Brexit uncertainty is the only sure thing

In 1952, pollution and atmospheric conditions resulted in an incident known as the Great London Smog, which saw the city cloaked in a thick, unhealthy fog. The government’s response was the Clean Air Act of 1956, to ensure it was never repeated.

Look at London in 2018, however — specifically the area around the Houses of Parliament — you could be forgiven for thinking the Clean Air Act never happened. Rarely has the outlook been less clear.

With less than four months left until Britain’s scheduled exit from the European Union on March 29, confusion reigns. The Brexit process set in motion by the 2016 referendum called by then-prime minister David Cameron, which was won 52 percent to 48 percent by the Leave campaign, has caused political turbulence rarely seen in Britain in living memory outside wartime.

Before terms have even been agreed, Brexit has already cost Britain endless working and broadcasting hours, numerous falls in the value of the pound, a prime minister (Cameron left office once the result was announced), one foreign secretary (Boris Johnson resigned in protest at the government’s handling of the issue in July 2018) and two Brexit ministers (David Davis and Dominic Raab, who also quit their posts) — and it could yet bring down Prime Minister Theresa May.

At the end of November, after a bruising internal debate which saw the resignations of Raab and another minister, May’s proposals for terms for Britain’s departure received Cabinet backing and, days later, the approval of the leaders of the other 27 EU member states.

Now she faces an even bigger challenge — securing Parliament’s backing in a debate which begins on Tuesday. It will be fierce, with staunchly held opinions on all sides, and little mood for compromise. Its outcome — and the consequence — are anyone’s guess.

At the moment, whether or not divorce terms have been agreed, Britain is leaving at the end of next March. If there is no deal, however, the complete lack of certainty affecting so many aspects of the daily functions of national life, such as imports of food and medical supplies, international travel and the employment and residency status of many foreigners living in Britain, could be huge.

Brexit supporters have dismissed talk of supermarkets and medical services stockpiling supplies as “Project Fear”, but it is impossible to predict with any certainty what would happen, and few politicians would want responsibility for causing such upset.

If there is no deal, or Parliament rejects May’s proposal, providing the other EU members agreed to it, March’s departure deadline could be extended. May could be given a second attempt at securing parliamentary approval.

She might gamble on calling another election to try and win a bigger majority, or there is even the option that after two-and-a-half years of failing to find a Brexit agreement that Parliament supports, a completely new referendum on the topic could be held — something which would outrage Brexit supporters.

Ahead of the debate, the signs for May have looked increasingly ominous, with opposition mounting against her, from opposition parties and also inside her own Conservative Party.

Her government is propped up by the support of 10 MPs from Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, known as the DUP, and the issue of the post-Brexit status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for all negotiations.

Earlier this week, members of the DUP along with representatives of the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Wales’s Plaid Cymru signed a letter accusing the government of being in contempt of Parliament for failing to reveal the full legal advice it had received on the impact of Brexit.

Having then lost a vote on the issue, the government became the first in history to be found guilty of such a charge, and was duly forced to reveal the suppressed information.

These explosive events in the buildup to the debate mean projections of what Brexit outcomes Britain might secure are now even more speculative than ever.

One option popular among MPs looking for the softest possible Brexit is known as “Norway Plus”.

Norway, along with non-EU states Iceland and Liechtenstein, and the 28 EU member states, is part of the European Economic Area, known as the EEA. This gives access to the EU’s single market, while abiding by the internal market’s rules on free movement of goods, people, services and capital.

It also covers cooperation in fields such as consumer protection, education and the environment but Norway is not part of the EU lawmaking process and is not covered by EU rules on topics including common agriculture and fisheries policies, the customs union or monetary union.

Fans say this has the benefit of keeping the UK in the single market for many businesses, enabling British companies to conduct almost frictionless trade with EU member states — but it would come with a hefty price tag.

Labour MP Mike Gapes, who supports Britain staying in the EU, wrote “the £50 billion ($64 billion) divorce bill for the transition period would still be payable and it would then be followed by an annual bill of at least £10 billion. In return for that, we would have surrendered all power and influence. We would have what the Norwegians themselves call ‘integration without representation’. We would be a ruletaker, not a rule-maker.”

On the other side of the divide, Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prominent critic of May and leader of the right-wing European Research Group, backs the option known as “Canada Plus”.

Inspired by the free trade deal Canada has with the EU, it would reduce access to EU markets in favor of increased control over issues such as immigration and trade rules, but it is something in which the government have shown little interest.

When it was first put forward by Rees-Mogg, then-Brexit secretary Raab said such a deal would involve agreeing to customs controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, something May has always said would never be acceptable. Considering how much she relies on the DUP’s support, that would be hugely contentious.

Having left the Cabinet in protest over her Brexit policy, Raab has joined the ranks of May’s critics, and the day after the contempt of Parliament ruling he told Sky News that if Parliament rejected May’s Brexit deal, the country should be willing to resort to the extreme measure of “go back to the EU, stop being blackmailed and bullied and make our best offer and be willing to walk away”.

Deal? No deal? Leave? Stay? A second referendum? May being deposed from within her own party? A second general election in just more than 18 months — and with that, potentially a change of governing party, and for the first time since 2010, a non-Conservative prime minister? Rule nothing in, and rule nothing out.