materials as ballast.

The effects of the introduction of new species have in many areas of the world been devastating. Quantitative data show the rate of bio-invasions is continuing to increase at an alarming rate. As the volumes of seaborne trade continue overall to increase, the problem may not yet have reached its peak.

Now you may not care about biodiversity and all that tree hugging stuff, but one of the major opportunities for Brexit is an expansion of Scottish aquaculture. Alien parasites are massively damaging to business (no not Rees-Mogg). In the mind of the classic Brexiteer though, this is all meddlesome “Brussels” red tape. As much as anything Brussels is no longer the centre of the regulatory universe. Much of it starts life in Geneva.

Further to this, when it comes to trade, because of the complexity and the labyrinthine nature of regulation, we find that progress is often incremental, barely noticeable and there isn’t any low hanging fruit we can go after. This is a major misapprehension among Brexiteers.

The challenge, therefore, is not to prioritise new trade deals, rather we need to look at enhancing the profitability of existing trade, be that harmonising customs processes, further harmonising regulations and eliminating fraud and organised crime.

In this, standards are part of a broader system to prevent a massive multi-billion dollar black market on food. There are many examples of industrial scale manipulation of supply chains. A food fraud scandal came to light in 2008, when over 20 companies were found to have added melamine, a flame retardant plastic, to baby formula in order to fool tests designed to ensure adequate protein content. Around 300,000 babies became ill in China, with tainted formula being linked to 54,000 hospitalisations and 6 deaths from kidney damage and malnutrition.

Additionally, the product category Herbs and Spices is listed as number four in the ranking of most frequent product alerts in the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). About 75% of these reports are due to improper composition or contamination, both of which can affect the health of the consumer, as well as damage the brands of those involved in the supply chain.

In 2005 over 600 finished food products were recalled in Europe and the US due to the presence of the carcinogenic red industrial floor dye “Sudan”, which had been added to chilli powder to disguise its ageing. And it’s not just food either.

When an American Airlines plane smashed into a Colombian mountainside, outlaw salvagers didn’t even wait for all 159 victims’ bodies to be collected before they moved in. “Using sophisticated tools, they extracted engine thrust reversers, cockpit avionics and other valuable components from the shattered Boeing 757 and then used helicopters to fly the parts off the steep ridge, U.S. and Colombian sources say. The parts were offered for sale in Miami, a hub of the thriving black market in recycled, stolen and counterfeit aircraft parts. “They wanted to sell the whole lot, including the landing gear,” a law enforcement source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.”

Parts illegally salvaged from crashes, counterfeit parts and other substandard components regularly find their way into the world’s air fleets, sold at bargain prices, often with falsified documents about their origin or composition. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized $4 Million worth of counterfeit electronic components in Fiscal Year 2009. According to a 2001 publication produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “as much as $2 billion in unapproved parts are now sitting on the shelves of parts distributors, airline, and repair stations”.

One major global concern is pharmaceuticals fraud. US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has found that 69 of its products were falsified in 107 countries in 2014, up from 29 products in 75 countries in 2008 – a doubling of the problem in six years. Over 700,000 deaths per annum from malaria and TB have been attributed to falsified medicines and the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest in the United States estimated that counterfeits cost the global economy around US$75bn in 2010.

Then just recently, the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the International Institute for Research Against Counterfeit Medicines (IRACM) announced recently the results of their fourth common initiative in the fight against fake medicines on the African continent. There were record seizures of 113 million illicit and potentially dangerous pharmaceutical products, which took place in the context of Operation ACIM (Action against Counterfeit and Illicit Medicines) in September 2016.

The number of seizures made in joint IRACM-WCO operations has now reached dramatic proportions, with almost 900 million counterfeit and illicit medicines seized at the borders of the continent. “Of the 243 maritime containers inspected, 150 contained illicit or counterfeit products”. Staggering.

As much as this kind of criminal activity seriously hits all Western nations in the wallet it is very much one of the many blights standing in the way of development. If supply chains are known to be corrupt it deters investment. As you can see, enhancing our trade will rely on a huge commitment to international cooperation, working with standards bodies, Interpol, the EU and a number of other major international initiatives. Cutting corners with regulations is a non-starter.

To enhance our trade it requires that we throw substantial resource at trade facilitation measures while also doing what we can to help developing countries improve their regulations so that they can participate in the global rules based trading system. In so doing we boost our business to business services sector. This though demands a far more mature attitude to regulation than we are presently seeing from the Brexiteers. Misguided enthusiasm for free markets doesn’t hold water in the modern world of trade. We cannot afford to tread water while they learn the ropes if we are to make a success of Brexit.

 

Photo by hernanpba

Deal or no Deal?

Britain faces some challenging Brexit negotiations. However viewed through the lens of best practice identified in a commercial negotiating manual, there is evidence that Britain will secure a deal with the EU.

Pre-election rhetoric suggests that the tone of the negotiation might be ‘competitive’ (i.e. hostile). Much of it will actually be about co-operation on matters of common interest like trade, travel, security, etc.

Power is more balanced than some would say. We might buy more from the EU than vice-versa, but proportionately have more to lose on trade. However needlessly damaging a major customer will harm supply chains, EU exporters, EU nationals working in the UK and sending money home…

Over 50% of UK shares are now owned by international investors. EU holdings in the UK are worth £496bn.  At the G20 meeting in September, Japanese business and government demanded Single Market-type access be maintained by both sides.

Policy on both sides is for free trade. This is obviously not absolute –  the EU won’t suddenly complete the single market or open up sensitive defence procurement. But it is committed to various international agreements that commit towards trade liberalisation, stability and not raising barriers.

The EU is a keen supporter of the World Trade Organization (WTO) whose rules allow regional unions (such as the EU) as a means of easing trade between members, but not to raise barriers to trade. In fact, they must avoid creating adverse effects upon other WTO members

There is plenty of incentive for both sides to reach an agreement – if just because they will have to live together as neighbours. The UK could be a major ally in defence and security, so long as its economy is not crashed. It could also be a substantial makeweight in future joint trade deals?

The global economy is so interlinked that failure to reach a viable deal will affect wider economic confidence and stock markets. In the EU, exposed economies like the Irish Republic and Spain would take a hit, with likely local backlash against EU interests – just before the 2019 European Parliament elections.

A botched deal could see the Euro and Sterling hit, with safe haven currencies like the Yen suddenly soaring, hitting wider currency and export stability.

Another factor is the view of the EU’s ‘social partners’.

ETUC represents EU-wide trade unions. Employers’ bodies include Business Europe (‘a CBI’), UEAPME (representing SMEs) and CEEP (representing public service providers). Seen as influential stakeholders, they wish to avoid austerity and damage to Europe’s workers and companies.

Although the EU and UK will start negotiations with some diverging and conflicting positions, remember that this is quite normal for negotiations. Demands tend to be padded so that compromises are seen to be made. Spain has already gone back on the EU ‘demand’ over Gibraltar. In practice, there will be a lot of common ground (e.g. on expat rights). Expect positions to converge.

Despite pre-election rhetoric to appear ‘tough’, it has long been seen that May will play safe and trim to a position that can be pushed through Parliament under tight timescales. This indicates arrangements very similar to being in the Single Market (EEA) as a fallback while the ideal of moving to a bespoke Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) is worked on as arrangements stabilise.

In March, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, appeared to be leading the UK in the direction of EEA membership as the Brexit option with the least disruption.

Threatening to walk-away was part of that rhetoric. Neither side wants ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ that ‘no deal’ would give. You can bet there will be a deal, even if it’s part agreement, part provisionally keeping respective ships afloat while talks continue.

Negotiations are often about saving face, getting a deal that can be sold to key audiences. The UK might, for example, get better trade terms in exchange for saving the EU a budget shortfall before 2021. Except it won’t be billed as a cave-in, at least in the UK. It might be portrayed as a goodwill gesture to have a joint ‘Brexit adjustment fund’?

Other areas of ‘compromise’ short term might be over accepting EU standards and judgments (which the UK might do anyway in ‘nationalising’ EU laws), or free movement of people. Theresa May has refused to guarantee less EU immigration, consistent with keeping EU citizens’ ‘acquired rights’.

Attitudes to paying the EU vary from ‘they’re getting nothing’ (apart from for joining in specific programmes) to ‘£60bn is nothing to pay for winning back our priceless democracy’. The EU is already preparing for economies after 2021 in its budget, which might reveal the real expectation. However with Germany’s election coming, Angela Merkel and the EU will not want to be seen as saddling Germany with extra contributions. We can expect a harder line short-term.

As an alternative to direct payments, the UK might gesture on recycling saved payments into projects of common interest like defence or tackling irregular migration?

A successful negotiation is one where both sides can claim some success at the end, even if some concessions leave bruises!  Experienced negotiators will recognise that the other party will need to maintain its image too, and they will not seek to humiliate.

Earlier perceptions that the EU might want to ‘punish’ the UK to deter it or others from leaving have been overplayed. Its luminaries might have been exorcising tensions immediately after the referendum shock, and the line taken since has typically been more conciliatory as heads cool. In practice, there is little evidence that any other member state currently wants to follow the UK out of the EU.

European Council President Donald Tusk has quipped that Brexit is ‘punishment enough’ as the UK copes with some upheaval.

There are already outline solutions to some identified problems. The EU can give legal exceptions (derogations) on border measures which might ease the Irish situation. The WTO ‘waiver’ might allow provisional preferential trade agreements to run for a couple of years should there be difficulties (e.g. time-wise) in finalising what is necessarily a complex deal.

The Lisbon Treaty focuses the EU towards the vision of ‘an area of prosperity’ marked by cooperation with neighbouring countries.

Lord (Paddy) Ashdown sees the UK getting a tailored Norway-like deal with a work permit system. He’s not just a Lib Dem peer; he’s President of the European Movement federalists in the UK.

http://www.newalliance.org.uk/ref617.htm has references used for this article.

Fishing the first Brexit bright spot as confusion reigns

Fishing photo

Are we going to leave the Single Market or not? And what about the EU’s customs union? – a subject that never cropped up in the referendum debate last year. Do some politicians even know the difference between the two?

At the moment, we are seeing a great deal of confusion about the future direction of Brexit and for those of us outside Mrs May’s new cabinet, what we are reading in the media is leaving us none the wiser. the quality of press reporting has reached an all-time low, with uninformed speculation given free rein and undue weight placed on off-the-cuff comments.

Take, for instance, headline statements that Emmanuel Macron, France’s new President claimed that “Brexit could be reversed.” What he actually said was “Of course the door remains open, always open until talks come to the end. But it was a sovereign decision taken by the people to come out of the EU.” In other words, there remains a theoretical possibility that the UK government might change its mind, but no more than that.  Given the shock of last week’s General Election result, it is hard to see the any rowing back on Brexit given that the consequences for the Conservatives would be the worst crisis since 1846.

The terms “hard” and “soft” Brexit have been bandied about with very few people knowing what they actually mean.  By and large, the terms relate to a future trading arrangement with “hard” meaning leaving the Single Market (or perhaps the Customs Union, or maybe both??) and “soft” means remaining in one or both. But what about criminal justice or foreign policy? There are “hard and “soft” issues here, which few in the media are picking up.

In all this muddle, one thing is clear. From what we could discern of Mrs May’s Brexit agenda, it contained some worrying and unsatisfactory features, including too close a link with the EU’s military plans and an ongoing commitment to remain party to the European Arrest Warrant. The loss of her majority means that she cannot force through her plans for Brexit if they are widely seen as flawed. Indeed, it is possible that we could end up with a better Brexit deal, given that pressure groups and their supporters on the Tory back benches will have a lot more leverage than if we had ended up with a thumping Conservative majority.

In one particular policy area, fishing, we are already seeing evidence of this. Scotland was the one piece of good news for the Conservatives in an otherwise dismal result and several of the seats they won from the SNP include fishing communities. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, campaigned strongly on the fisheries issue and has apparently spoken to Theresa May, insisting that the UK must leave the Common Fisheries Policy and manage its own waters right up to the 200 Nautical Mile/Median Point limit.

Given that Michael Gove, who has recently been appointed Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs , is the son of a man who worked in the fishing industry, there is every reason for being hopeful that the sensible post-Brexit fishing policy proposed by Fishing for Leave has a greater chance of being implemented.

So, amidst the current confusion, we are perhaps seeing the first bright light. As the dust settles, hopefully others will follow