Yes, but Polly….

Every speaker in yesterday’s exceptional Commons debate confirmed we are leaving the EU. There is no “plot to betray” the referendum result. What was revealed was the extremists’ mania for an ever fiercer, harder Brexit: nothing will be enough for John Redwood, Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin or Peter Bone who spoke out to back David Davis’s refusal to make the single market a priority. Any attempt to salvage favourable trading terms was denounced as anti-democratic treachery.

It is the EU itself which is saying that if you want single market access then you’ve got to accept everything else as well. Thus the only Brexit available is clean Brexit.

21 thoughts on “Yes, but Polly….”

  1. This week nobody is calling for us to stay in the EU. That is just the Brexiteers’ straw nan argument; silly stupid Brexiteers. Last week though they were all arguing for a second referendum. So, I might be a silly stupid Brexiteer, but I know devious lying scum when I see them.

  2. It was made perfectly clear during the referendum that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. That’s what we voted for, and no matter how confusing Polly may find that, a majority of the population of the United Kingdom want no part of the single market. Because that’s exactly what we voted for. Clean Brexit it is.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    The pain is likely to be evenly spread with a hard Brexit. The Full English Brexit as someone else called it here. That is, the French will suffer as much as us if not more.

    If they want to do that, fine. Their government probably does. Let them live with the consequences. We simply want out. The best policy is none. The government should follow the Hong Kong example – no restraint on trade. Not even allowing the government to collect statistics that would allow them to interfere. Hong Kong is significantly richer than Britain now. Let the Europeans do what they like and suffer accordingly.

    Pol is likely to be worried she will have to give up her house in Umbria. I hope they nationalise it and turn it into a sheltered work shop for mentally retarded Syrian lesbians or something.

  4. I still think our best card is the amount of money we pay in. I think if we offered to go on paying (not the full amount but 50%+ of our current net payment), and in return demanded access to the single market but no free movement of people, a special UK deal in effect, then the money would make them change their Euro principles. The Germans won’t want to be on the hook for the extra dosh, the countries that receive funds wouldn’t want to lose that money either. They would all be faced with a stark choice – money or European principles. I think money would win.

    The reason for wanting to stay with access to the single market is more about politics than economics. We need to make sure Brexit sticks, and the best way to do that is give its opponents as little opportunity to make trouble as possible. A hard Brexit with no single market access (other than on the usual WTO rules, plus the EU out to make trouble for us) would definitely have some economic impact in the short term, and the first factory that closed because of Brexit would be manna from heaven for those opposed. Hence the political necessity to make the initial bump in the road as small as possible, so that we stay on the Brexit road in the long term (which is definitely better for us) than be bounced off sideways into a sort of EU-lite arrangement because of short term economic problems. Any money we have to pay in we will get back many fold over the coming decades through better trade deals with the rest of the world, and anyway, and there are considerable savings to be had from our gross payment – farm subsidies for example could easily be cut and spent elsewhere to ease the political issues. There must be plenty of other Euro money spent in the UK that we could reallocate to more deserving recipients as well.

  5. @Jim

    The FT in all its twattishness was saying a Euro divorce bill would be E20 billion including continuing EU budget commitments. If Tusk really wants a hard Brexit and nothing else, the Euro twats can renegotiate their budget post 2019 and the UK can stop paying. Since this is insane and a poor outcome for both sides, we can see that the EU will be happy to negotiate. The UK should offer to pay a bit for access – not even 50%, but perhaps 15% of their net for full access. It’s going to be hilarious seeing how the EU infighting will mount when they realise net resources are about to shrink by £10 billion a year.

  6. I for one would find it unacceptable to still pay into the budget. Our trade deficit with them is huge, they have unfunded liabilities they are desperate for us to pay a share of.
    Not a great negotiating position, which is why I can’t understand the foot dragging over Article 50 to start the clock.
    What tariffs do the likes of South Africa or Australia pay to sell into the single market? Less than our Danegeld for single market access I bet.

  7. Bloke in Not in North Dorset in Turkey


    In a logical world I’d agree with you, but these twats are more likely to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

  8. ‘Access’ as Brussels uses it means being a member, being involved in setting the rules* and paying contributions (either paying the EU or direct aid payments and research contributions for EFTA).

    If we want to just trade then we leave completely and need pay no contributions but there could be tariffs and non-tariff barriers. This is ‘access’ as the general public might understand the meaning of the word.

    We are now in a similar situation with the terms ‘hard brexit’ and ‘soft brexit’. Does hard mean complete or fast? Is soft brexit slow (but still complete) or remaining part of the EEA?

    I would be happy with a slow but complete exit. It is not sensible imo to try and undo 40 years of integration in just a couple of years but the end goal must be a clear one. We need time to set up the institutions to mirror the European ones, then adopt EU law into British law and then we can get on with revising or deleting legislation.

    * EU members have direct input on rules. EFTA nations are guaranteed informal consultation early on by the EEA agreement.

  9. “In a logical world I’d agree with you, but these twats are more likely to cut off their noses to spite their faces.”

    Well thats OK, because we’d have gone the extra mile. If we offer to pay for access, a decent price too, and they throw it back in our faces to spite themselves as much as us, then no-one can argue they are acting rationally, in which case there’s no argument to stay. Throughout this whole process the politics as much as the economics has to be considered – we have to give the Remainers no ammunition to say ‘We told you so!’ or to be able to point to economic calamities that have occurred due to Brexit.

    I’d rather pay in for 10 years (or whatever) and entrench our independence than try and jump straight in the deep end of independence and flounder a bit, giving the Remain camp a chance of demanding we be pulled out again. Once we are well established as an independent nation again, and our non-EU trade has grown sufficiently we can stick two fingers up at them and stop making the payments, and just trade under WTO rules regardless.

  10. @Jim:

    I’m a hard BRExiter and I was a street campaigner for “Leave”, but even I am not a complete fascist in this regard.

    The end goal must be a clean BRExit, completely outside the realm of the EU, EEA and EFTA, all of which are compromised and remain subject to interference by the EU elites.

    However, I accept that the more rapid the transformation from where we are today to the end state of a free-and-clear EU, the more difficult that road will be.

    If payments to the EU were tapered over a period of 10-years to ensure that there was a gradual transition in trade arrangements, then I think that would be a reasonable compromise.

    The problem is that the likes of Junker, Tusk and Hollande are so full of indignation at BRExit that cooler heads might not prevail.

  11. Brexit, that’s a laugh.

    Half of the Tory party members want to stay in, a majority of Tory MPs want to stay in, the leader is elected by the MPs.

    Half of the Labour party members want to stay in, a majority of Labour MPs want to stay in, the leader is elected by the members.

    If Treasonous May announced she was off to see Brenda with an executive writ tomorrow she wouldn’t make it out of the chamber alive.
    Et tu Boris.

    This is all Camerons fault, he wanted to shut the eurosceptic wing of his party down for good and tried to rope everyone else into helping him.

  12. Paying for access to the Single Market is fine. The issue was to get their control over our Parliament removed. If it costs a few hundred million a year to trade with them, so what? It’s peanuts.

    It’s their fucking courts and fucking laws having precedence over us, that’s the point.

  13. Incidentally can someone explain to me why we can’t do a trade deal with the EU that has the same practical effect of being in the Single Market, but aren’t actually in it? Ie zero tariff barriers, passporting for the City etc? Other non-EU countries have trade deals with the EU and aren’t in the Single Market, and don’t have freedom of movement, why can’t we be the same?

    And incidentally pt2, can someone explain to me the status of Turkey? It appears to be in the ‘European Customs Union’ which allows tariff free movement of goods throughout, so like being in the Single Market, but isn’t, nor does it have freedom of movement of people. If they can have this sort of deal why can’t we have similar?

  14. Bloke in North Dorset

    Paying for access to the single market is the same as having having higher tariffs on our exports to them than on theirs to us, or have I missed something?

    And if we’re going to pay for access then presumably as long as its not greater than our current nett payments then we’ve won and I really can’t see that happening.

  15. Regardless, its not our decision now.
    Its down to negotiation – and there are at least 2 sides to a negotiating table.

    The best deal that can be got and the deal the public will accept may be quite different. But if cannot get a better deal then what?

  16. Tell the Eurotrash to fuck off and shove their deal.

    And screw the consequences.

    It is long past time for active measures against the Remainiac shite anyway.

  17. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Apparently we are meant to believe that Polly Toynbee has suddenly become an unrestrained advocate of free trade. Exactly what has occasioned this Damascene conversion is left, as they say, as an exercise for the reader.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *