If the EU were to force the UK into a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, the British public would see the situation for what it was – a hostile act by a foreign power, says North Yorkshire farmer Andrew Loftus.
Hold your nerve. There will still be ‘a deal’.
We will not descend into the hopeless chaos gleefully predicted by so many remain-leading pundits, for which, apparently, ‘the army is on stand-by’ – total rubbish, of course.
However, I am now expecting a more limited deal, which may well result in more friction at the border than would be necessary under the broadly sensible Chequers proposals and which might possibly even retain a role of the federalist European Court of Justice in some areas (tolerable if temporary, and related only to trade).
Unfortunately, the efforts of die-hard remainers in parliament and the media have actively encouraged the EU Commission in its intransigence.
I am no longer confident that we will achieve a deep and comprehensive deal covering almost all aspects of the future trade relationship.
The British side, although clearly lacking a certain savoir faire, has approached these negotiations in good faith throughout, but its reasonable and pragmatic suggestions have been consistently rebuffed.
Of course this may be a perfectly rational tactic on behalf of Monsieur Barnier, designed to squeeze every possible concession from the Brits, but it could easily back-fire.
If talks collapsed and we were to leave with no deal at all – not even the most basic trade facilitation agreement, which could avoid much of the anticipated border congestion – this would be a monumental political failure.
For that reason, I suspect it would also be the end of Mon. Barnier’s career.
But much more seriously, it would poison the well of British-European relations for decades, because it would be seen for what it would be: a hostile act by a foreign power. For these reasons, I do not believe it will happen.
I read with interest that two MPs, Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative, and Khalid Mahmood, from Labour, had recently called for the ancient Treason Law to be updated for the 21st century.
I am not sure they had the likes of Lord Adonis, Tony Blair and John Major in their sights, and I would always defend the right of anyone to disagree with me, but at what point does actively undermining your own country or Government in a crucial international negotiation cease to be a legitimate expression of free speech?
I am not suggesting they should be hanged just yet, but I know plenty of ardent remainers who have accepted the result and now simply want the best deal for their country.
Why can’t these guys?