Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Absolute State of #Brexit

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

21:10

The Absolute State of #Brexit

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is a huge decision for our country.
	Perhaps the biggest we'll make in our lifetimes.
	And it will be the final decision.
	So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain could stay, I say think again.
	The renegotiation is happening right now.
	And the referendum that follows will be a once-in-a-generation choice.
	an in-or-out referendum.
	When the British people speak, their voice will be respected, not ignored.
	If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
	I've been talking to European leaders over the last week or so, and obviously I've been talking to them about the need for us to increase the pace on both sides for our negotiations for the future.
	This is a proposal that I believe will be good for the UK and good for the EU, and I look forward to it being received positively.
	So recently the Conservative government led by Theresa May have produced a proposal for the EU from her Chequers country residents.
	And so this proposal has been called the Chequers proposal.
	Theresa May considers this to be a third way plan that she believes the European Union will accept.
	But it's been quite a rough road to get here.
	On the 6th of July 2018, Theresa May had to threaten to sack Boris Johnson and whip the rest of her cabinet in line as it appeared that they were going to revolt over her new Brexit plan.
	Because the Brexiteer wing of the Conservative Party do not like this plan.
	In fact, there appears to be threats of a coup within the Conservative Party to remove Theresa May from leadership.
	Eurosceptics are reported to be circulating a draft of a statement calling for Mrs. May to go, and some have publicly backed Jacob Rees Mogg as her replacement.
	It was claimed that Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, had described the proposals agreed at Checkers as a big turd, and supporting them amounted to polishing a turd before agreeing to back them.
	Conservative Brexiteers are said to have drafted a letter accusing her of complete capitulation to the European Union and claiming that her previous promises were a pretence and a charade intended to dupe the electorate.
	And the letter is said to conclude with, In the interests of our country and the future of the Conservative Party, I feel the time has come for a new leader.
	Andrew Bridgen, the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, who is also an anti-European Union MP, has said, the grassroots party members will have no truck with their perceived treachery, saying also that we needed Boris Johnson to emulate his hero Churchill.
	Instead, he gave us a modern-day version of Neville Chamberlain.
	From the perspective of the Brexiteer Conservatives, Theresa May had earned her pejorative nickname of Teresa the Appeaser.
	But strangely, she was only interested in appeasing the European Union, as apparently she has openly told her cabinet ministers to quit if they oppose her EU exit plan.
	By the end of the cabinet meeting at Chequers, Theresa May had strong-armed her cabinet into line, forcing them to back her UK-EU free trade area.
	The Guardian summarised it as follows.
	The Prime Minister, Theresa May, has secured the backing of her cabinet for her planned approach to the Brexit negotiations.
	Ministers have agreed to pursue a soft Brexit deal, and talks will begin soon with EU leaders.
	Both Remain and hard Brexit-backing MPs have attacked May over the deal.
	The former believe that it is a fudge that leaves the UK worse off than it is inside the bloc, and the latter see it as a betrayal.
	Labour and the Liberal Democrats cast doubt on May's ability to get the deal past her own party and said that it left both sides of the Brexit divide unhappy.
	Business groups cautiously welcomed the deal, saying it offered some certainty which many have been long calling for, but they wanted to see the details, many of which were yet to be defined and in which the devil may appear.
	When the Cheka's plan was finally released to the public, it was to great disappointment, as it appeared that Theresa May had negotiated a third way, a middle position, that satisfied nobody and would most likely harm Britain in the long run.
	A response paper was written by Martin Howe QC, a leading barrister and expert in EU law, who has delivered multiple presentations to the European Research Group, a pro-Brexit think tank within the Conservative Party.
	Martin Howe's opinion was not good.
	He concludes that the Cheka's proposal would involve the permanent continuation in the UK of all EU laws, which relates to goods, their composition, their packaging, how they are tested, etc., in order to enable goods to cross the UK-EU border without controls.
	All goods manufactured in the UK for the UK domestic market, or imported from non-EU countries, would be permanently subject to these controls.
	There would be a general obligation to alter these laws in future whenever the EU alters its own laws, with a mechanism for Parliament to block such changes, which is probably theoretical rather than practical.
	This would put the European Union in a position to fashion its rules relating to goods so as to further the interests of continental producers against UK producers, when Britain will have no right to vote on these rules.
	The obligation to follow the EU rulebook for goods would gravely impair our ability to conduct an independent trade policy.
	In particular, it will prevent us from including mutual recognition agreements for goods in trade treaties, and this is likely to destroy the prospect of successfully achieving meaningful agreements with some of the prime candidates, such as USA and Australia.
	The European Court of Justice jurisdiction proposals would put us in the same position as Moldova, an applicant/slash supplicant state, which is willing to accept binding ECJ rulings on the conformity of its laws with EU laws as part of the preparations for its accession.
	Quite why this is thought to be a suitable model for a country which has left the EU and is the fifth largest economy is unclear.
	The supremacy of the UK courts over laws in the UK would not be restored, contrary to the claim made in paragraph 6G of the statement.
	The new Facilitated Customs Arrangement seeks to solve one of the problems of the NCP, the collection of EU-level tariffs with rebate system on goods destined for the UK market, by imposing on UK-destined goods the administrative burdens of a tracking system.
	This would, one, increase the likelihood of the system being found in breach of the national agreement principle in the GATT Article 3, and 2.
	Apparently extend yet further the time scale for implementation of this Heath-Robinson system, locking the UK in the meantime into the EU's common external tariff, preventing the electorate from benefiting from Brexit in time for the next general election.
	However, there is no indication, at least from what has been made public, that the FCA has solved or alleviated any of the other problems of the NCP proposal.
	It is not clear on how the problem of rules of origin controls on UK manufactured goods imported into the EU will be addressed in the absence of custom controls on the UK-EU border, or how this issue can be solved Compatibly with World Trade Organization rules.
	These proposals will not be accepted by the EU, since in their perception they amount to unacceptable cherry-picking of the benefits of the single market.
	However, the EU is unlikely to reject the UK's position outright, but will instead keep the UK inside a lobster pot, where it negotiates rather than prepares for no deal while the negotiation time runs down, and when the EU will demand huge last-minute concessions in return for not taking away the transition period.
	These proposals therefore lead directly to a worst of all worlds black hole Brexit, where the UK is stuck permanently as a vassal state in the EU's legal and regulatory tarpa, still has to obey EU laws and ECJ rulings across vast areas, cannot develop an effective international trade policy or adapt our economy to take advantage of the freedom of Brexit, and has lost its vote and treaty veto rights as an EU member state.
	Needless to say, this is a catastrophe.
	While it may not be immediately obvious, what this does is put the UK in an inferior position to the European Union for the foreseeable future.
	This means that the European Union can adjust its trade laws and impose these on us at its pleasure, and Britain has absolutely no guarantee of fair treatment from the European Union.
	And given that the European Union is currently in a position where it wishes to dissuade other member states from leaving the Union, it is in the European Union's best interests to slowly but surely make Britain suffer as a result of its decision.
	This will be the most effective way of dissuading other member states from considering leaving the European Union themselves.
	To summarise, Theresa May has given away our bargaining position.
	The UK now has nothing with which to barter.
	The UK would have abandoned any position of leverage it might have had in order to coerce or force the European Union to deal with it equitably.
	The use of the term vassal state is not an exaggeration in this regard.
	When the Chekhov's plan was made public, it was followed by a slew of high-profile resignations.
	The most notable one being David Davis, the chief Brexit negotiator, who said that the general direction of policy will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position and possibly an inescapable one.
	He said, In my view, the inevitable consequence of the proposed policies will be to make the supposed control by Parliament illusory rather than real.
	The common rulebook policy hands control of large swathes of our economy to the EU and is certainly not returning control of our laws in any real sense.
	I am also unpersuaded that our negotiating approach will not just lead to further demands for concessions.
	And it is really hard to argue with his reasoning because at this point there is no reason for the European Union to not simply continue to reject Theresa May's attempts to appease them.
	She took a no-deal Brexit off of the table.
	This was the nuclear option.
	The next high-profile resignation was Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary.
	He said that Brexit should be about opportunity and hope.
	It should be a chance to do things differently, be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.
	That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.
	We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health when we no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.
	In that respect, we are truly headed for the status of colony, and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.
	It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agri-foods, and much else besides, we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals.
	And then there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable customs arrangement, unlike any other in existence.
	What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid.
	This is already how we see the end state for the UK before the other side has made its counter-offer.
	It is as though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them.
	Because Theresa May's Checkers plan is basically a surrender to the European Union.
	And it's really hard not to place some measure of blame at the feet of the rival party leaders Vince Cable and Jeremy Corbyn, who have spent the last two years piling pressure on Theresa May to abandon the idea of a no-deal Brexit.
	For their own personal short-term political gain against the Conservative Party and Theresa May in particular, they have robbed Theresa May of her prime negotiating power.
	And these three entities are essentially responsible for trapping us in a position where we have already capitulated.
	As I record this, more and more people are resigning from Theresa May's cabinet.
	There are notable cabinet members such as Michael Gove who, despite being Brexiteers, still back Theresa May as leader of the party.
	All those of us who believe that we want to execute a proper Brexit and one that is the best deal for Britain have an opportunity now to get behind the Prime Minister in order to negotiate that deal.
	There's one other thing as well that was agreed at Checkers, one really important thing, which is we're being generous towards the EU.
	We're showing flexibility.
	If the EU is ungenerous and inflexible, then we may have to contemplate walking away without a deal.
	And one of the things that we agreed at is that we would step up the preparations for precisely that outcome.
	And civil service is a good question.
	And the cross-government have been working hard in order to ensure that the government is not a good person.
	I know that you're not working hard.
	Can I answer a very straightforward question?
	The critical question is that we will be in a position in March 2019 if we don't get the deal that we want to be able to walk away.
	Are we actually in a position to walk away now?
	We need to be by March 2019.
	So when we need to be, the Cabinet have agreed that we are going to take the preparations.
	No one wants to walk away now because we're in the middle of a negotiation.
	What we need to do is that we can't do that.
	Even Arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg still does not wish for Theresa May to be replaced.
	Finish, because the Prime Minister does face a dilemma.
	I accept that.
	She will either have to do a U-turn, go back to Langstaus, back to her previous commitments, or she'll have to get the legislation and the meaningful vote through on Labour votes.
	That is her choice.
	You are four square with the Prime Minister tonight.
	I support her as Prime Minister, but I do not support her policy as emerged from Checkers.
	I can't have one without the other, can you?
	Well, I think you can.
	You can support many aspects of policy.
	She's not supporting your concern.
	I think Friday was a mistake, and I think it went away from her own red lines.
	I mean, I think the red lines becoming a white flag, as per Boris's letter, is a very good line.
	I mean, would you support Boris Johnson for Prime Minister if the worst happens?
	Well, I supported Boris Johnson for Prime Minister in 2016.
	I've always thought Boris would have been a brilliant Prime Minister.
	So the question is, will there be a vote of no confidence in Theresa May?
	Now, in the Conservative Party, this is done by something called the 1922 Committee, which effectively acts as a kind of union of backbenchers, which gives Conservative MPs a chance to air their grievances against the party leadership.
	To call for a vote of no confidence, the committee has to receive letters of complaint from 15% of the leadership.
	That's 48 letters.
	And it was revealed today that the committee had received those 48 letters.
	If this reporting is correct, and I've got no reason to think that it isn't, there may well be a leadership challenge to Theresa May, especially given the rumours that have been coming out of the Conservative Party.
	However, I believe Theresa May will actually win this contest, because despite the numerous failings of Theresa May's premiership, and her weak and servile nature when it comes to Brexit and the European Union, for some reason, it seems that every Conservative MP who speaks to the media says that they are in complete support of her leadership.
	Despite being the chief Brexit negotiator, David Davis had been sidelined for months.
	The outgoing Brexit Secretary had only visited the European Union's de facto capital twice this year, as well as meeting Commission Chief Negotiator Michelle Barnier only once in London.
	There is a plan is to have a Canada-style free trade agreement which gets us the benefits of free trade, which what people always wanted with Europe.
	The second is the hysterical view of the Remainers on the economic consequences.
	They've been so consistently wrong on Project Fear.
	Think of the Treasury saying we'd have to have a punishment budget just for voting to leave, unemployment rise by up to 800,000.
	Mr. Campbell is once again pursuing Project Fear, and actually economic opportunities where 90% of global growth is going to come from are from outside the European Union.
	And why not a second vote?
	We've had a vote.
	Does he believe in a democracy where you carry on voting until you get the result Mr. Campbell wants?
	I don't think that's particularly democratic.
	As you can imagine, in post-Checkers polls, the Conservatives are beginning to suffer, and UKIP are beginning to gain.
	In the immediate aftermath of what has happened, UKIP have seen a two-point swing up, while the Conservatives have seen a two-point swing down.
	Despite Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party's continual gradual decline in the polls, this has actually led the Labour Party to become now the most popular party in Britain.
	And unsurprisingly, Conservative MPs believe that the Brexit deal that Theresa May is proposing will condemn the Conservatives to a landslide election defeat.
	Because 64% of people in Britain do not trust Theresa May to run Brexit negotiations as well as she could, and only 22% trust her to get the best possible deal.
	The number of people who think that she is incapable of managing Brexit has doubled since March 2017.
	A YouGov poll from Today showed that Britain would rather have neither Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May as their Prime Minister.
	None of the above is actually leading with 36% of the vote, with Theresa May on 34% and Jeremy Corbyn on 27%.
	And don't make the mistake of thinking that this means that the British public have turned against the idea of Brexit, because they haven't.
	YouGov polling shows that Britain has been pretty damn consistent on the issue ever since the referendum itself.
	It's still roughly 50-50.
	And it seems that the British public's instinct as to whether Theresa May can deliver Brexit or not is probably accurate, given how Michelle Barnier has already dismissed May's Brexit plan before it was even agreed by the cabinet.
	As Barnier said, the single market is our main economic public good.
	There will be no damaging it, no unravelling what we have achieved together with the UK.
	The single market is at the heart of the European project, but it is not and should not be a big supermarket.
	The UK is leaving the single market, they know the rules.
	Put simply, the European Union will remain intransigent against Theresa May's proposals, because they feel that her proposals will damage the integrity of the single market.
	And so, as the Times reports, Theresa May faces an uphill battle to convince Brussels her plan will work.
	In the opinion of the Times, the EU is not in a generous mood and views Mrs. May's plan as cherry-picking from the single market to suit the British economy and the whims of Eurosceptic cabinet ministers.
	Her request for a common rulebook for all goods including agri-food in line with ongoing harmonization with EU rules is viewed with deep suspicion.
	The main point is a political one, a diplomatic source said.
	Are EU leaders willing to accept a carve-out of the single market?
	How attached are they to the integrity of the single market?
	And the answer is, particularly.
	And Theresa May has lost any bargaining position on this point.
	She is placing herself in a position where she has no leverage to persuade them to accept a concession.
	This of course has incensed hardcore Brexiteers and has even caused Nigel Farage to say that he may return for a run at the UKIP leadership in 2019 if Brexit is delayed.
	If Brexit is not back on track, if we're not actually going to be leaving, and if this Checkers Agreement has not been broken, then I will very seriously consider putting my name forward to run as leader of UKIP again.
	And I can assure any Conservatives listening to this, sitting in marginal seats, who are not prepared to stand up and honour the wishes of the electorate, I will make damn sure, in that situation, that you all lose your seats, because there are millions of Conservative voters very unhappy indeed.
	And it should come as no surprise that back in January of this year, Donald Trump looked at the way Theresa May was handling Brexit and said that he would do it with a much tougher attitude than she is.
	Because he can see the way the wind is blowing.
	He can see who holds the power in this negotiation and who is taking advantage of their leverage correctly.
	And it is not Britain.
	We are the second largest contributor to the European Union, a political and economic project that is currently very unstable and has the second largest contributor actively leaving it.
	It has huge financial problems in the South.
	It has an anti-immigrant bloc forming across the center of Europe.
	And yet they are negotiating as if they are an impenetrable and unstoppable juggernaut that we cannot challenge in any way.
	And for some reason, Theresa May is accepting this fiction.

▲