SO, just how bad can it be? No Deal Brexit is looking more likely by the day. It is the law of the land, as Brexiters keep reminding us, and unless someone stops it, we crash out a week on Friday. And I’d have to say, watching MPs on April Fool’s Day again failing to agree any alternative – after being given the bum’s rush by naked climate protesters – I was beginning to wonder if No Deal might be the only option.
A catharsis would at least end this agony of indecision. It would impose reality on the whole debate, as it became clear to Leavers what it means to lack negotiated trading relations with our largest trading partner.
READ MORE: Iain Macwhirter: Time to keep calm, and prepare for a No Deal Brexit
There would be a General Election, and the Tories would likely be destroyed for a generation. The case for Scottish independence would be greatly enhanced, even if a second referendum is currently off the agenda. And anyway, Britain would have to return to the negotiating table within months, even to negotiate a free trade arrangement.
The latest Letwin/Cooper Bill, ruling out No Deal, assumes that Brussels will agree to a long extension of Article 50. But that is beginning to look like naïve optimism. Brussels lost patience long ago, and has all but resigned itself to a No Deal Brexit. Thousands of customs officers have been hired, banks are being assured of liquidity, temporary arrangements have been made to prevent the planes falling out of the skies. The EU will only contemplate an extension if Britain agrees to hold a referendum or an election.
No deal is not something I would advocate, obviously. But events are beginning to take on a life of their own. Perhaps Parliament will come to its senses, but the arithmetic is against it. Soft Brexit needs to win a convincing and sustainable majority of the 650 MPs, and so far it hasn’t come close. Conservative MPs are refusing to compromise, as an emotional Nick Boles remarked as he left his party. But they are also refusing to vote for Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement, which leaves us with nowhere to go.
READ MORE: Brexit crisis: Tories at breaking point as Theresa May makes offer to Jeremy Corbyn
The SNP, to its credit, laid aside party advantage and tried to get Mr Boles’s Common Market 2.0 motion passed. Labour MPs also voted in large numbers for options which were not party policy. But at best, only 37 Conservatives seem minded to seek a consensus, and frankly that ain’t enough. Mrs May will probably put her broken deal back to Parliament in Meaningful Vote 4 – but unless Labour abstains it will be defeated again. If we are heading for a crash, we need to prepare.
Would there be civil unrest? The Government has certainly prepared for it, and the Army is on standby to deal with trouble at the ports. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, estimates that food prices would rise 10 per cent, which seems likely, but I doubt if people would take to the streets on the back of that. The Brits are a phlegmatic race and they would probably just queue, singing Cliff Richard’s greatest hits to keep themselves amused. Medical supplies will probably get through, eventually, though some will suffer. EU citizens are not going to revolt – most of them have already made plans to leave.
I’m not trying to paint a rosy picture of No Deal. It is not an option that any rational government should contemplate. But Britain has ceased to be rational, and Parliament has failed in its key role as a means of building national consensus. Remainers shouldn’t exaggerate the immediate problems of No Deal Brexit, as they did before the 2016 referendum. It is partly the failure of the forecasts of Project Fear to materialise that has made many voters relaxed about leaving without a deal. At least until their jobs start to go.
There won’t be mass redundancies overnight, but rather a slow attrition of businesses and jobs as Britain loses friction-free access to its biggest market. Brussels has made clear that it will impose tariffs, 10 per cent on cars, up to 30 per cent on some food products. But many items are already exempt and it’s not as if there is going to be a blockade at the ports.
There will be the full range of sanitary and phytosanitary checks on food and agricultural products. There will be the gamut of regulatory checks also, but these are not immediately visible. Those lorry parks in Kent will certainly be overflowing and the M20 will be disrupted for weeks, perhaps months. But eventually things will start to move again.
Sir Mark Sedwill forecast, in his No Deal briefing, that another run on the pound would be likely. The prospect of car and pharmaceutical companies departing for Europe, along with the banks and legions of creative industry professionals, would make Britain a poor investment prospect – at least in the short term. Britain’s financial credibility would be in question, and borrowing costs would probably rise.
Ireland will face particular difficulties under No Deal, which is why Emanuel Macron and Angela Merkel are holding emergency talks with the Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar. Efforts will be made in the short term to keep the checks away from border posts, and they may be successful. But in the medium term, there is going to be a hard border. That is going to have profound economic consequences for Ireland, which sends nearly half its food exports to the UK.
READ MORE: Scotland's anti-Brexit charm offensive goes down a storm in Europe
There will also be consequences for the peace process in Northern Ireland. Sir Mark forecasts Direct Rule returning to Northern Ireland, and that could destabilise the province. But in the immediate aftermath of No Deal, there will probably be a stunned silence, as political parties assess the economic damage.
As for the rest of the UK, there will also be a breathless hush next Friday as everyone waits to see what happens. It will probably be an anti-climax. The consequences will be profound, but most will be delayed. And there is an upside for Scottish nationalists. This reckless disregard for the express wishes of Scotland, and her MPs, may have made the Breakup of Britain all but inevitable.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel