THE farcical nature of the Tories’ Brexit “strategy” is shown with the Prime Minister and Chancellor openly contradicting each other. The hapless Philip Hammond stated that no money had been put aside for the doomsday “no deal” scenario on Brexit. Barely an hour later the equally bungling Theresa May said that in fact £250 million had been set-aside for this scenario.
The consequences of the “no deal” scenario were laid out in a paper by the Centre for Economic Performance based at the London School of Economics. They found that it would knock between 6.3 per cent and 9.5 per cent off GDP. This equates to a loss of income from £4200 to £6400 per household per year. A House of Lords report issued on Brexit in May found that in the event of a “no deal” scenario 97 per cent of food and drink exports to the EU could be slapped with tariffs.
Around 100,000 jobs could be at risk after EU MEP’s warned that financial business denominated in euros must move from the UK to the EU after Brexit. EU officials have repeatedly said London can no longer maintain the euro-denominated business.
Scotland could lose between 30,000 and 80,000 jobs as a result of Brexit, according to Fraser of Allander Institute. Research by the Centre for Cities and the Centre for Economic Performance predicts Aberdeen will be hit worst by Brexit with Edinburgh not far behind .
May is increasingly isolated and increasingly weak. She heads a minority government, and a cabinet split over the terms of Brexit. She is being held hostage by the “hard Brexit” faction of her Cabinet being led by risible buffoon Boris Johnson.
The major banks and corporations want an arrangement with the EU that will enable them to keep access to the single market or customs union. However, the EU insists there can be no preferential treatment for the UK, and that it must settle its divorce bill (estimated at up to 100 million euros) before any discussions can take place on future trade relations. The Tory hard Brexit faction want the talks to fail so they can turn the UK into a giant sweatshop. The only plausible way out of this for Scotland is an early referendum before the Brexit chaos engulfs the Scottish economy.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
DAVID Davis has just given an opening to the UK Government’s process and ultimate intention in Brexit.
The three issues are still to be decided: payments, Irish border and EU citizens. Yet, he does not emphasise that these will be fleshed out in future discussions. The UK, he says, is “planning for all outcomes”. Now that is actually meaningless. Outcomes depend on what one discussed and finalises. Is it the outcome of the exit or the outcome post exit focussing on the new deal when the UK has third country status? What is more to the point is that he added even a no-deal. A giveaway!
So, either there is a plan agreed at the Cabinet to formulate without ambiguity and conclude the three exit issues or there is at this late stage nothing concrete. Given the firefights across the airwaves and print media by different Cabinet members whenever Theresa May is about to reboot the Brexit position, one must harbour doubts. It looks like the no deal and walk away is going to be the outcome. That is the logical step from the no single market, no customs union position by Brexiteers of all types.
John Edgar
Stewarton
I READ with interest Eddie Hallahan’s long letter in The National (From No thanks to Yes please: the journey to backing Scotland, October 12) and welcome him to the Yes numbers for our independence destination. However, and this is difficult for me to understand, this “No thanks” campaigner journeyed from No to Yes and joined the SNP within a week.
A friend told me that he voted No at the 2014 referendum and woke the day after “with a heavy heart” because of the result. Whit? What happened is now history, but oh how I wish that all No thanks voters who voted with a “heavy heart” or who believed in the “the Vow” or thought the oil and gas were finished had voted differently.
In the words of a Gerry Rafferty song “if you get it wrong, you’ll get it right next time”.
Hector Maclean
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here