‘No deal better than bad deal’ EU trade claim unsubstantiated
THERESA May’s claim that “no deal” on post-Brexit trade with the EU is better than a bad deal is “unsubstantiated”, a parliamentary committee has warned.
The House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee called on the Government to conduct and publish a thorough assessment of the consequences of crashing out of the EU without agreement on future trade relations.
It said that, in these circumstances, Parliament must be given a vote on whether to accept the Prime Minister’s decision to leave without a deal at the end of the two-year Brexit negotiation process.
The document split the crossparty committee, with six proBrexit MPs voting against its publication amid reports of a walkout by members who regarded it as “too gloomy”.
Five Conservatives – including former ministers John Whittingdale and Dominic Raab – and Democratic Unionist Sammy Wilson voted against the report, but were outnumbered by 10 Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat, SNP and SDLP committee members, all of whom backed Remain in last year’s referendum.
Mr Whittingdale told the Press Association that the report was “unduly negative” and had “very much concentrated on the problems without really recognising the opportunities” of Brexit.
The committee last month heard Brexit Secretary David Davis admit that no assessment had been made of the cost of leaving the EU without a trade deal and falling back on World Trade Organisation tariffs.
“Without an economic assessment of ‘no deal’ having been done and without evidence that steps are being taken to mitigate what would be the damaging effect of such an outcome, the Government’s assertion that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, is unsubstantiated,” the report warned.
It backed the finding of a previous report by the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that a ‘no deal’ scenario “represents a very destructive outcome leading to mutually assured damage for the EU and the UK”.
Parliament and the public have a “right to the maximum possible information” about the impact of failing to secure a deal, and the Government should conduct “a thorough assessment of the economic, legal and other implications” of all options under consideration, the report said.
The committee challenged Mrs May’s insistence that she will offer only a “take it or leave it” vote to Parliament on any deal she achieves, stating that it was “essential” that MPs also get a vote “in the event that there is no deal”.
Committee chairman Hilary Benn said: “Leaving the EU without a future trade deal and in doing so defaulting to World Trade Organisation rules is no less an important decision for the UK’s economic future than the terms of any future Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the EU. It is therefore essential that such a step is not taken without Parliament having a vote on the matter.”
He added: “We all want the best possible deal for the UK but what we are able to secure will ultimately depend on what the 27 member states are prepared to agree to.
“The Government is right to try and negotiate both the divorce settlement and a new trading relationship in tandem, but it should also be prepared for the worst case – that a new trade agreement is not reached or ratified by the day we leave – because the timescale allowed by Article 50 is particularly tight.”
The committee called on the UK Government and EU to reach a “stand-alone and separate” deal on the rights of expatriate citizens as soon as negotiations start, warning it would be “unconscionable” to make three million EU nationals in the UK and one million Britons living on the continent wait until the end of the Article 50 process for certainty about their status.