The UK parliament will be in session for a week before it again recesses to allow the major parties to have their conferences. The original “hard deadline” of October for a deal to be arrived at between the UK and the EU which will enable a two-year transitional period post Brexit and sketch out (if nothing more) the future trading relationship between the two looks set to slip by a month.
The government claims to have arrived at a position, the Chequers agreement, which lays out what the UK wants from the EU post Brexit and what it will do to get it. In essence, it has agreed to abide by EU rules such that goods (including foodstuffs) can flow between the two in a near frictionless manner. However, it states that freedom of movement will end and that the UK will leave both the customs union and the single market. It proposes that the UK will collect tariffs for the EU on goods imported to the UK from the rest of the world that would be sold on in Europe and return these to the EU.
The Chequers agreement is supposed to be a unified cabinet position that ministers must support or resign from cabinet over – it triggered the resignations of the foreign secretary (Boris Johnson) and the secretary for leaving the EU (David Davis). However, the weekend saw two ministers arguing over the cost of a “no deal” Brexit (the Chancellor and Trade Secretary) which was said by the Chancellor to risk an £80 billion annual shortfall in government finances.
The Chequers agreement has been derided by the ERG within the Tory party as unacceptable. They claim it leaves the UK too close to the EU and unable to strike trade deals (a position enlarged upon in his usual florid style by Boris Johnson in his Telegraph article yesterday – seen by many as a precursor to a leadership challenge against Mrs May), saying that the UK would become a “vasal state” of the EU. Remainers don’t like it since it cannot come close to delivering the benefits of EU membership, will require continuing payments and will see the UK lose its voice in Europe. Lastly, Michel Barnier has rejected central tenets of the plan as being unworkable, illegal or a threat to the integrity of the single market. In effect, the Chequers agreement is still-born.
So where does that leave the UK? An excellent question for which there is currently no clear answer. There is growing popular support for a “People’s Vote” which would be a referendum on whatever deal the government arrives at with the EU. It would demand endorsement of the deal by the public but critically, offer the option of remaining in the EU. Neither major party has endorsed the call, but pressure is being mounted on Labour to adopt the policy at its conference. The government, for its part, is continuing to negotiate with the EU on the basis of the Chequers agreement, but it is hard to see what can come from it without further, major concessions from the UK government which would be unpalatable to its Eurosceptic wing. It is believed that parliament will not endorse any “no deal” arrangement, but again, it is unclear what would happen in such a scenario, but fresh elections may well be the outcome. Brexit has become a political catastrophe which cannot satisfy parliamentarians or the country since there is no consensus on how (or whether) it can be achieved. Thank you, David Cameron.