It’s hard Brexit or no Brexit ... says EU chief
BRITAIN will have to quit the EU altogether in a ‘ hard Brexit’ if we want to control our borders, the president of the European Council warned last night.
Donald Tusk said there would be ‘no compromises’ to allow the UK to curb the free movement of workers, break free of the European Court or stop sending billions to Brussels.
And he claimed this left the UK with a simple choice between making a clean break from the EU, including the single market, or reversing the result of the referendum. The top Eurocrat said: ‘The only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit.’
His comments give the lie to claims by Remain-supporting MPs that the UK can control immigration and still remain a member of the single market. Leave MPs are likely to seize on Mr Tusk’s speech as proof that the UK is best served by quitting the Brussels club, then negotiating its own free trade deals.
It came as a wealthy businesswoman, backed by a group of London lawyers, began a legal action to try to stop the Government from triggering the legal process for leaving the EU.
Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, claimed it would be a breach of her human rights if MPs were not given a vote allowing them to potentially block the result of the June 23 referendum. During his attack on Brit-
‘There will be no cakes on the table’
ain and the referendum result, Mr Tusk singled out Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson for harsh criticism, mocking his claim to be ‘pro having cake and pro eating it’.
He said: ‘When it comes to the essence of Brexit, it was largely defined in the UK during the referendum campaign. We all remember the promises, which cumulated in the demand to “take back control”.
‘Namely the “liberation” from European jurisdiction, a “no” to the freedom of movement or further contributions to the EU budget.
‘This approach has definitive consequences, both for the position of the UK Government and for the whole process of negotiations.
‘Regardless of magic spells, this means a de facto will to radically loosen relations with the EU, something that goes by the name of “hard Brexit”.
‘This scenario will in the first instance be painful for Britons. In fact, the words uttered by one of the leading campaigners for Brexit and proponents of the “cake philosophy” was pure illusion: that one can have the EU cake and eat it too.
‘To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate. The brutal truth is Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar.
‘If you ask me if there is any alternative to this bad scenario, I would like to tell you that yes, there is. And I think it is useless to speculate about “soft Brexit” because of all the reasons I’ve mentioned. These would be purely theoretical speculations. In my opinion, the only real alternative to a “hard Brexit” is “no Brexit”.
‘ Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility. We will conduct the negotiations in good faith, defend the interests of the EU 27, minimise the costs and seek the best possible deal for all.
‘But as I have said before, I am afraid that no such outcome exists that will benefit either side.’
The remarks will raise the temperature ahead of next week’s EC summit, the first since Theresa May became Prime Minister. She is expected to come under pressure to explain what she wants in her Brexit talks, ahead of formally triggering article 50 next year.
In yesterday’s court case, Mrs Miller claimed it would be unlawful to trigger article 50 without a vote in Parliament. She is the lead claimant in a historic legal action with several other applicants opposing the use of Article 50,
Lord Pannick QC, acting for Mrs Miller and her fellow complainants, said: ‘The issue in this case is not whether this country should remain a member of the EU, or leave the EU. The question is a much narrower, but important question.
‘The question is whether the Government may take action unilaterally to notify, or whether it needs parliamentary approval to do so.’
Attorney General Jeremy Wright, acting for the Government, rejected this argument. He said: ‘The country voted to leave the EU in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The result should be respected and the Government intends to do just that.’ The case will continue next week.
Tory former minister Dominic Raab, a Brexit campaigner, accused Mrs Miller of ‘a pretty special kind of arrogance’ and a ‘pretty naked’ attempt to ‘steal the referendum by the back door’.
The court case follows days of bitter complaining by pro-Remain MPs, including four Tory ex-minis- ters. Yesterday, Boris Johnson hit out at pro-Brussels MPs and organisations over their continued doommongering, saying Britain had done ‘the right thing’ in voting to leave the EU. Attacking ‘Project Fear’, he said: ‘I think those who prophesied doom before the referendum have been proved wrong and I think they will continue to be proved wrong.’
But, giving evidence to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, Mr Johnson warned that negotiating Britain’s exit from Brussels could take longer than the two-year timetable specified in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 50 allows talks to be extended for a year if all EU member states agree.