BREXIT PLAN B?

Recently, in an article for the Daily Mail, the Tory MP Nick Boles argued that there was only a remote chance that parliament would vote in favour of May’s Chequers Plan deal, irrespective of how it might be amended by the EU. For Nick Boles, the Irish backstop, and the threat it posed to the unity of the UK – both regarding Northern Ireland and Scotland (where the SNP would exploit any weakening of the union) – would, alone, be sufficient to provoke a parliamentary revolt.

For Nick Boles, the time has come for Plan B, about which he has been researching. He has spent the summer sounding out other MPs, of all parties, as to their views. His conclusion is that Plan B should be ‘the UK leaving the EU on March 29, 2019, and, for an interim period only, moving to a position like Norway’s in what is called the European Economic Area (EEA)’. Presently, the EEA consists of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Joining the EEA, Nick Boles believes, is attractive as it would keep the UK ‘inside the Single Market (as most businesses want) but outside the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, and outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice’. The UK would also need to rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which consists of the EEA members plus Switzerland.

Having done this as an interim measure, the UK could then ‘negotiate a long-term economic relationship based on a Canada-style Free Trade Agreement’, as many others, including leading Brexiteers, have proposed. Nick Boles readily concedes that this interim step has its flaws with both Remainers and Brexiteers being unhappy with it, but it has advantages which he believes would command support and get the UK out of its present hole. He recognises that once in the EEA and EFTA, then there is a danger that that is where the UK will stay and the Brexiteers are alert to this.

To buttress the credibility of his proposed Plan B, Nick Boles states that the May Government would need to be ‘wholly committed’ to negotiating a Canada-style agreement before 2022, with legislation ‘enshrining that commitment’ to leave the EEA, if necessary, without a free trade agreement should the EU prove intransigent. There would also be a need to ‘be straight with the British people’ that free movement would continue, albeit with ‘some wriggle room’, so long as we are in the EEA. Nick Boles recognises that this is contrary to the British people’s concerns about immigration which is why he accepts that the EEA membership is not a satisfactory long-term solution: ‘People voted to end freedom of movement, and we must not let them down.’

Accepting that Nick Boles is making a genuine attempt to move things forward, given the betrayal of May’s Chequers Plan and its unpopularity, nevertheless, his Plan B is deeply flawed and unacceptable. First, only 8% of British firms export to the EU, and yet Nick Boles treats businesses as if they are all in favour of staying in the Single Market. In fact the majority of businesses have much to gain by the deregulation that freeing themselves of the Single Market would allow.

Second, importantly, the national humiliation of cancelling Brexit – which is what Nick Boles is advocating as there will be a need to overturn the legally binding legislation that the UK leaves on the 29 March 2019 – would be akin to Suez. The damage to national self-confidence and the UK’s standing in the world would be immeasurable.

Third, Nick Boles treats membership of the Single Market as if it is something beneficial. He does not see the damage that that membership causes – not least the size of the trade deficit and the economic consequences of that.

Four, if the present legislation to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 can be set aside, then what credibility can be given to legislation committing the UK to leaving the EEA in 2022? Any such legislation would be worthless.

Five, once in the EEA there would be enormous pressure to settle for that permanently, not least due to the lethargy of politicians. Others would favour EEA membership as a permanent arrangement for ideological reasons.

Six, the voters want free movement and mass immigration stopped. As Nick Boles admits, it would continue so long as the UK remained in the EEA.

Seven, the problems that face the UK now would all apply when leaving the EEA. All the chatter about a ‘cliff edge’ etc would start again.

Eight, the EU’s attempt to hijack control of Northern Ireland would not disappear. The EU would have longer to scheme and plot and all the allegations about a hard border would remain. In 2022, the UK would be faced with the same dilemma. Nick Boles’ Plan B merely delays facing up to the need to stand up to the EU and defend the UK’s national interest.

Nine, while in the EEA the UK would continue to make annual payments to the EU.

Ten, what Nick Boles is suggesting is that Brexit should be cancelled in return for some aspiration that it might happen several years hence. All the benefits of Brexit are therefore likewise cancelled.

In short, Nick Boles has not come up with a solution to the failure of the May Government to implement the Brexit vote. He compounds that failure.

To use a Yorkshire saying, what is required now is ‘brute force and ignorance’. We should get out at once and bugger the consequences. Were the public to be swayed by all the hand wringing of the establishment as to how difficult it all is then we will never leave. Allegations of doom and gloom are presented, as they were during the EU referendum, as if they were proven fact. They are not.

Above all, membership of the Single Market has not been a benefit to the UK. It has been disastrous. The sooner we get out the better. So far as a Canada-style deal is concerned, the government would be free to go down that route after Brexit if they so choose. We do not have to stay in the EU to negotiate such a deal.

It is untrue that unless the UK remains shackled to the EU and agrees to a trade deal that locks us into a £100 billion annual trade deficit (and rising), and agrees to an avalanche of rules and regulations, and agrees to the EU sending us their illegal immigrants (including jihadists and criminals), and agrees to the EU sending us their unemployed along with free movement, and finally agrees to pay them a thumping great annual payment for the privilege of all this – that the whole world will come to an end. It will not.

The voters were subjected to a variety of scare stories during the referendum campaign and a decision was made. We voted to leave.