Good Saturday thread. But we also need to deal with the issue of taking back control. Because, to put it bluntly, the Government's deal doesn't do that, whatever the PM says.
Citing economic damage from no-deal also doesn't work, because frankly nobody can state accurately what it will be, and if it is less growth than we'd otherwise have had, that might not be noticed. No deal feels like taking back control.
I oppose no deal because it is an unpredictable economic and potentially supply shock and I don't think it is sensible to do that with limited time to prepare and no vision beyond. But then no side has much of a vision.
Obviously no deal supporters are concerned about the economic impact as they invent various implausible reasons why it will not be the case, such as WTO rules, which won't in fact help much. But this still feels like a sideshow.
Let's address the campaign slogan, take back control. Will no deal allow us to do that more than the PMs deal? I have my doubts, yes we would be free to make trade deals, but that would give us a one off choice between US and EU rules.
Presuming we don't go down the Lexit path we will want trade deals, companies will demand them. And the pressure will be Government to deliver, particularly with 50% of our trade at stake from barriers to EU trade.
This is where the lack of vision is crucial. Swapping EU for US rules is taking back control then giving it up again. Signing agreements with the EU will be similar. What is actually going to be the difference in control between the PMs deal and no deal?
At the moment we have a no deal proposal incurring unknown economic cost in return for undefined control, or the PMs deal kicking the can down the road for another year or three. And neither side being honest about that choice.
And yet... the desire for taking back control, or changing the way the economy works is real, and those wanting to stay in the EU also struggle to answer that. It's back to the old problem of not knowing what we want.
