SINCE 2016 the PM has always insisted that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, and the latest info from Westminster is that considerable progress has been made and that trade talks will commence shortly.
We have not been informed of the detailed agreements made to achieve this position, but given the recalcitrance exhibited by the EU team to date it is fair to assume that concessions have been made by David Davis et al which might not be to our liking, and we are left to interpret what the future will be based on recent pronouncements.
It seems that we will on April 1 2019 be outside the EU, and that a rationalising period of two years thereafter will elapse before we are totally “free”. During the next three years, therefore, we will be subject to all obligations of a member of the EU but with no representation in the “corridors of power”. All of those onerous obligations to which we have been subject and which in part determined the “out” vote in 2016 will have by the end of the divorce negotiations been extant for five years.
Presumably the foregoing is being accepted by Westminster as a “good deal”. We are left to determine ourselves what the “quid pro quo” for agreeing to such arrangements by the UK team might be. The attitude of the EU so far and the absence of any hint of empathy or sympathy by Messrs Barnier , Juncker, and Tusk engenders little confidence that a “good deal” will have been obtained.
In the recent past the judgment shown by Theresa May and several of her ministers has been justifiably criticised. The oft-repeated assertions that all is well are daily being exposed as rhetoric designed to rescue the government from policy failures. Will the Brexit deal be yet another?
John Hamilton
Bearsden
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel