The triggering of Article 50 is almost upon us and we are hurtling haplessly towards a “hard Brexit”, at least according to many Remainers who still believe that the EU is about to give the UK a two year punishment beating.

As we lay battered and bruised on the ground, the EU will then - so the narrative of the sweaty palmed cynics goes - refuse to safeguard our trade links and instead grasp us in a death grip and irrationally leap off a cliff, because this would apparently show the world the benefits of EU membership.

The SNP call it a “hard Tory Brexit” for good measure, pushing the lie that the evil Westminster bogeyman is actively seeking a “hard Brexit”, even though the Government’s clearly stated objective is to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement. They calculate that the negotiations will fail or be abandoned; leading us towards an economic crash that will ensure the Scots finally cut the cord for the supposed safety of separatism and being a one party state.

Meanwhile, a hardcore contingent in the Brexiteer camp believes that we should either refuse to negotiate at all or flounce away as soon as we dislike a demand. I’ve argued before on these pages that this would be a needless act of self-harm, automatically putting us behind a bleak wall of tariffs and non-tariff barriers that would cause very real disruption and economic turmoil. The truth is this isn’t really a viable option.

And:

The truth is that both sides desperately need to minimise disruption and clear the way towards a reasonable, amicable and mutually beneficial “divorce”. By the end of Article 50 negotiations there will be an agreement upon a transitional arrangement to allow trade continuity and we will have a blueprint of our future relationship. Then, talks will continue until we have concluded a full trade and cooperation agreement which will leave the UK outside the EU but with strong ties and close cooperation.

This is, of course, the very definition of something being easier said than done. There will be ups and downs and frustrations and protestations, but in the end a mutually beneficial deal will be concluded. Nobody will get everything they want and everyone will boast to their domestic audience about the concessions they won. After all is said and done and all the threats have been issued, this is the necessary political and economic outcome.

Hang on, why, the Remainers will ask - as they have asked for the last 18 months – will the EU agree to such a thing? ‘Why is it in the EU’s interests to give the UK a good deal?’ The answer is obvious. The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction applies. The UK cannot afford to carry out its bluff about walking away from negotiations; but the EU cannot afford it either.  

David Fuller's view

I do not agree with all of this. Whose interest is it in to haggle for two years on the assumption that the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction will lead to a last minute satisfactory agreement? 

Theresa May’s cautious, constructive approach may end in a mutually satisfactory agreement but that is not certain.  Playing by the EU’s rules will be expensive for another two years. It would also be a masochistic exercise and it would delay the development of trade agreements with other countries outside the EU.

Psychologically, during a two year negotiation EU representatives would be trying to limit their losses while ensuring that other countries are unlikely to follow the UK’s painful path. 

However, if the UK pushes for a quick, cooperative agreement suitable for both parties but the EU stalls, if only for the UK’s continued financial contributions, I think we should just cancel further negotiations and payments, and leave.  That would concentrate political and especially corporate EU leaders’ attention. They would have every incentive to quickly negotiate mutually sensible agreements with the UK.    

Here is a PDF of Ben Kelly’s article.