Here’s the lowdown: the EU’s single market mechanism dictates freedom of movement for labor, capital, services and goods. These are not divisible; you cannot have one without the other. Still, that’s precisely what Theresa May, again, is proposing. She basically wants to keep the UK in the single market for goods, and make other arrangements for the rest. The EU will not accept that because it could have 27 other countries coming with their own versions of single market à la carte.
So why does she come with version 826 of what she already knows will not be accepted? And why did her cabinet comply? There are a few possibilities. Perhaps May has finally understood that there is no manner of leaving the EU left to her that will not lead to utter disaster. Maybe she just wants the whole thing to stop. Or maybe Boris Johnson et al, sensing failure for May, see a chance to dethrone her and take over power. Then again, maybe they all look for a way to blame the EU for their own failures.
[ZH: Obviously the resignation of 60% of her 5-person ‘Brexit’ team is not a positive (especially David Davis’ strongly worded email), but as is always the case with Brexit discussions, the next news cycle might/will change everything again]
It’s hard to say, really. What’s obvious, through the comments of industries like Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover, is that 100,000s of jobs are at stake, along with 100s of billions of investments in Britain. Large enterprises are often branched out all through the EU, and they need to comply with EU rules; separate rules for their business with the UK would be a nightmare.
And even smaller companies, to varying degrees, face those same problems. For all you may think of the EU, it has arranged the single market strictly and successfully. There are enormous advantages for companies in that. Take those away and they will look at relocating towards the continent, where they would regain those advantages.
There appear to be three options (and May’s plan is not one of them): a hard Brexit, new elections, or no Brexit at all.
A hard Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster, because everything in Britain runs according to EU rules and regulations. Changing that to British rules is a Herculean task, and one for which the UK is not at all prepared (and they just lost 2 years). An example: thousands of new border officials will be needed, something for which preparations reportedly haven’t even started in earnest. And that’s just one obvious example. A hard Brexit would ruin the country. Not because Britain couldn’t function as a country, but because it’s so utterly unprepared to do so.
New elections wouldn’t solve the issues, they probably would even necessitate an extension of the March 29 2019 date by which the UK is set to leave the EU. But they would open the way to have another look at what’s actually at stake. Do Britons really want to lose all those jobs, and see their standard of living deteriorate accordingly? Because from what I’m reading all the time, the Tories’ austerity has already hit hard, and infrastructure – roads, schools, hospitals, NHS etc.- is being dismantled. A hard Brexit on top of that would be very painful.
No Brexit at all : that’s the most interesting option. Quite a few of the protagonists involved must realize by now how bad things are. Not just May. And that’s where the jockeying for position starts. On the one hand the sociopaths want the power, on the other they want to deflect the blame if things go awry.
A nice angle is emerging for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has so far insisted his party must protect the people’s Brexit voice: he can now make the case that since the Tories wasted two years, that vote has lost validity, because a ‘decent split’ is no longer possible. It would even be against national security (no joke).
A stronger case could perhaps be found in the campaign financing of the Leave campaign. It seems clear that there have been irregularities, it’s just a matter of how much. If it was too much, the entire referendum could be declared null and void.
But what do the media focus on?
Yes, the Russians, who allegedly furnished capital for the campaign. At the very time that the May government comes out with a Novichok 2.0 tale, which has even less credibility than its older sibling (which led to 324 diplomats being expelled). Britain has a Russia problem. Or, its government does. The English football team and its supporters do not.
Cut out the Russia stuff. Focus on Arron Banks and the money flows around him. It may be the way for everyone involved, except for those close to Leave.EU, to get out of this mess unscathed. The path is clear, says lawyer Jessica Simor:
[..] the government does not deny that reversal is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms. [..] As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification – not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an “intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50.
I’d say this has turned into a story not of political preferences or ideology, but into one of sheer incompetence. Britain risks being thrown back into the age of Marx and Dickens. I’m all for independece and sovereignty, and I fully agree the EU is a massive threat to both, but this is not the way to go about these things. Get in, stay in, while you can.
Oh, and as for incompetence, that’s something you’ll see everywhere as economies dwindle, it’s not a British trait. They’re just among the first to face the challenges. The vast majority of politicians in the west will be exposed as grossly incompetent once the markets start to really go down. It’s easy to make the impression that you know what you’re doing in times of growth, but the litmus test is trying to deal with crisis. Most ‘leaders’ will fail.
Go to Source
Author: Tyler Durden