This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/23/the-guardian-view-on-no-deal-brexit-tory-tactics-make-a-second-vote-more-likely
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on no-deal Brexit: Tory tactics make a second vote more likely | The Guardian view on no-deal Brexit: Tory tactics make a second vote more likely |
| (4 months later) | |
| Broadly speaking, there seem to be two alternative ways of making sense of the government’s increasingly public preparations for a “no-deal” Brexit in March next year, marked this week by the publication of 24 sectoral assessments, with more to follow. The first view says that, in essence, these preparations are serious; the second says that, in essence, they are not. | Broadly speaking, there seem to be two alternative ways of making sense of the government’s increasingly public preparations for a “no-deal” Brexit in March next year, marked this week by the publication of 24 sectoral assessments, with more to follow. The first view says that, in essence, these preparations are serious; the second says that, in essence, they are not. |
| The first view says that negotiations between the UK and the European Union on Brexit terms to which the Tory party could sign up have indeed proved to be more difficult than had been hoped in London. More detailed preparations for no-deal are therefore a prudent and practical insurance against failure to agree later this year. | The first view says that negotiations between the UK and the European Union on Brexit terms to which the Tory party could sign up have indeed proved to be more difficult than had been hoped in London. More detailed preparations for no-deal are therefore a prudent and practical insurance against failure to agree later this year. |
| The second view says that the preparations are a political Potemkin village. In this view, the preparations are superficial and cosmetic, designed to distract and gratify the Tory party’s troublemaking leavers during the summer and pre-party conference period, ensuring that they are compelled to stay quiet while serious negotiations take place well away from the spotlight. | The second view says that the preparations are a political Potemkin village. In this view, the preparations are superficial and cosmetic, designed to distract and gratify the Tory party’s troublemaking leavers during the summer and pre-party conference period, ensuring that they are compelled to stay quiet while serious negotiations take place well away from the spotlight. |
| The second of these perspectives is more persuasive than the first. A key reason can be found in the 25 papers published on Thursday. Most of these documents are bland and policy-light. They contain only limited details. They talk in generalities. They offer little clarity or planning advice for the individuals and businesses who would be in the frontline. They contain relatively little sense of drama about what would actually be at stake. There is barely a hint, for example, of the scale of the bureaucracy – possibly three to four times bigger than the current HMRC – that would need to emerge fully functioning on 30 March to manage the UK’s no-deal customs system. | The second of these perspectives is more persuasive than the first. A key reason can be found in the 25 papers published on Thursday. Most of these documents are bland and policy-light. They contain only limited details. They talk in generalities. They offer little clarity or planning advice for the individuals and businesses who would be in the frontline. They contain relatively little sense of drama about what would actually be at stake. There is barely a hint, for example, of the scale of the bureaucracy – possibly three to four times bigger than the current HMRC – that would need to emerge fully functioning on 30 March to manage the UK’s no-deal customs system. |
| Nevertheless there is enough in Dominic Raab’s documents and in his speech on Thursday to see what an unacceptable disaster a no-deal Brexit would involve. These range from the possible overnight return of credit card surcharges, through the need to prevent the exhaustion of medicine supplies at a time when flu might be taking a seasonal toll, to the instant suspension of organic food exports to the EU. In several cases – any continuing UK participation in Erasmus projects for university students and researchers is an important example – the documents themselves admit that much will depend upon continuing consultation with the EU. In none of the papers is there any sectoral guarantee that a no-deal Brexit will not damage British people’s livelihoods and choices – and damage those of the EU too. | Nevertheless there is enough in Dominic Raab’s documents and in his speech on Thursday to see what an unacceptable disaster a no-deal Brexit would involve. These range from the possible overnight return of credit card surcharges, through the need to prevent the exhaustion of medicine supplies at a time when flu might be taking a seasonal toll, to the instant suspension of organic food exports to the EU. In several cases – any continuing UK participation in Erasmus projects for university students and researchers is an important example – the documents themselves admit that much will depend upon continuing consultation with the EU. In none of the papers is there any sectoral guarantee that a no-deal Brexit will not damage British people’s livelihoods and choices – and damage those of the EU too. |
| To some, though not to those directly affected, these may seem like relatively small prices to pay. But the documents are misleading in their complacency. A no-deal Brexit means what it says. There would be no deal on the future for EU citizens in Britain (or of UK citizens in the EU); no deal on future trade with what is currently by far the UK’s biggest trading partner; no deal on the status of EU students wanting to study or currently studying in British universities, which are in many cases dependent on them; no deal on cross-border arrangements in Ireland; and no deal over police cooperation against terror suspects and people smugglers. The chancellor Philip Hammond reminded his party on Thursday that there would be “large fiscal consequences” of £80bn of extra borrowing. Not one part of this is acceptable. To think otherwise is to live in a demented political la-la land in which fanatical dogma outweighs the jobs, security and life chances of ordinary people. | To some, though not to those directly affected, these may seem like relatively small prices to pay. But the documents are misleading in their complacency. A no-deal Brexit means what it says. There would be no deal on the future for EU citizens in Britain (or of UK citizens in the EU); no deal on future trade with what is currently by far the UK’s biggest trading partner; no deal on the status of EU students wanting to study or currently studying in British universities, which are in many cases dependent on them; no deal on cross-border arrangements in Ireland; and no deal over police cooperation against terror suspects and people smugglers. The chancellor Philip Hammond reminded his party on Thursday that there would be “large fiscal consequences” of £80bn of extra borrowing. Not one part of this is acceptable. To think otherwise is to live in a demented political la-la land in which fanatical dogma outweighs the jobs, security and life chances of ordinary people. |
| A no-deal Brexit would involve such damage and risk that it cannot be allowed to happen. The government is playing a dangerous game even by allowing the idea to be taken seriously. Ministers may think it is a clever ruse to keep the right quiet and concentrate minds in Brussels. But the closer that the possibility of a no-deal Brexit comes, and the more that ministers give it credibility, the more the support for a popular vote on the deal continues to grow. Majority backing for a “people’s vote” on the Brexit terms is now a real political factor. Labour’s Keir Starmer made clear on Thursday that the option is now on the table. This is a statement of the obvious – and it is a new reality of the Tory party’s own making. | A no-deal Brexit would involve such damage and risk that it cannot be allowed to happen. The government is playing a dangerous game even by allowing the idea to be taken seriously. Ministers may think it is a clever ruse to keep the right quiet and concentrate minds in Brussels. But the closer that the possibility of a no-deal Brexit comes, and the more that ministers give it credibility, the more the support for a popular vote on the deal continues to grow. Majority backing for a “people’s vote” on the Brexit terms is now a real political factor. Labour’s Keir Starmer made clear on Thursday that the option is now on the table. This is a statement of the obvious – and it is a new reality of the Tory party’s own making. |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Dominic Raab | Dominic Raab |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| Europe | Europe |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |