Email of the day
On reducing the delay over Brexit:
David
I hope our PM reads this article and acts accordingly. She may need a reshuffle early in 2017 to remove some remoaners.
Thanks for your comments and the link to a sensible article by John Mills. Here is a brief section:
There is clearly a case for getting the Brexit negotiations concluded as soon as possible. The only significant economic downside to the EU referendum vote so far has been some signs of a fall-off in investment for which uncertainty must be part of the cause.
As long as we are in the EU, we run up costs of £250m a week, which obviously we must avoid if we can. So we need to get negotiations completed within the two year period, which may well mean within 18 months, allowing for a period of time for ratification. What can we do to make sure this happens?
First, having a relatively tight deadline will concentrate the minds of the negotiators. The longer the time available, the longer it will take. This will not make problems easier to solve. It will just provide an excuse for putting off tackling the difficult issues.
Second, we need to ensure that negotiations on the arrangements over our leaving the EU run concurrently with discussing what will happen after we have left. It makes no sense to run these two aspects of Brexit consecutively, wasting time which is in no one’s interest.
Third, we need to keep it as simple as we can, building on well-established existing trade arrangements instead of creating new ones, unless, in a few cases, these are absolutely essential. If – as will probably happen – we finish up outside the Single Market but with a free trade deal, all the necessary alignments of standards, for instance, will already be in place.
Theresa May is not the problem, in my opinion. Nevertheless, she needs genuine support and sensible council from those who favour a swift, Clean Brexit.
I assume she has contingency plans if Brexit is held up by either the Supreme Court or remainers in both Parliament and the House of Lords.
(See also Roger Bootle’s article and my reply to it, posted on Tuesday 13th December.)
Back to top