Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Brexit: No deal, No money.

It was always going to come down to this - a trade deal in exchange for danegeld. Mrs May's speech has done all it could - in uniting public and political opinion at home, as far as is possible. The zealots and bigots of the EU will be stone deaf to suggestions of a pragmatic outcome; they would still rather destroy all Europe than concede favoured access for a single British wiper blade. It's easy for the Brussels bigots to have principles - they don't have national parliaments or voters to bother about, just denunciation for heresy by their fellow unelected officials. 

So to me Mrs May's speech was also what I term a 'Court speech'. In a construction dispute, once it's clear that you're headed to some sort of tribunal settlement, correspondence between the parties is always written for the benefit of the adjudicator / arbitrator  rather than the enlightenment of the other party. So this speech was eminently reasonable, offered real concessions, restated red lines and reminded the EU that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. One can imagine counsel for the United Kingdom quoting from it extensively before the judges at the International Court in the Hague.

The only thing of which we can be absolutely certain is that the EU bigots will spew May's offer out next week, with insults, sarcasm and barbed invective - all of which will sound nicely absurd, deeply unreasonable and plainly wrong when read-out in the calm of a Hague court in three years time. One of the purposes of Mrs May's speech was to invoke just this sort of idiotic reaction - and idiots such as Verhofstadt, a gobby man who simply can't keep his gob shut, have already started piling up the evidence. 

With the only uncontested payment being £10bn a year or so for the two year transition period (if it happens) everything else in the outline settlement - including the EU's insistence that we can't offset the UK's share of asset values in the EU - is noncontractual, an ex-gratia settlement. It's on the table to pay for a bespoke trade agreement. No deal, no pay. 

Sunday's election in Italy may offer the EU an additional headache, and now Mr Rutte from the Netherlands is also pushing back against the Federasts as the Visegrad group grow in confidence. Now where are the fools who used to lecture us all that 'the British simply aren't interested in the EU'?


Stephen J said...

The FFC was quite good at PMQ's last Wednesday, and I haven't read her statement, but if what you say is true, it would seem that she has finally understood what that "leave" vote meant...

... Mainly that there IS no going back.

Hopefully she will now go forwards.

Smoking Scot said...

And to this I'd add the outcome of the SPD membership vote on joining - one more time - with Merkel.

I'm told by one who has some knowledge of Germany that the younger members are not in favour of this and may swing the outcome.

I await Monday morning keenly.

DeeDee99 said...

As "a rabid Brexiteer" I'm not very happy at the proposal for various key industries to have a form of associate membership of the single market/customs union, however if it frees up the rest of the country - particularly our small and medium business sector - to trade freely with each other and outside the EU without the imposition of EU regulations then so be it.

I DID like her line "the world is watching." She's given them a very clear hint that the UK is being reasonable and pragmatic and they will be fools if they don't reciprocate.

However, they ARE fools .... as the Euro debacle and the bailouts have demonstrated for the past decade ..... and Juncker, Barnier, Tusk and Verhofstadt demonstrate on a weekly basis.

Mr Ecks said...

I doubt May has that much intelligence.

However it wasn't a complete sell-out so that is a start. If we simply get out from under the bastards then we then only have to put down our own proggiescum.

And as you say Radders we aren't the only ones who have had a bellyful of not only the EU, but the various traitors now running national European govts.

Unknown said...

Smoking Scot: I too will find Monday's news interesting, with the Italian result on top of the news about German coalition progress - or lack of it. Let's all hope for some figurative groin-kneeing in the direction of the foul fonctionnaires.

Cascadian said...

There are so many internal inconsistencies in that speech, I hope it never gets to a court. The speech is a mess, yielding yet further jurisdictions to the ECJ and even a non-existent third judicial party. The Northern Ireland problem cannot be solved unless you submit to EU tariffs. It's hopeless, much, much worse than even I could have predicted.
Whatever it describes is not Brexit, it is just a word salad of aspirations that would be embarassing if produced by secondary school pupils.

John Brown said...

Whilst it is true that Mr. Rutte did say the EU “is not an unstoppable train speeding towards federalism” he also called for a quick agreement on a new common European asylum system that would FORCE countries to share responsibility for taking in migrants.

Budgie said...

Theresa May, like most of the Remain establishment (civil service, politicians, BBC, continuity Remain, etc) confuses independence and trade.

The UK voted Leave which, whatever else it means, must result in UK independence from the EU. Our politicians have no mandate whatsoever to appease, capitulate, or compromise on our independence. The Referendum conditions, set up by Parliament, including the binary options, do not allow it.

In contrast, a trade deal does involve compromise - we allow access to our market at reduced or free tariff levels, and the EU reciprocates. Indeed, that would be similar to any trade deal with other nations.

By stepping back and understanding that independence and trade are different issues, then using that as a yardstick, we can judge whether Mrs May's recent Mansion House speech complies with our Referendum decision, or not.

It doesn't.

It's so obvious when the two issues are separated. We are being duped. Again.

Dave_G said...

It has been repeatedly pointed out - most lately by J R-M once again - that the EU want two things. 1. Our money. 2. Our 'capitulation' (i.e. a trade deal).

They don't get (1) without (2). Simple. We can fall back on WTO or they don't get their money. I know which one they want. I know which scenario the EU are afraid of.

Why our politicians won't acknowledge the simple principle that we have the upper hand and the EU can swing for it is simply mind boggling. The public see it.

All we find is that our own Government is muddying the waters on the EU's behalf (May's speech throwing yet more particulates into the water) seemingly for the purpose of allowing the EU to get its own way on ALL aspects of Brexit such that the UK would appear to be better off remaining - but then, isn't that exactly what .gov wants?

The jig's up Mrs May. Either deliver what the people want or step aside.

BTW - I laughed out loud at Blair's recent polling effort to justify remain......