The claim: Vote Leave says the UK cannot lower VAT rates as long as it is in the European Union. Michael Gove said the 5% rate of VAT on household gas and electricity bills could not be scrapped because of EU rules.
Reality Check verdict: EU rules mean the UK cannot reduce VAT on goods and services below 15%, the standard rate of VAT in the EU. The standard rate of VAT in the UK is 20%, so the government could reduce it by up to 5% today if it wanted. Domestic fuel is on a special list of pre-approved goods and services that are subject to lower VAT rates and it would require the agreement of all other EU members to reduce it further. EU countries have been co-ordinating their VAT rates since 1992, as part of building up the single market and ensuring there is no unfair competition across national borders.
Under EU rules, countries must apply a minimum standard VAT rate of 15%. They have an option of applying one or two reduced rates, no lower than 5%, to certain specified goods on a pre-approved list.
Further reduction of the VAT rate, including to 0%, is also allowed but only for the goods which were taxed at that rate before 1991 and since then.
Changes to the VAT rules require unanimous agreement of all 28 EU countries.
The UK's standard VAT rate is 20%, so, within the current rules, the UK government has some flexibility to bring it down to 15%, if it wanted to.
It is right to say the UK cannot remove the VAT on household gas and electricity bills.
Although the UK charged 0% VAT on domestic fuel bills in 1991, the Conservative government introduced a VAT rate of 8% in 1993. This was later lowered to 5% under Labour. Under the EU rules, this is now the lowest VAT rate possible for British domestic fuel bills.
It is worth pointing out that it is not at all clear that a post-Brexit UK government would want to remove VAT on domestic fuel. This would depend, among other things, on the wider economic impact of leaving.
In April 2016, the European Commission proposed changes to EU VAT rules with the aim of giving member states more flexibility on rates.
There are currently two options being considered.
The first would allow all EU countries the same rights to apply zero and reduced VAT rates and the list of goods and services in this category would be reviewed on a regular basis.
The second would allow members to set reduced rates as they wished, as long as that did not create tax distortions in the single market.
Once this is established, and the European Parliament's views are taken into account, the Commission will draw up detailed proposals.
The finance ministers of all 28 EU countries will have to agree to these proposals unanimously before they can be implemented. There is no timetable or deadline for these changes, but the European Commission is working towards having the detailed proposals this year or next.
The EU is currently dealing with allowing the UK to lower the VAT on sanitary products to 0%. The EU finance ministers have endorsed the plan, which the European Commission pledged to finalise in 2016
Leaving the EU gives the UK the freedom to abolish VAT. But VAT revenue doesn't go to the EU, it goes into the UK general fund to finance our public services. So if we abolished it we would have to either find a new tax and/or cut public spending.
Pointing the finger at the EU on VAT is ( IMO) similar to “ Let’s fund the NHS instead”
So for want of a better term, it's not particularly truthful.
Leaving the EU gives the UK the freedom to abolish VAT. But VAT revenue doesn't go to the EU, it goes into the UK general fund to finance our public services. So if we abolished it we would have to either find a new tax and/or cut public spending.
Pointing the finger at the EU on VAT is ( IMO) similar to “ Let’s fund the NHS instead”
So for want of a better term, it's not particularly truthful.
Anyone else confused ?...one minute , a post saying once we leave the EU we could scrap vat is pedalling lies , next minute a post admits that it is true.....haha love this place #consistent
Anyone else confused ?...one minute , a post saying once we leave the EU we could scrap vat is pedalling lies , next minute a post admits that it is true.....haha love this place #consistent
Yea, kinda similar to someone scoffing at “ Could happen” posts, then posting “ Could happen” post, weird huh.
Anyone else confused ?...one minute , a post saying once we leave the EU we could scrap vat is pedalling lies , next minute a post admits that it is true.....haha love this place #consistent
Yea, kinda similar to someone scoffing at “ Could happen” posts, then posting “ Could happen” post, weird huh.
Pretty weird , you would take the mickey out of an android ?post , claim it as being a lie , then when faced with the facts admit its true . Truth is the post is factually correct , we could scrap vat in its current form if we left the EU and replace it with something fairer if we wished , but whilst part of the EU we CANT . The thing is sorting the facts from the truth can be hard , when both sides are guilty of only seeing what they want to see .
We are going to have less money, not more, when we leave.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is living in a fantasy land. How much less-only time will tell. Whether that is a price worth paying? Money isn't the be-all and end-all.
We certainly will not have more economic freedom in practice.
One thing we WILL have is extra ability to control our own immigration system. Rightly or wrongly, the country definitely voted for that. And yet no sensible discussion in the UK press about how this may best be achieved.
Expert comment: How Brexit might not make us all 'worse off'
Is GDP the best measure for predicting whether the UK will be better or worse off after Brexit? Loughborough economist Dr Jon Seaton says perhaps not...
Dr Jon Seaton of Loughborough's School of Business and Economics
There have been some stark warnings about Brexit from some of Europe’s most important figures, writes Dr Jon Seaton.
Today, Chancellor Phillip Hammond conceded that there is no future involving Brexit in which the UK will not be worse off economically.
But he’s not the first person to vocalise this concern.
The Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, the managing director of International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde and a whole host of economic groups, who all use surprisingly complex economic forecast models and simulations, all give the same clear message…
That any form of Brexit is bad, in some cases very bad. What do they mean by 'bad'?
I sometimes buy an expensive item at the local village store rather than getting it cheaper at the supermarket in town which is bad, but overall it saves me time – so I’m financially worse off but time rich.
In the case of Brexit, economists focus on one simple concept ‘GDP’ or Gross Domestic Product, basically, it will be smaller under Brexit and will grow slower under Brexit.
We will be worse off monetarily – per capita, that is on average.
Money does not always make you happy
But GDP has been and will always be a one trick pony – it only measures total UK income.
It does not measure how happy you are, it does not measure your wellbeing, it does not measure welfare. But it is a start in that direction.
When GDP declines or does not grow fast, this is usually accompanied by higher unemployment, less spending on health services etc – so clearly it helps our society to have some growth at least.
Bake off or brake off: Cutting the cake
To those like me, who study and teach the subject in some detail, GDP – as a measure of economic welfare – has very many criticisms.
First, GDP per person does not represent your income or your expenditure, some people have higher incomes than others – how the UK GDP cake is split between citizens matters a lot but is hardly mentioned in these statistics.
Low growth can be good
Similarly, Brexit is not really the big bad thing at our door, threatening our families and generations to come, it's the mess humans have made of the environment – pollution.
GDP does not factor this massive failure of our markets to provide sustainable growth in a healthy world.
Indeed, rapid GDP increases have recently been associated with even higher levels of CO2 emissions.
The world is not on track with Co2 reduction – we may need to actually lower growth to stay in line with global agreements.
So lower GDP growth may be good for all concerned, as long as we structurally change over to renewables.
Not our fault?
Lastly, GDP growth was not the main argument for Brexit, rather it was a cry for independence and control – normal reactions for people living in a period of fear and adversity brought on by the financial crunch of 2007.
But the fear of people we can work with together to resolve world problems seems overdramatic.
But again, these fears and behaviours are not related to GDP, they are related to human behaviour and ultimately may be resolved by the short-term power play within the commons in a couple of weeks’ time or the saga will continue until the cliff edge in March next year.
Brexit above all is not an economic struggle, economics informs the debate, but does not resolve it.
Theresa May appears on a number of front pages in a picture taken from her video message to voters saying both the Conservatives and Labour will have to give ground on Brexit. The Daily Express calls it a "cosy video chat" to the nation about the need to find a compromise deal. However, her message has infuriated Tory hardliners who believe she is set to rip up her Brexit red lines and build a softer divorce deal based on a customs union with the EU, the paper says. The Guardian says that while the "homespun video" was praised for its conversational style, there are increasing expectations that the cross-party talks will come to nothing. The Metro, meanwhile, describes the film as "awkward".
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says agreeing to a customs union would be a big step towards what he calls "economic serfdom" and would abandon the central logic of Brexit. But the Daily Mail says that while a customs union would be a "bitter pill to swallow" changes could be made once the UK is out of the EU. However, it implores Mrs May to stay true to one of her conditions - and continue to rule out a second referendum. Meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron of France is leading demands for Britain to accept tough political conditions as the price for any extension to the Brexit deadline, according to the Financial Times. The paper says he doesn't want Britain to use its continuing presence to disrupt the bloc's business including its multi-year budget.
May signs Tory 'suicide note' allowing Ukip to RETURN from 'dead' amid public Brexit fury THERESA MAY has been warned that the Tory party will lose control of councils across the country next month as Ukip returns from the “dead” amid public anger over Brexit delay.
Theresa May rules out fourth meaningful vote and no-deal Brexit as she prepares for customs union climbdown
Theresa May has signalled she will not seek a fourth vote on her Brexit deal as she appeared to rule out the UK leaving the European Union without an agreement. The Prime Minister said MPs had already rejected her divorce deal three times and “as things stand, I can’t see them accepting it”. She warned the choice was now between leaving the EU with a deal “or not leaving at all” as she seemed to finally ditch her long standing mantra of no-deal being better than a bad one. Mrs May said cross-party talks with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would continue in the hope of finding a compromise Brexit deal capable of winning the support of a majority of MPs. Her comments are likely to exacerbate the fears...
Andrea Leadsom: no-deal Brexit next week would not be so grim Minister rejects long extension as PM says in video she is hopeful of deal with Labour
A no-deal Brexit at the end of next week would be “not nearly as grim” as many believe, one of Theresa May’s senior ministers has said, as both the government and Labour indicated that cross-party talks to resolve the situation remained deadlocked. Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, said preparations would mitigate many adverse effects of no deal. She also said the idea of a departure extension long enough to require the UK to hold European elections was “utterly unacceptable”. Her comments came as May used a video statement to talk up the hopes for ongoing cross-party Brexit negotiations with Labour, saying “compromise on both sides” could still deliver a solution.
The Guardian view on no deal: Theresa May must expose it as a fantasy Editorial The idea of a clean break from Europe is a dangerous dream, but remainers who say as much are not believed. The grownup leavers must now speak out
It is difficult to choose the worst of Theresa May’s decisions on the path that has led to our predicament this week: her government is now suspended like Boris Johnson on a zip wire, blustering, ludicrous, still waving the union flag, and quite unable to reach the other side without help. Perhaps her most serious blunder was to adopt the slogan “No deal is better than a bad deal”. This was untrue on a very fundamental level: it suggests a choice where in fact there is none. “No deal” is not an alternative to “a bad deal”. Crashing out of the EU without an agreement could only be the precursor to weeks, then months, and finally years of smaller, very bad deals, all much worse than those we could have negotiated as a member of the EU. The threat of this catastrophe appears to be receding thanks to the intervention of sensible onlookers. Parliament has made clear that it wants to avoid it, even if it remains incapable of deciding how. The EU, motivated by self-interest as well as charity, is also doing its best to lower the end of the zip wire so that Mrs May can descend in good order. But there is no guarantee that these efforts will succeed. The baffled and entitled rage of Conservative ultras reflects their delusive dream of a clean break after which Britannia will be free to sail the oceans in the manner of Admiral Hornblower all through the Napoleonic wars, when he and his country defied the “continental tyrant”.
Soft Brexit 'cannot happen and will not happen' vows Boris as PM prepares to bow to Corbyn's demands for a customs union
Boris Johnson has vowed Tory MPs will not let Theresa May steer the country toward a soft Brexit, despite her moves to potentially broker a deal with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Mrs May paved the way for a customs union deal with Labour last night as she pledged to 'compromise' to ensure Brexit happens. In an informal statement aimed directly at voters, Mrs May argued she had no choice but to try to find a cross-party agreement with Jeremy Corbyn because otherwise Britain might not leave the EU at all.
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
I have posted earlier about the referendum campaign. I believe that if Dominic Cummings was on the remain side the result would have been reversed. He was the key to the campaign. They found 3 million voters that had never voted before, and felt left behind. One billion targeted Facebook ads inspired them to vote. The leave campaign was that of the 21st century, while the remain campaign was stuck in the 19th century. I don't know if you watched Brexit The Uncivil War, but there was a Eureka moment when he added the word "back" to the slogan that they were using which was "Take Control." It made such a difference as the taking back control got people thinking that the EU had robbed this control from us and we wanted it back. The programme was a real eye opener, and well worth a watch. I think that the proof that the campaign worked so well, is seen in the many interviews with members of the general public on the tv. So many leave voters are able to quote the rhetoric parrot fashion, yet they seem in many cases unable to iterate what it actually means to them. For instance I have asked a number of people who have moaned on this thread about the EU making our laws, which would be the first few they would repeal on leaving, and they cant answer or just disappear.
Couldn't agree more. I'm sure a lot of people believe that actually saying the words 'Leave Means Leave' trumps all facts as if they have played their joker. It' bizarre.
On the EUs laws I recall listening to James O'Brien on LBC and he pinned this guy down what laws he didn't like and all the guy said was that he didn't like 2 pin plugs. James told him he's allowed to have his preferred 3 pin plugs under EU laws and the guy agreed and the call ended.
I was watching "This Week" the other week and they included some interviews with the public over metrication.
One guy claimed that he didn't fight in the war for this, he fought for feet and inches.
A woman claimed she would loose out because there were less miles in a litre of petrol.
Both people were deadly serious about these claims.
These interviews obviously date back to the 70s, but Brexit is proof that nothing has changed.
That's what it comes down to to me. The electorate were expected to make a decision on a very complex situation with barely any information given up front. All a lot of people had to go on were years of the EU being demonised unjustifiably by the influential media in this country. The same media turning a blind eye to the real culprit for our country's problem which is Tory policy. No wonder people made the wrong decision. Studies of the potential impact of a Brexit should have been done in advance and the findings presented to the public to make an informed decision on just like any normal project.
Its very easy with hindsight.
Surely it would have made sense to have completed negotiations prior to invoking Article 50.
This was a claim made by the leave campaign, as to what was going to happen.
The Article 50 notice period, would have replaced the transition period.
We would have known exactly where we were.
We could have delayed invoking Article 50, and therefore avoided time constraints, and deadlines, until a satisfactory deal had been finalised.
Comments
The claim: Vote Leave says the UK cannot lower VAT rates as long as it is in the European Union. Michael Gove said the 5% rate of VAT on household gas and electricity bills could not be scrapped because of EU rules.
Reality Check verdict: EU rules mean the UK cannot reduce VAT on goods and services below 15%, the standard rate of VAT in the EU. The standard rate of VAT in the UK is 20%, so the government could reduce it by up to 5% today if it wanted. Domestic fuel is on a special list of pre-approved goods and services that are subject to lower VAT rates and it would require the agreement of all other EU members to reduce it further.
EU countries have been co-ordinating their VAT rates since 1992, as part of building up the single market and ensuring there is no unfair competition across national borders.
Under EU rules, countries must apply a minimum standard VAT rate of 15%. They have an option of applying one or two reduced rates, no lower than 5%, to certain specified goods on a pre-approved list.
Further reduction of the VAT rate, including to 0%, is also allowed but only for the goods which were taxed at that rate before 1991 and since then.
Changes to the VAT rules require unanimous agreement of all 28 EU countries.
The UK's standard VAT rate is 20%, so, within the current rules, the UK government has some flexibility to bring it down to 15%, if it wanted to.
It is right to say the UK cannot remove the VAT on household gas and electricity bills.
Although the UK charged 0% VAT on domestic fuel bills in 1991, the Conservative government introduced a VAT rate of 8% in 1993. This was later lowered to 5% under Labour. Under the EU rules, this is now the lowest VAT rate possible for British domestic fuel bills.
It is worth pointing out that it is not at all clear that a post-Brexit UK government would want to remove VAT on domestic fuel. This would depend, among other things, on the wider economic impact of leaving.
In April 2016, the European Commission proposed changes to EU VAT rules with the aim of giving member states more flexibility on rates.
There are currently two options being considered.
The first would allow all EU countries the same rights to apply zero and reduced VAT rates and the list of goods and services in this category would be reviewed on a regular basis.
The second would allow members to set reduced rates as they wished, as long as that did not create tax distortions in the single market.
Once this is established, and the European Parliament's views are taken into account, the Commission will draw up detailed proposals.
The finance ministers of all 28 EU countries will have to agree to these proposals unanimously before they can be implemented. There is no timetable or deadline for these changes, but the European Commission is working towards having the detailed proposals this year or next.
The EU is currently dealing with allowing the UK to lower the VAT on sanitary products to 0%. The EU finance ministers have endorsed the plan, which the European Commission pledged to finalise in 2016
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430504
Leaving the EU gives the UK the freedom to abolish VAT. But VAT revenue doesn't go to the EU, it goes into the UK general fund to finance our public services. So if we abolished it we would have to either find a new tax and/or cut public spending.
Pointing the finger at the EU on VAT is ( IMO) similar to “ Let’s fund the NHS instead”
So for want of a better term, it's not particularly truthful.
The thing is sorting the facts from the truth can be hard , when both sides are guilty of only seeing what they want to see .
Anyone suggesting otherwise is living in a fantasy land. How much less-only time will tell. Whether that is a price worth paying? Money isn't the be-all and end-all.
We certainly will not have more economic freedom in practice.
One thing we WILL have is extra ability to control our own immigration system. Rightly or wrongly, the country definitely voted for that. And yet no sensible discussion in the UK press about how this may best be achieved.
Is GDP the best measure for predicting whether the UK will be better or worse off after Brexit? Loughborough economist Dr Jon Seaton says perhaps not...
Dr Jon Seaton of Loughborough's School of Business and Economics
There have been some stark warnings about Brexit from some of Europe’s most important figures, writes Dr Jon Seaton.
Today, Chancellor Phillip Hammond conceded that there is no future involving Brexit in which the UK will not be worse off economically.
But he’s not the first person to vocalise this concern.
The Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, the managing director of International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde and a whole host of economic groups, who all use surprisingly complex economic forecast models and simulations, all give the same clear message…
That any form of Brexit is bad, in some cases very bad.
What do they mean by 'bad'?
I sometimes buy an expensive item at the local village store rather than getting it cheaper at the supermarket in town which is bad, but overall it saves me time – so I’m financially worse off but time rich.
In the case of Brexit, economists focus on one simple concept ‘GDP’ or Gross Domestic Product, basically, it will be smaller under Brexit and will grow slower under Brexit.
We will be worse off monetarily – per capita, that is on average.
Money does not always make you happy
But GDP has been and will always be a one trick pony – it only measures total UK income.
It does not measure how happy you are, it does not measure your wellbeing, it does not measure welfare. But it is a start in that direction.
When GDP declines or does not grow fast, this is usually accompanied by higher unemployment, less spending on health services etc – so clearly it helps our society to have some growth at least.
Bake off or brake off: Cutting the cake
To those like me, who study and teach the subject in some detail, GDP – as a measure of economic welfare – has very many criticisms.
First, GDP per person does not represent your income or your expenditure, some people have higher incomes than others – how the UK GDP cake is split between citizens matters a lot but is hardly mentioned in these statistics.
Low growth can be good
Similarly, Brexit is not really the big bad thing at our door, threatening our families and generations to come, it's the mess humans have made of the environment – pollution.
GDP does not factor this massive failure of our markets to provide sustainable growth in a healthy world.
Indeed, rapid GDP increases have recently been associated with even higher levels of CO2 emissions.
The world is not on track with Co2 reduction – we may need to actually lower growth to stay in line with global agreements.
So lower GDP growth may be good for all concerned, as long as we structurally change over to renewables.
Not our fault?
Lastly, GDP growth was not the main argument for Brexit, rather it was a cry for independence and control – normal reactions for people living in a period of fear and adversity brought on by the financial crunch of 2007.
But the fear of people we can work with together to resolve world problems seems overdramatic.
But again, these fears and behaviours are not related to GDP, they are related to human behaviour and ultimately may be resolved by the short-term power play within the commons in a couple of weeks’ time or the saga will continue until the cliff edge in March next year.
Brexit above all is not an economic struggle, economics informs the debate, but does not resolve it.
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2018/november/how-brexit-might-not-make-us-worse-off/
Theresa May appears on a number of front pages in a picture taken from her video message to voters saying both the Conservatives and Labour will have to give ground on Brexit.
The Daily Express calls it a "cosy video chat" to the nation about the need to find a compromise deal.
However, her message has infuriated Tory hardliners who believe she is set to rip up her Brexit red lines and build a softer divorce deal based on a customs union with the EU, the paper says.
The Guardian says that while the "homespun video" was praised for its conversational style, there are increasing expectations that the cross-party talks will come to nothing.
The Metro, meanwhile, describes the film as "awkward".
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says agreeing to a customs union would be a big step towards what he calls "economic serfdom" and would abandon the central logic of Brexit.
But the Daily Mail says that while a customs union would be a "bitter pill to swallow" changes could be made once the UK is out of the EU.
However, it implores Mrs May to stay true to one of her conditions - and continue to rule out a second referendum.
Meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron of France is leading demands for Britain to accept tough political conditions as the price for any extension to the Brexit deadline, according to the Financial Times.
The paper says he doesn't want Britain to use its continuing presence to disrupt the bloc's business including its multi-year budget.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47848454
THERESA MAY has been warned that the Tory party will lose control of councils across the country next month as Ukip returns from the “dead” amid public anger over Brexit delay.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1110868/brexit-news-latest-updates-theresa-may-ukip-conservative-party-leave-EU
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-labour-boris-lock-14248164
Theresa May has signalled she will not seek a fourth vote on her Brexit deal as she appeared to rule out the UK leaving the European Union without an agreement.
The Prime Minister said MPs had already rejected her divorce deal three times and “as things stand, I can’t see them accepting it”.
She warned the choice was now between leaving the EU with a deal “or not leaving at all” as she seemed to finally ditch her long standing mantra of no-deal being better than a bad one.
Mrs May said cross-party talks with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would continue in the hope of finding a compromise Brexit deal capable of winning the support of a majority of MPs.
Her comments are likely to exacerbate the fears...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/07/theresa-may-rules-fourth-meaningful-vote-no-deal-brexit-prepares/
Minister rejects long extension as PM says in video she is hopeful of deal with Labour
A no-deal Brexit at the end of next week would be “not nearly as grim” as many believe, one of Theresa May’s senior ministers has said, as both the government and Labour indicated that cross-party talks to resolve the situation remained deadlocked.
Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, said preparations would mitigate many adverse effects of no deal. She also said the idea of a departure extension long enough to require the UK to hold European elections was “utterly unacceptable”.
Her comments came as May used a video statement to talk up the hopes for ongoing cross-party Brexit negotiations with Labour, saying “compromise on both sides” could still deliver a solution.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/07/andrea-leadsom-no-deal-brexit-next-week-would-not-be-so-grim
Editorial
The idea of a clean break from Europe is a dangerous dream, but remainers who say as much are not believed. The grownup leavers must now speak out
It is difficult to choose the worst of Theresa May’s decisions on the path that has led to our predicament this week: her government is now suspended like Boris Johnson on a zip wire, blustering, ludicrous, still waving the union flag, and quite unable to reach the other side without help. Perhaps her most serious blunder was to adopt the slogan “No deal is better than a bad deal”. This was untrue on a very fundamental level: it suggests a choice where in fact there is none. “No deal” is not an alternative to “a bad deal”. Crashing out of the EU without an agreement could only be the precursor to weeks, then months, and finally years of smaller, very bad deals, all much worse than those we could have negotiated as a member of the EU.
The threat of this catastrophe appears to be receding thanks to the intervention of sensible onlookers. Parliament has made clear that it wants to avoid it, even if it remains incapable of deciding how. The EU, motivated by self-interest as well as charity, is also doing its best to lower the end of the zip wire so that Mrs May can descend in good order. But there is no guarantee that these efforts will succeed. The baffled and entitled rage of Conservative ultras reflects their delusive dream of a clean break after which Britannia will be free to sail the oceans in the manner of Admiral Hornblower all through the Napoleonic wars, when he and his country defied the “continental tyrant”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/07/the-guardian-view-on-no-deal-theresa-may-must-expose-it-as-a-fantasy
Boris Johnson has vowed Tory MPs will not let Theresa May steer the country toward a soft Brexit, despite her moves to potentially broker a deal with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Mrs May paved the way for a customs union deal with Labour last night as she pledged to 'compromise' to ensure Brexit happens.
In an informal statement aimed directly at voters, Mrs May argued she had no choice but to try to find a cross-party agreement with Jeremy Corbyn because otherwise Britain might not leave the EU at all.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/soft-brexit-cannot-happen-and-will-not-happen-vows-boris-as-pm-prepares-to-bow-to-corbyns-demands-for-a-customs-union/ar-BBVIck0?ocid=spartandhp
Surely it would have made sense to have completed negotiations prior to invoking Article 50.
This was a claim made by the leave campaign, as to what was going to happen.
The Article 50 notice period, would have replaced the transition period.
We would have known exactly where we were.
We could have delayed invoking Article 50, and therefore avoided time constraints, and deadlines, until a satisfactory deal had been finalised.
The whole thing has been very poorly thought out.