It’s time to listen to Michael Howard and manage a no-deal Brexit from EU

The stance recently adopted by the EU toward the Draft Withdrawal Agreement involves a wilful misrepresentation of the reality.

The 585-page document is a draft merely, implying that more work is needed to finalise it. It then remains a set of propositions which the negotiators have agreed to submit to their respective communities.

The EU 27 had no difficulty approving the Draft after less than an hour’s discussion; they must think it very favourable to themselves. The UK, after many hours of debate in parliament, the media, and the electorate, has found the Draft to be unacceptable. So there is no Agreement.

The EU has nevertheless dropped the word “Draft” and refers to the document as “The Agreement”. By deciding unilaterally that no further negotiation will be entertained the EU has effectively terminated the negotiations prematurely and has presented the UK with an ultimatum. What sort of neighbour refuses to discuss an unresolved issue?

The failure by the EU to continue to negotiate terms should be warning enough that their ethos may not change when it comes to discussing future trading relationships.

Statements of intent such as “we will negotiate in good faith” are contradicted by the evidence of current behaviour. Waiting until the eleventh hour and then refusing to talk any more is a betrayal of trust. There is only one way to respond and it is to walk away.

The prospects of a no deal exit have been hyped by remainers, economists, and some members of the business community and have been referred to as “crashing out” or “going over the cliff ”. This emotive language is prejudicial to reasoned argument.

Quantitative analyses of the effect of no deal on the economy are based on assumptions, perceptions, and expectations which are all personal judgements, and experts’ conclusions differ. The pessimists have been wrong before; they could be wrong again.

The no deal scenario should now be examined more objectively and preparations made for it to be managed. Michael Howard and others have proposed a managed exit with no deal, including some temporary provisions, and concentration on negotiating the long-term trading relationships. Their ideas should now be taken up urgently by whoever will represent us.

GEOFF MILLER Newtyle, Blairgowrie