Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Mrs May might as well call off her supreme court appeal

Labour MPs have written to the Guardian on the matter of Brexit in which they say.
The ideology driving some Tory MPs to support a hard Brexit would be a disaster for working people. Falling back on World Trade Organisation rules would not be a clean break but the most destructive, harshest of settlements, which would lead to fewer jobs and less business investment, and would leave the British people poorer. This is not what they voted for in June.
This blog is in agreement that the WTO option would indeed be the most destructive of all possible outcomes - but then the WTO option is the particular circumstance whereby Britain does not seek a negotiated exit and instead unilaterally withdraws from the EU without invoking Article 50. That is the true definition of hard Brexit. Mrs May has given zero indication that she wishes to pursue this avenue and has gone to great lengths to deny any suggestion that she might.

The actual letter makes no comment on whether we should or should not be a part of the single market - it deals only with the WTO option. If that is the basis for Labour's opposition then they are already fretting over nothing.

But then Anushka Asthana, political editor at the Guardian writes the lead accompaniment.
Leaving the single market in a hard Brexit would be a disaster for working people, make the weekly food shop more expensive and hit jobs, growth and business, according to 90 Labour MPs. In a blistering attack on Brexit-supporting colleagues, they urged Theresa May to act against any situation in which the country would be forced to follow “World Trade Organisation rules”.
Now it may seem pedantic to hone in on this but leaving the single market is not the WTO option. Departure from the single market with a negotiated means of preferential access is not the same as unilateral Brexit. As most readers will now be aware, neither is especially desirable as the latter would be time consuming and unnecessary but the point is that the Guardian's political editor does not know the difference. Imagine that. After two years of intense debate over these very issues and this is the sum total of their comprehension.

If this is the extent of the opposition understanding of the issues then Theresa May should have no problems whatsoever in utterly demolishing these intellectual pygmies. It's worth letting them have their say so that the public can see just how undeserving of power Labour really is. 

Theresa May yesterday spoke of the need to avoid a "cliff edge" and has spoken of "transitional arrangements". In all likelihood that means we will, for the interim, remain a member of the single market. We are in safe hands. Labour, though, has nothing of use to contribute other than a petulant and crass demand that we remain in the customs union which will rightly be ignored.

One thing voters did vote for in June is the ability to make our own way in the world. If parliament wants to second guess the people then let's hear them out. Let's hear them out - then throw them out. It's nothing less than they deserve. They are incompetent wastrels - and the debate will show that. 

No comments:

Post a Comment