Britain's May must prove 'no deal is better than a bad deal' - committee

REUTERS

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May speaks in Parliament as she announces that she has sent the letter to trigger the process of leaving the European Union in London, March 29, 2017. Parliament TV handout via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May must prove that "no deal is better than a bad deal" by offering an economic assessment on the impact of leaving the European Union with no agreement, a parliamentary committee said on Tuesday.

 

Just days after May triggered the formal divorce procedure with the European Union, the committee, made up of lawmakers from the prime minister's Conservatives and other parties, also called on the government to publish its contingency planning for failing to strike a deal after two years of talks.

 

May enters the unprecedented talks with an ambitious game plan, wanting "frictionless" trade and good cooperation with the bloc while gaining control over immigration and returning sovereignty -- a wish list EU officials have balked at.

 

But she has also said she is prepared to walk away from the talks without a deal rather than accepting a "bad" one, a term her government has so far declined to elaborate on despite fears among manufacturers over new trade barriers if Britain has to revert to World Trade Organization rules.

 

"Without an economic impact assessment of 'no deal' and without evidence that steps are being taken to mitigate the damaging effect of such an outcome, the government's assertion that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is unsubstantiated," said Hilary Benn, chairman of the Committee on Exiting the EU.

 

"Parliament must be in an informed position to decide whether a proposed deal is, in fact, better or worse than no deal," he added in a statement.

 

May has been reticent about what she hopes to achieve in the talks so as not to give her hand away. But government officials, lawmakers and analysts say privately that she believes she has some strong cards to play, while also hoping that EU officials will favour pragmatism over punishment.

 

(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; editing by Stephen Addison)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-04

They can't really quantify this until they know the final offer. Oh well!

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

They can't really quantify this until they know the final offer. Oh well!

But they can do impact assessments, as evidenced by the proposed TTIP

13 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

But they can do impact assessments, as evidenced by the proposed TTIP

Maybe, but they need to know the impact and for that they need details of any final deal.

The no deal bit can be done I suppose, but it can't be compared to anything at the moment.

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Maybe, but they need to know the impact and for that they need details of any final deal.

The no deal bit can be done I suppose, but it can't be compared to anything at the moment.

' It uses a computable general equilibrium model to assess the potential impact of tariff reductions and liberalisation of non tariff barriers'

 

From UK impact assessment of TTIP in 2013,

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-and-investment-agreement-between-eu-and-usa-estimated-impact-on-uk

 

To me it seems absurd that no such assessment of a 'no deal' as not been carried out, that I wonder what it contains for the government to deny its existence 

and is the EU going to do the same lol

 

Do the participants of these committees have nothing better to do. The EU is well known for their last minute 11th hour reversals, let TM and her team get on with it unhindered , as she has already stated - in two years the UK will be leaving the EU no matter what, I suspect a deal will be reached which will be better than WTO rules but not quite as good as the current single market, the important thing will be that the UK is then free to trade with whoever they like across the planet.

9 hours ago, webfact said:

the government's assertion that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is unsubstantiated," said Hilary Benn

Equally, a bad deal being preferable to no deal is also unsubstantiated.

Just think two plus years of this BS. BS because regardless of what the result you can guarantee the politicians will mess it up. No one knows what brexit will be until the end of negotiations. Why do you think Gibraltar was slipped into the news, FEAR! You won't be hearing any constructive ideas about brexit, I wonder why!

 

A Bad Brexit as in not just having enacted A50 but now telling the EU we will go straight to WTO tariffs. We won't be paying any exit fees and we will start negotiating with countries that actually want to trade with the UK. Would be better than having this turn into anymore of a fiasco  than it is already. 

 

The only hope would be for Le Pen to win in France! That would really make the whole thing far more interesting. But if the UK doesn't threaten to Just quit the EU as in a hard brexit, then they will not get a good deal. Why waste years doing what the EU does worst, negotiating trade deals.

 

Go already if we're going.