Brexit Transition Worries


In recent headlines, a lot of the debate over Brexit has now shifted to a debate over the transition period Theresa May proposed in her Florence speech. Overall, the speech she made was well-judged and statesmen like, and for whatever it's worth I think Theresa May is a competent politician of sound mind. I hope she stays on as Prime Minister.

There's nothing wrong in principle with an implementation period after the time limit of Article 50 has expired. As one MEP put it "Brexit is a process not an event" it's going to involve the gradual repatriation of powers back to the United Kingdom, rather running off a cliff edge and imposing multiple changes on businesses all at once, but there is a serious worry about the terms of implementation.

If under the transition phase we remain a member of the single market, the custom's union, and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, come March 2019, we will in fact have not left the European union. We'll have become a vassal state, losing our seats in the EU's commission, council and parliament, hostage to EU undertakings. If that is the terms of our transition, it is worse than EU membership.

We will in effect be subject to foreign law with no say in making them (something that hasn't happened in the UK since the Norman conquest), that is "taxation without representation".

The transition is time-limited period, intended only to be 21 months, fair enough but what if the EU seeks to push through laws that actively punish the UK for voting to leave the block? Rules that make our economy noncompetitive or that indefinitely extend the period for which we are members. After all that's what happened to Norway, a member the EEA (but not of the European Union).

An exert from Daniel Hannan's signature book, Why Vote Leave:
I'm not the first and I'm sure I won't be the last to say that "damage-limitation" is not the right way to approach Brexit, it needs to be approached with ambition, as a seed for radical change.

Leaving Europe is not an end in itself, after all, its a means to joining the rest of the world. In my estimation then, we could either join the European Free Trade Association or we could walk away without an agreement, compensating for our losses with drastic cuts to regulation and corporation tax. Either of these option are much better than surrendering our veto, and remaining in, indefinitely. 

Comments