Vince Cable has set out six questions the Government must answer after the “constructive ambiguity” in its document published yesterday told us not a huge amount. The questions seem designed to reveal whether the government’s position is actually based on any evidence about the impact of its options or whether the options are just a fig leaf to cover up the deep divisions in the Cabinet.
Vince said:
The government is offering two ways forward but won’t tell us which it prefers. That’s no doubt because cabinet ministers can’t even agree amongst themselves.
These plans are more concerned with papering over the cracks within the Conservative party than protecting our economy.
All those industries that depend on membership of the customs union, from the car industry to aerospace, still have no clear idea what is coming down the track.
All they know is that instead of jumping off a cliff in 18 months, the government now wants to do so in a few years’ time.
The government must come clean over the real costs of these plans for British businesses and consumers.
And on to the six questions:
- he government has outlined two future approaches, a streamlined customs arrangement or a new customs partnership. Has the government decided which would be its preferred outcome, and if so why was this not specified in the paper?
- How does the government expect to be able to negotiate new trade deals with non-EU countries before the terms of any future deal between the UK and EU are known?
- The government says that in the case of a ‘no deal’ scenario, it would treat trade with the EU as it currently treats trade with non-EU countries and customs duty and import VAT would be due on EU imports. Have ministers modelled what the potential costs of this scenario would be for UK consumers and businesses?
- Has the government considered the impact that lowering environmental and consumer standards, e.g. the ban on imports of chlorinated chicken, could have on future customs arrangement with the EU?
- Has the government estimated the financial cost to taxpayers of setting a new streamlined customs arrangement and how long these will take to put in place?
- Can the government confirm that every member of the cabinet, including Liam Fox, has endorsed this paper?
Earlier, Alistair Carmichael had taken David Davis to task over his use of the phrase “constructive ambiguity.”
It’s clear that ‘constructive ambiguity’ is code for ‘we don’t have a clue.’
The government has effectively narrowed down its options to having a hard border, or staying in the Customs Union but calling it something else.
This paper has more abstract nouns than an A-Level English essay. Who knew there were so many ways for the government to admit that they don’t have a clue what they’re doing?
David Davis should spend less time with a thesaurus and more time looking into the chaos at our borders that would be caused by an extreme Brexit.
The only way to guarantee free and easy trade with the EU is to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
AM
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
8 Comments
The Northern Ireland Secretary was on the BBC radio 4 Today Programme on 16/8/2017, regrettably unconvincing. If he stays in the job long enough he will learn that a substantial proportion of electors in Northern Ireland dislike the constitutional settlement although they were all born after 1688. Non-violent politicians such as John Hume (then SDLP leader, MP and MEP) have said so. More recent legislation includes the Human Rights Act, which Liberal Democrats are committed to defend and Theresa May is tempted to abolish. Brokenshire should check back, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) and the Palace made identical statements to the effect that the Human Rights Act overrides the Royal Marriages Act 1948, which consolidated preceding legislation.
I’m pleased to see Vince continuing to push, probe, and expose the Government’s frail policy on Brexit – but, since these 6 questions are not being posed in Parliament, by whom are they intended to be read, and what’s to stop the Govt. just ignoring them? If they are only being published on LD Voice that seems like preaching to the (mostly) converted.
Words fail me – this ggovernment’s cluelessness knows no bounds.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/08/15/the-government-s-customs-union-plan-is-an-absolute-dog-s-bre
Fifty ways to have a Brexit seems to be the brave Brexiteers approach. If you don’t like this version we have others you can choose. I suppose it is the only way to keep the brave Brexiteers happy, each has their own private Brexit dream and until we finally settle on one they can pretend theirs will be the eventual winner.
The sooner the Government actually starts living in the real world by testing their ideas with the EU negotiators the better. It is after all about what they allow us to keep, have, change. Negotiation is about testing your goals against your opponents’. It might be that some of what they want from us is what we also want. It like the referendum is too politically driven with little account of what the population wants, will tolerate or doesn’t care one way or another.
I have a 6th question: how much additional exports will new trade agreements deliver and when, and how does this compare with the exports lost with the EU and the 53 countries the UK currently trades with based on EU-deals?
sorry, I meant 7th question
That is a good piece of hard scrutiny on the government’s proposals. No one else is doing it, so it has to be very welcome. Of course, they cannot answer because they are flailing around.