No deal is looking increasingly likely

There was something of a storm in a teacup in the House of Commons on Monday. The Conservative backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg asked the Prime Minister for an assurance that the European Court of Justice’s writ will not run in the UK after March 29th 2019. Mrs May didn’t oblige. She replied that “That may mean that we will start off with the ECJ governing the rules that we are part of.” This admission that we will “fall under ECJ rules” was all over the papers, but this media frenzy was based on the assumption that the transition period proposed by Mrs May, among others, is a realistic option. In reality, it isn’t.

What seems to be the core of the transition proposals is that we continue for a couple of years as a shadow member state. Having repatriated the acquis into domestic legislation, we would voluntarily apply the rules of the single market and customs union while in exchange, the EU would treat us like a member state for trade purposes and neither impose any tariffs nor apply the usual rules of inspection for a “third country” at the main ports of entry for UK exports, such as Calais due to our regulatory convergence with the EU.

The flaw in the proposal is that it makes the assumption that the EU will bend its own rules for the sake of an ex-member whose vote to leave dealt it a huge political blow. There is every indication that Mrs May’s transitional plan, which so upset Jacob Rees-Mogg, is a non-starter. EU bigwigs have been very courteous but the message has been quite unequivocal – No way to this transitional arrangement, no matter how many times the Prime Minister calls on the EU to show “leadership” and “flexibility.”

So what are we left with? In her speech yesterday, Mrs May raised the possibility of there not being a deal in place – transitional or otherwise – by March 2019. “While I believe it is profoundly in all our interests for the negotiations to succeed, it is also our responsibility as a Government to prepare for every eventuality, so that is exactly what we are doing. These white papers also support that work, including setting out steps to minimise disruption for businesses and travellers”, she said. (The white papers to which she refers cover trade and customs.)

Naturally, the Prime Minister stated that this was not what she wanted, going on to say “We are negotiating a deal. We will not have negotiated that deal until, I suspect, close to the end of that period that’s been set aside for it.” In other words, we will keep on talking and hope for some sort of deal eventually, even if the talks go to the wire.

This is not helpful for businesses, who will not have any guidelines to help them prepare for Brexit and will not even know whether a deal is going to happen until the last minute.  If they were to take the advice of some commentators, it would be to prepare for no deal being struck. For all Mrs May’s calls for flexibility, that word isn’t to be found in the EU’s vocabulary, as David Davis and his team are beginning to discover. We agreed to the EU’s negotiating timetable – in other words, that an agreement (or at least, reasonable progress towards an agreement) – on  the Irish border question, the divorce bill and the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK must come before any talk about trade. We needn’t have done this, but we have and so who can blame the EU for sticking to its guns when there has been very little progress in these three areas?

The repeated rejection of ongoing membership of the European Economic Area, for instance, by re-joining EFTA, has closed off another option and one which has two advantages over the bespoke transitional arrangement which Mrs May is suggesting. Firstly, it is rooted in reality. We would be signing up to an agreement which the EU has already signed. Secondly, there would be no need to accept the supervision of the ECJ or to be part of the EU’s customs union. We would thus be free to strike our own trade deals.

There is also one other intriguing possibility, first raised by George Yarrow of the Regulatory Policy Institute. In his paper,  Brexit and the Single Market, he claims that on Brexit, the UK would remain a member of the EEA by default  He points out that joining the EU does not automatically mean joining the EEA; a separate accession process is required. Likewise, when Austria, Sweden and Finland left EFTA to join the EU in 1995 (by which time the EEA agreement between the EU and EFTA was in place), they did not have to re-apply to join the EEA. They were already members through having been in EFTA. The default position for the UK on departure, therefore, is that it too would remain an EEA member.

Yarrow’s thesis has attracted little attention from either our negotiators or the EU’s team. It raises a number of questions but it might possibly offer some answers. While the EU has no interest in exploring it, it would make life a lot easier for David Davis. We would not be under the power of the ECJ but of the EFTA court (which is limited to “EEA-relevant” matters) and could follow Liechtenstein and apply the same restriction on free movement of people, using Articles 112 and 113 of the EEA agreement. At a stroke, we would be in a better transitional position than under Mrs May’s proposals – to which the EU is not going to agree anyway.

On the other hand, if Yarrow is wrong and leaving the EU means leaving the EEA, it does mean that time is very short – probably already too short – for any satisfactory arrangement  to be in place by March 2019. German manufacturers are being told to prepare for a “very hard Brexit” while the Irish equivalent of HMRC has already reached the conclusion that customs posts will need to be erected between the Republic and Northern Ireland, even though no one on either side wants to see the return of any sort of visible border.

Yarrow’s thesis or an immediate application to re-join EFTA  are thus the only two escape routes from the looming cliff edge which no one wants either. The first option is untried and may not stand up legally while the second has been repeatedly rejected in favour of a chimera – namely Mrs May’s illusory “transitional arrangement”. We are not yet in Private Fraser territory where “we’re all doomed”, but Mrs May and her party could well be unless they engage in some lateral thinking – and quickly.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Adam HileyReply

    there should be no way the ECJ must not have any say in our affairs any longer May needs to say to the EU to F off and leave now

  2. StevenReply

    Freedom of movement should also be immediately ended 100% on exit day. Anything else would be a total betrayal and not in keeping with the spirit of last June’s vote. We voted to leave the EU for many reasons but one of the most important was because we didn’t want to have any more excessive Polish etc immigration. Big business needs to be told to stop expecting to be able to suck upon the teat of cheap labour for evermore.

  3. Pingback: May admits coastal communities will be lost in transition - Campaign for an Independent BritainCampaign for an Independent Britain

  4. Petrina HoldsworthReply

    How naïve of our government to think that the EU would play fair and how silly of Mrs May to think that she can name her terms. In normal circumstances we would have a good hand to play but this lot play by different rules.

  5. Phil JonesReply

    ‘No deal’ was the only way it was ever going to end. Mrs. May has to bite the bullet. It must have been extremely difficult for Neville Chamberlain to go to Parliament in September 1939 and say that the UK was now at war — with all the tremendous uncertainty involved (much much more than with Brexit). But he stood up and did it — with a quavering voice. We all heard endlessly about an economic dip when we left the EU. That was Project Fear! Have people forgotten Project Fear so soon? Now Project Fear is being replayed every day in our ears by the likes of Hammond talking of a ‘cliff edge’. ‘Cliff edge’ is fine. We were forewarned. It’s been factored in. Bring it on! Mrs. May doesn’t need to have a fraction of the guts that Chamberlain had to show in Parliament that day when she announces that there’s ‘no deal’. I hope she’s up to it and doesn’t back down because of the leftie media and Big Business and their threats..

  6. Ken WorthyReply

    It’s very sad to see that the CIB, of all organisations, seems to have given up on us being a fully independent nation when we leave the EU, if we ever do. What’s wrong with trading under WTO rules, as we do with the rest of the world? The constant drumming of Continuity Project Fear seems to have had its effect.
    When we leave, the EU should be a customer and a NATO ally, nothing more. They should have no means of control over us.

  7. Petrina HoldsworthReply

    Project “Second Referendum” is now underway ,the EU have set the scene by deliberately thwarting any reasonable negotiations and blaming the UK.,
    The “usual suspects” have now predictably come out of the woodwork. We have the OECD report ,which is complete piffle, saying that 2nd Ref would be good for business, Labour now considering backing a new referendum, Lib Dems openly backing another referendum ,Hilary Clinton in the UK badmouthing Brexit and Farage, the BBC and Sky TV endlessly undermining Brexit, etc. is only a short matter of time before George Soros sends his troops over to stir up the “Snowflakes ” on his “open borders ” plan.
    If it becomes necessary a proper campaign should be formed to fight any move towards a new referendum.

  8. Gordon WebsterReply

    My concern is that after 44 years subservience to Brussels, our Political Leaders no longer have the negotiating ability of their predecessors.

    • John Petley
      John PetleyReply

      You may have a point here, Gordon. Already, the degree to which we have ceased to function as a proper sovereign state has become apparent in the negotiations and other Brexit-related issues. For instance, we have appointed a New Zealander to help us negotiate trade deals as we haven’t been doing this for over 40 years. Thank goodness we’re getting out now!

      I Hope both Brexit and the Catalonia crisis are sending out clear messages to the likes of Serbia, Montenegro, etc – DON’T join the EU if you value your independence and freedom. Once you’re in, it’s a nightmare to get out.

Leave a comment