The Only Brexit Deal Worth Having Is No Brexit Deal At All

There is much mumbling in the world of public opinionating that Theresa May’s deal with the European Union is the only one worth having as Britain looks to leave the bloc. This is incorrect – the only deal worth having is no deal at all. Come 29 March the UK should crash out to WTO terms and thus be done with the mess.

Entirely agreed, I am an extremist on this matter, I am perhaps the only person who believes that the EU itself is a bad idea, one that no one at all should belong to. I am thereby more extremist than my colleagues in Ukip – a party I have worked for and stood as a candidate for – most of whom are quite happy for everyone else to do as they wish as long as Brits don’t have to.

The essential point here though being that the European Union itself is dedicated to the idea of European unity, to the building of a single European state. A plurality of Britons have recently voted not to be a part of that. We’re offski therefore and that’s just that. But if we are to go then we do actually need to go, to not be a part of the system trundling along to that abolition of the nation state. That means being free again, becoming a sovereign state again.

This logic is understood even if not usually vocalised here in Britain. The purpose here is to explain it to foreigners – yes, that’s everyone who wasn’t qualified to vote in that referendum we had. The best example I can think of for the logic is this from history:

Of the available options, crashing out without a deal at all is the best there is. We leap free and they can go do as they wish.

Yes, agreed, there’s a lot of detail skipped over here, and much political analysis to be navel-gazed at your leisure. My basic belief is that the EU is bad enough that we should jump ship even at that possible cost of a dunking.

What’s actually going to happen? Hazarding a guess, as predictions are difficult, especially about the future, I’d say that May’s compromise isn’t going to get through parliament. Also, there won’t be a second referendum, because there’s no time. The U.K. is going to end up leaving in chaos and having near terminally annoyed every politician upon the continent.

That’s fine, because what’s important is that we leave. We can clear up the details at our leisure. Just to remind you — the American Revolutionary War was won in 1783. Alexander Hamilton and others were still arguing how the new country would be won in the Federalist Papers in 1787. Then as now, leave and sort the rest of it out later.

We don’t want to be a part of that system, just as the Founding Fathers didn’t the British Empire. What was to replace once freedom was won was something worried about once liberty was achieved. It worked out pretty well, what had been a few villages – by any modern standard – on the edges of a savage infested wasteland became the world’s richest and greatest power. Through the simple expedient of running with that liberty and freedom for the average, the common, the general, man.

Sure, the US has more than the occasional problem but of the varied experiments that have been undertaken into human governance it’s not a bad result now, is it? Beats having the Greeks telling us how to run an economy at least. Or the Germans how to cook, the Italians how to run a police force or the French advising upon personal hygiene. Or even, the assembled anal retentives of an entire continent penning 50,000 word missives on the permissible treatments of cauliflowers. Or an actual real one, some cretin deciding that 500 million people must be threatened with a fine of £5,000 and or 6 months in jail for the crime of adding essential citrus oils to jam, or the making of marmalade from apricots. No, really, that is law in this glorious European Union.

We should leave and we should leave properly:

The result of all of this mess and division is that U.K. politics are now paralyzed with indecision, even as the country plunges ever closer to that hard deadline (by which, if no deal has emerged, the U.K. would leave the E.U. and all of its major treaties with no alternative arrangements in place).

Quite so, everyone is so deluded as to what they think might be possible – a better or different deal, a second referendum, a change of government, whatever – that the likely result now is that no deal which is the best option anyway.

That’s not going to fly, the parliamentary arithmetic just doesn’t work for it. As well as it being a terrible deal in the first place. The mistake being made is that the short term is being emphasised at the expense of the long. Everything is being tried to make sure there is no short term problem with anything, the cost of this being that the correct long term decision – leave and leave properly – isn’t being taken.

After 20 months of negotiations, the 27 leaders gave the deal their blessing after less than an hour’s discussion.

They said the deal – which needs to be approved by the UK Parliament – paved the way for an “orderly withdrawal”.

Theresa May said the deal “delivered for the British people” and set the UK “on course for a prosperous future”.

Speaking in Brussels, she urged both Leave and Remain voters to unite behind the agreement, insisting the British public “do not want to spend any more time arguing about Brexit”.

The British public would actually like Brexit to take place, something this deal doesn’t achieve in anything other than mere name.

Yes, I know, I agree, I am an extremist. But it is still true that of the three alternatives out there, not leaving at all, this brokered deal and crashing out with no deal only that third accords in any manner with what was voted for by that plurality. Thus that’s what should be done, out, to WTO and damn the torpedoes. Anything else just wouldn’t be democracy now, would it?

12
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
7 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
ShenhuaPatSamarkand TonyRhoda Klappdavid Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
moqifen
Guest
moqifen

the only thing i’d disagree with is that the EU wants to build a european state. It appears they want to build an empire with the member countries being vassal states to the empire situated in brussels which is becoming a separate state all of it’s own.

Pat
Guest
Pat

One off the wall thought.
If you wanted to get a no-deal Brexit out of this Parliament, what would you do differently from the present government? Procuring a deal so awful that nobody dare vote for it, and hanging things out until time runs out to renegotiate seems like a good way of doing it.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

While ensuring there’s an act of parliament stating the day we WILL leave, and a ‘meaningful vote’ so the govt can’t just push through any old deal.

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

You’ve missed the bit where we’ve committed to shooting ourselves in the face repeatedly if we go for no-deal, to ensure that we don’t.

It’s all set up for another referendum, this time on a deal so obviously unacceptable it has to be turned down. When it’s turned down, they can say they now have no mandate for Brexit.

david
Guest
david

Would this “deal” need such a selling effort if it were any good? Theresa May has learned nothing from last year’s election debacle. Endlessly saying that SHE thinks it’s a good (strong and stable, anyone?) deal becomes less convincing with every repeptition. Us turkeys are better at recognising a dead parrot than she is.

Never, in the history of the United Kingdom has so much been surrendered so cheaply by such a tiny clique of traitors.

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

There are more than three options. I’ve always liked the idea of breakaway rather than Brexit – take some of the other EU nations with us. If nothing else it would really wind up Brexiteers and Remainers alike.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Indeed, there’s an infinite array of options, as long as we don’t ask the other chaps if it’s OK to do any of them.

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

In all seriousness, a two-part United Europe makes so much sense that it might have been quite an easy sell to the EU. The Germanic nations in one part, the Latin nations in the other. Free trade and movement between them, but some limited differences in other laws permitted.

You could then have currency unions which make sense, instead of the Euro, and somewhat different economic policies to suit each group of much less dissimilar nations.

Wait, what am I saying. This makes far too much sense for it to ever happen…

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Well, the project won’t let that happen. They could have done it any time after the euro began to be so obviously disruptive, but the aim is not a reasonable settlement but an EU empire (no longer can we believe that the United States of Europe is the plan).

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

“no longer can we believe that the United States of Europe is the plan” Look, if we’re going to do the thing, that’s the way to do it. The only things a government should do are the things only a government can do. Those things are best done on the largest possible scale – immunisation programmes, for example. The hard things are making sure that we stick to the minarchist principle for the federal part, and having sufficiently small states within it to work as local governments. I don’t see the need for a layer of government between UK council… Read more »

Pat
Guest
Pat

Breakaway sounds great to this Brexiteer. Ideally a breakaway composed of ourselves and 27 other nations. No common currency, no common external tariff (no tariffs at all), no single market (mutual recognition of standards instead), just free trade. Of course that will be of little interest to politicians, so it won’t happen.
But if a breakaway is to happen at all someone must be first. I’m happy for us to lead.

Shenhua
Guest
Shenhua

no Deal is and always has been the REAL Deal