Saturday , May 25 2024

Considering Project Fear’s No Deal Brexit Plans

Earlier last week, we found out that May had finally decided to get planning for a No Deal Brexit. This was something Brexiteers were very eager for – everybody felt that now, after two years, perhaps we could finally get somewhere and achieve what we had voted for. Perhaps now that the Chequers Plan had been vetoed by the EU, we were likely to finally see a proper Brexit. One that went back to the plans outlined in the Lancaster House Speech. Then rumours began to appear that the Department for Exiting the EU was developing a Canada Plus or Super Canada trade agreement. The pinnacle of it all occurred when David Davis’s ex-Undersecretary of State, Steve Barker, tweeted that this was what the department was working on. 

Alas, these were all pipe dreams, as the remain addicted, Stockholm Syndrome patients who seem to run the government decided that this was the perfect opportunity for Project Fear 2.0. For whatever reason, the Prime Minister decided that No Deal meant No Trade, but rather a blockade. This meant the all the benefits of a No Deal Brexit — the most likely way of getting a proper Brexit — were to be ignored, while we pretended that if we had no agreement with the EU, they would refuse to sell or buy anything to or from us. 

Barnier had not suggested that; even Jean-Claude ‘Drunker’ Junker had not threatened us with a blockade, but May came to the conclusion that ‘No Deal’ meant ‘No Relationship’. One might be forgiven for suspecting that a remainer Fifth Column exists, which operates around Whitehall determined to ensure we don’t get a proper Brexit.

The idea is clearly nonsensical from many aspects. Primarily, the EU would not blockade the UK: It would be illegal under WTO Rules and open them up to be sued. Secondly, it would do major economic harm to the EU, and cost their economies hundreds of billions of pounds in trade surpluses, exports and imports. Thirdly, it would arguably harm the EU more than it would the UK, as many of the EU’s flagship project and programmes, such as Galileo and Airbus. 

Lastly, such a blockade will not be effective, despite May and the europhilic Civil Service planning for a complete breakdown of supply chains. I suspect the “punishment beaters” and “camp commandants” will think this to be the major reason not to inflict such drastic “punishments” on the UK. This is because of basic economic laws relating to supply and demand. 

If there is a No Deal Brexit, things will carry on as usual. British companies will continue to buy and sell with their European counterparts, tourists and travellers will continue to use ferries, Eurostar, airlines and drive across the open border with Ireland. In such a situation, it would be wise for the government to announce it would not set up any trade restrictions with the EU, but we would reciprocate. The UK and EU have a strong trading relationship, and although its importance as an overseas or export market for British goods and services has continued to decline steadily, it imported $240 billion in 2016. On the other hand, the EU exported £320 billion to us in the same year, creating the well known £80 billion trade surplus.

Although this would suggest that the EU would be hit the hardest in a trade war, that isn’t the complete story. While they would lose more money, as a percentage, less of their exports from the Common Market go to the UK than from the UK to the EU – 18% compared to about 45%. This means that it could be argued that the UK would suffer more from a trade war than the EU, and may empower the ‘Camp Commandant’ group within the eurocracy.

Following a No-Deal Brexit, or indeed a Brexit of any type, the EU is faced with three options:

  1. Leave everything as it is: no restrictions on British goods, services and travellers
  2. Treat the UK as any other foreign nation and subject to all relevant EU import restrictions
  3. Punishment Beatings. These can vary from simple tariffs to a complete blockade, which would cost a total of £560 billion in lost trade.

The first option is by far the most sensible. It would ensure the EU and UK have no problem with their relationship in the future and means that life would continue as usual. This is the goal of HM’s Government, and this would be arguably the best method of achieving such a goal. 

The second option would enable the EU to treat the UK as any other nation and mean that the future UK-EU relationship is reset to that of any other non-EU member state. It can be argued that the UK would be sufficiently “punished” and that no further steps would be necessary – why we must be punished is still the question to be asked. It would mean that the UK is not a special case for the EU, ensuring fairness for all other non-EU member states (Read: we would all be discriminated against equally). 

This is by far the most likely option to occur and is arguably the best outcome for everybody involved. Yet for the EU, there are arguably a number of problems with this suggestion. Primarily this will be of a concern to Boris Johnson’s “Camp Commandants” who are solely interested in dishing out “punishment beatings” to ensure no other nation votes to leave the EU. It seems that this faction had seized control of the Commission and hold the people of the EU hostage to achieve their radical ultra-federalist goal, which requires Britain be crushed as the proverbial dust beneath their chariot wheels. 

The second option means the UK is not “punished” any more than other non-members. It means that it is proven that a nation can vote to leave the EU and not merely survive, but also thrive. For whatever reason, the EU seems to have decided that this cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. If everybody took a step back and considered it, it would be recognised as a very concerning state of affairs: If the EU was supposed to solely protect & represent their citizens it would be unnecessary to punish former ones; the fact that it feels it necessary to do so shows that the former is merely a facade.

Therefore, if we have a no-deal Brexit, the next morning, we will all wake up to see what the EU has decided upon. Unless they choose option No. 1 (which means accepting that the UK can access the Common Market for free and without being under the jurisprudence of the ECJ), they will be forced to construct customs checkpoints along the Ulster border. 

This is the first point of irony: despite all their accusations of Britain punishing the Northern Irish, it will almost certainly be the EU who will be constructing the “hard border” (read: “Normal border”) on Irish soil. If the Irish people do not wish to have such a border, the only answer is to vote to leave the EU (as they did when they voted against EU Treaties previously). We, the United Kingdom will not install border checks due to Brexit – we will do so because the EU requires it. We will not build customs booths to harm the border communities, but rather doing so out of common politeness and wish to follow – as equals – the EU’s legal and ‘reasonable’ demands. 

Following the construction of the border, the EU will then be faced which option they prefer to take: Will they treat it as any other EU-Non EU land border, or will they ensure that Britain gets it tougher and harsher than any other nation before? 

The people of the EU will doubtless want the former, while the Commission and the ‘Eurocracy’ will prefer the second option. I think ultimately the decision will be made by EU member-states’ governments, who are accountable to the ones bearing the brunt of the Commission’s imperialistic decisions. 

If the EU chooses to take the former option, life will continue as normal, and there will be very little difference in life for everybody. Perhaps some citizens of Ulster will have to spend 5 minutes in a queue to visit the Republic, and the same coming home, but it will almost certainly be less time than army checkpoints during The Troubles and doubtless “frequent-flyer” processes can be developed for those who live on the border to ensure they can travel easily without delay. If the EU really cares about the border communities they will find a way around the problem as the UK wishes to find a reasonable solution, too. But then they’d have to give up politicising and weaponising the issue.

At this point, the UK will be out, successful, and have the upper – or at least an equal – hand over the EU in any further trade negotiations. This will ensure that we will achieve the end goal and desired outcome of all 17.4 million who voted to leave the EU: “Canada+++”, or ‘CETA plus Services’. We will be outside the ECJ, European Commission, EUROPOL, EUROCORPS, European Arrest Warrant, Common Fisheries and Agricultural Policies which have been so detrimental to UK agriculture, fisheries, and industries: Prices will be low and economic growth, in the long term, will doubtless be high.

If the EU decides against this, and tries to weaponise Brexit, they will be faced with the same problem as faced by previous European tyrants with continental hegemony: how to blockade an island. We will examine this possibility in the second article, and if we should anticipate no food and medicine on shelves and if the army – when not busy delivering food parcels – should be on the lookout for EUROCORPS parachutists disguised as Nuns dropping into villages along the south coast.

About Ted Yarbrough

Ted is the co-founder and editor of the Daily Globe. He is a long-time blogger on British politics and has written a thesis on Thatcherism.

Check Also

The War on the Moon

There was a time when the HG Wells story ‘War of the Worlds’, made into …