Brexit seems little more at times than an orgy of slogans: Brexit means Brexit; Deep and special relationship; Take back control; Global Britain; and the famous No deal is better than a bad deal. Let’s take a moment to consider this last “position”.
As an EU member state, the UK currently enjoys frictionless trading with the other 27-member states which allows goods to cross borders within the single market without customs inspections of duties being levied. Financial services based in London can be offered across the EU via “passporting” even if the financial house in question is not owned by an EU nation state. All goods produced within the EU are accepted as conforming to the same sets of regulations and standards meaning that their point of origin does not need to be demonstrated. All of this changes when the UK leaves the EU.
The “deep and special relationship”, “bespoke and imaginative solution” that Mrs May wants has essentially been rejected by the EU because it is incompatible with her “red lines” such as leaving both the single market and customs union, ending freedom of movement and (more of a faint pink line now) ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK. What seems to be on offer is a “standard” free-trade agreement which will probably exclude financial services, hopefully agreed before the 2-year transitional period ends in December 2020. The May mantra has long been that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but this is plainly nonsense.
The latest evidence to demonstrate the folly of the “no deal” rhetoric is the conclusions of the Business, Energy and Industrial Stratgy Select Committee of MPs. The UK’s £28 billion food and drink industry would suffer a “seismic impact” in a no deal scenario. The sector employs 400000 people. The committee’s chair, Rachel Reeves noted: "The success of the industry has been highly dependent on participating in the [EU] single market and customs union. To ensure the continued success of our food and drinks industry, the government must provide clarity and certainty on our future relationship with the EU and seek continued regulatory, standards, and trading alignment with the EU in the processed food and drink sector."
Noting that UK exports of products such as chocolate, beef, cheese, pork and soft drinks would be jeopardised in a no deal scenario, the committee urged making a comprehensive free-trade deal for the sector a priority. UK consumers would face a restricted choice of products in supermarkets and prices would rise in the absence of such a deal. A “no deal scenario” would mean that the UK had to fall back on WTO trading rules which the committee said: "would not be an acceptable outcome for the sector and would seriously jeopardise the competitiveness of UK exports. The government should also seek to replicate all existing EU trade deals with third countries, as they constitute our biggest export destinations."
Lastly, the committee pointed out that the food and drink sector was heavily reliant on workers from EU states and called on government to ensure that it should “continue to have immediate access to the skills it needs".
The correct phrase is “any deal will be inferior to the current arrangements”, but the truth and political slogans make for strange bed-fellows.