Deal or no deal? On Thursday, Britain took its best options for Brexit off the table. Although the Government said that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, its ultimate goal was to ensure that we never faced that choice.

The election has, however, made a good deal impossible and so the choice between “no deal” and a “bad deal” now looks inevitable. Unfortunately, the election has also now ensured that the consequences of “no deal” would be immeasurably more damaging.

Let me explain. Negotiations with the EU were always going to be difficult and nasty. I was cautiously optimistic, however, that shared interests and mutual reasonableness would eventually result in a workable deal, delivering Brexit without a crippling economic cost.

This option is now gone for the foreseeable future. The reason that is that implementing it requires passing a series of enormous, controversial Bills through Parliament, covering everything from immigration to fisheries. There is little chance that Theresa May, or any Conservative Prime Minister, can steer any such legislation through both Houses. From the most pious of peers to the pro-Remain Scottish Tories, our new Parliament heavily favours the softest of soft-boiled Brexits. The Government will not get the support it needs to implement anything else.

This will prove deadly to the Brexit negotiations. The British delegation will arrive for talks in Brussels carrying a pile of paper that no one can vouch for. It is like turning up to fight a duel with a dead fish. Britain can huff and puff and make as many demands as it likes. The EU’s negotiators will simply stare at us across the table and think to themselves: “Whom do they speak for? Can they deliver any of this? Will this Prime Minister even be here next week?”

Confident that our newly elected Parliament would do almost anything to avoid talks collapsing, the EU will have overwhelming incentive to concede nothing. Expect an enormous Brexit bill, EU court authority over its citizens’ rights, continuing regulatory meddling and so on. The deal on offer could be so bad that it would simply be better to stay in the EU single market or European Economic Area for the time being.

David Fuller's view

I don’t think the UK can return to the EU with its tail between its legs, as much as Eurocrats in punishment mode would enjoy seeing that. It would create immense bitterness within the UK which would ultimately be damaging for the EU.  The EEA is the best compromise, provided it is not front-loaded with additional costs and penalties. Schaudenfreude, obviously a German word, is poisonous so wise heads need to prevail.

Here is a PDF of Juliet Samuel’s article.