Brexit

A note leaked to the Times written by the EU's deputy chief negotiator shows that the EU has no intention of releasing the UK from the customs union if May's deal is signed. This attitude should come as little surprise to those close to the deal. Throughout the process, the EU have wished to hamper the UK's future trading relationships to ensure that Brexit does not set a precedent for other countries who might seek to leave. But, in spite of this leaked memo, the EU will not be admitting their intentions in public any time soon. Quite the opposite. The political agreement that will be published alongside the withdrawal agreement will be full of overblown promises about a tailor-made trade deal.

Jo Johnson’s resignation, the DUP kicking off and the European Commission's Article 50 task-force talking about a lack of progress mean that it hasn’t been a good end to the week for Theresa May. As I write in The Sun this morning, one government source says ‘if there’s no November Council, then no deal goes into overdrive’. But given Theresa May’s desire to avoid no deal there probably will be some sort of agreement in the not too distant future. But it will be flawed—and Theresa May should say so. Why would a Prime Minister admit that a deal they’ve negotiated isn’t great?

When Boris Johnson declared this week that Theresa May’s new deal would be a ‘Christmas present of the finest old Brussels fudge,’ he embraced one of Brexit’s most enduring motifs: food. This week's Spectator cover story 'Brexit is Served' is full of culinary metaphors. The language of food seems to cross the Brexit divide: Remainers and Leavers are united in their love of food and for good reason: when it comes to food we all have wildly different tastes and it is the same with Brexit. Like Marmite, you either love Brexit or you hate it. It began with Andrew RT Davies’ promise to the Tory party conference in 2016. ‘Mark my words’, he told delegates, ‘we will make breakfast – Brexit – a success’.

The leaked plan of how the Government might try to sell the Brexit deal contains a telling passage. The memo instructs the Cabinet Office to talk up the agreement by ‘comparing it to no deal but not to our current deal’. For all the claims by a government spokesman that the 'misspelling and childish language in this document should be enough to make clear it doesn't represent the government's thinking', this key phrase is the closest we have come to a disturbing admission: that Theresa May’s deal could leave us worse off than remaining in the EU.

At Labour conference this summer, the party’s leadership were clearly spooked when its previously loyal members demanded the party support a second Brexit referendum. With this in mind, and ever keen to ensure that the rank-and-file are in step with Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing campaign group Momentum recently decided to survey its supporters to see what they really thought about Brexit and Labour’s position. The group asked over 6500 of its members from across the UK what they thought of Labour’s spurious six tests, the possibility of no deal, and most importantly: if Momentum members wanted a second Brexit vote. Well today the results came in, but they were clearly not what the Momentum higher-ups were hoping for.

Halloween may be over but fear still stalks the land. As we enter the Brexit endgame, it is apparent that Theresa May plans to terrorise her turbulent troops into supporting the Chequers-style deal she has cooked up with the EU. A deal at any price? That is the Prime Minister’s position. From the very beginning of the negotiations, she has been intent on securing a deal. The lamentable events of the past two years can be traced back to this simple imperative. According to her, success in the talks equalled a deal; failure equalled no deal. And that is where I and my fellow economists in Economists for Free Trade (EFT) beg to differ. A deal is not success in itself. In fact, a bad deal is far worse than no deal (sound familiar?). I will come to why in a moment.