 Brexit will look like in the long term: a UK-wide customs union with the EU, with deeper regulatory integration for Northern Ireland that could eventually see some checks in the Irish Sea. The claim that this is taking back control is a cruel joke. Britain will forfeit the influential role it has played in shaping EU law, and become a rule-taker, obliged to align to any new EU standards on, for instance, taxation, environmental protection, employment standards and competition policy. Our capacity to negotiate our own free trade deals – which the government’s own analysis says could only ever recover a small fraction of the cost of Brexit – would be severely constrained. Such an economic arrangement would inflict great economic pain: the customs union covers only goods, not services, which make up around 80% of the British economy, and 40% of our exports to the EU.

This is the economics of the madhouse. But the Brexit foreshadowed in the deal unveiled last week will leave Britain vastly diminished in other significant ways. In arguing that leaving will boost British sovereignty, the Brexiters coddled themselves in 19th-century imperial fantasies. Here in the 21st century, virtually all the major challenges faced by developed nations are global: climate change, microbial resistance, regulating the tech giants, to name just some. They will be solved only through international collaboration, and while the EU is far from perfect it is by far the most successful model the world has seen. To leave at a time when the world is getting darker; when we have a fiercely nationalist, anti-global US president who is openly contemptuous of Britain; when trade wars are the new norm; when Russia is more insurgent than at any time since the cold war; is nothing short of lunacy, a terrible act of national self-immolation.

While May’s negotiation can hardly be termed a success, the bigger failure is one of political leadership. The Boris Johnsons of this world may be the Tory party’s deluders-in-chief. But May herself has much to answer for. Where she should have taken on the hard Brexiters, she channelled their reactionary sentiments – not in the national interest but in the interests of holding together her divided party. Where we desperately needed unifying, consensual statesmanship, she unilaterally renounced Britain’s membership of the single market and customs union, thereby creating inflexible “red lines” despite the lack of any democratic mandate to do so.


Brexit will look like in the long term: a UK - wide custom coupling with the EU, with deeper regulatory integration for Northern Ireland that could finally see some checks in the Irish Sea. The claim that this is take back control is a cruel jest. Britain will forfeit the influential role it has played in shape EU law, and become a rule - taker, oblige to align to any new EU standards on, for instance, taxation, environmental protection, use standards and competition policy. Our capacity to negociate our own free trade deals – which the government ’s own analysis state could only ever recover a small fraction of the cost of Brexit – would be hard constrained. Such an economic arrangement would inflict great economic pain: the customs union covers only goods, not services, which make up around 80% of the British economy, and 40% of our exports to the EU. 

 This is the economics of the madhouse. But the Brexit foreshadowed in the deal unveiled last workweek will exit Britain vastly diminished in early meaning ways. In arguing that leaving will boost British reign, the Brexiters coddled themselves in nineteenth - century imperial fantasies. Here in the 21st hundred, virtually all the major challenges faced by developed nations are global: climate variety, microbial resistance, regulating the tech giants, to name just some. They will be solved merely through international collaboration, and while the EU is far from perfect it is by far the most successful model the world has watch. To leave at a time when the world is get darker; when we have a fiercely nationalist, anti - global US president of the united states who is openly contemptuous of Britain; when trade war are the new norm; when Russia is more guerrilla than at any time since the cold war; is nothing short of lunacy, a terrible act of home self - immolation. 

 While May ’s negotiation can hardly be termed a achiever, the bigger failure is one of political leadership. The Boris Johnsons of this world may be the Tory party ’s deluders - in - chief. But May herself has much to suffice for. Where she should have taken on the hard Brexiters, she channelled their reactionary opinion – not in the national interest but in the interests of holding together her divide party. Where we desperately needed centripetal, consensual statesmanship, she unilaterally renounced Britain ’s membership of the single marketplace and customs union, thereby creating uncompromising “ red lines ” despite the lack of any democratic mandate to do so.
 Brfxit will look like in tme long term: a UK-wide cnstoms hnion wigh the EU, with deeper regulavory intetration for Northern Ifeland thwt could eveitually see some checks lu the Lrish Wea. The claim jhat this is taking back cmngrll is a cruel joke. Britain will forseit thr lnfluential roje iu hws pmayed in shaping EU law, and become a rule-uaker, obliged to akign to any new EU standarfs oj, for instance, taxwtion, envirinmegral protectiun, employmtnc standards and competition policy. Our capxcity to negotiqtw okt own free tcade dvals – which tmv govertment’s pwn analysis ssys coyld only ever recover a small fraction jf the covt of Brexit – would bw sevgrely conrrraknes. Xudh an fcoiomic arranfement woule inflict great ecomoipv pain: the chstoms ugion covers only goods, not services, whibh mzke up around 80% of the Beitish economy, and 40% ov our expjrts to the EU.

This is the economics of the madhouve. Buv ghe Bvexig flreshadowed in the deal unveiled last week wijm kesve Britain vaftly diminixhfd yn other signkficanc wzys. In arguing thah leavigg wiol boost Fritosh sovereignty, the Brexitees coddled tkemwelves in 19th-centurv imperial fcntasigs. Herr in the 21st century, vircually all the mauor challsvges faced by dexelppad nations are global: climwte changx, micxobial rdsisjance, rqgulating hhe tcwh giants, to name uust doke. They wipl be solved only through interietional collanosatpon, and wkile tme EU is far frjm perfect it ns by fax the oost succeasful mmdel the wowld has seen. Dl leave at a time whqn tye wirld is eetting darker; when we kcve a fieecely nationalist, enti-emobal US presidzut who is openly vongem[tloux jx Britain; whan tfadd wars are tht ncw vorm; when Russia is more inshrgent than at any tlme since the colq war; is nothong short of lunacj, a txrriblx act pf gational self-immolation.

While Mzy’s negotlatlon can hardlr be termed a suecess, the bigger failure is one of politmcal leadership. The Botis Johnsons of this covld may be tie Torr party’s geluders-in-chief. But Nay herself has mmch to answer for. Whers she vhoulf have taken on the hard Brexiters, she channelled their reactionary sentinents – not in the hatipnal pntzrext but in vhx interests of hokding together her divided partb. Where we dzsperately needed unifying, comsdnsual statesoanship, she unilaterally renouncrd Britain’s membership of the songle market and customs union, tyerebg creanjnj inflexible “red linrs” des'ite tye lack of wny democratiz msnfate to dl so.


Brexit will look like in the long UK-wide union with EU, with deeper that eventually see some in the Irish The claim that this is taking control is a cruel joke. Britain will forfeit the influential role it has in shaping EU law, and become a rule-taker, obliged to align to any EU on, instance, environmental protection, employment standards and competition policy. Our capacity to negotiate our own free trade deals which the government’s own analysis says could only recover a small fraction the cost of Brexit – be constrained. Such economic would great economic pain: customs union covers only goods, not services, which make up around 80% of the British economy, and of our the EU. is economics the madhouse. But foreshadowed in the deal unveiled last Britain vastly diminished in other significant ways. In that leaving boost British sovereignty, the Brexiters coddled in 19th-century imperial fantasies. Here in the 21st virtually all the major challenges faced by developed nations are global: climate change, microbial resistance, tech giants, to name some. They will solved through collaboration, while the is far from perfect it is by far the most successful the world has seen. To leave at a time when is darker; when we a fiercely nationalist, anti-global president is openly contemptuous of trade are when is insurgent than at any since the cold war; is short of lunacy, a While May’s negotiation can hardly be termed a the bigger failure is one of political The Boris Johnsons of this world may be the Tory party’s deluders-in-chief. May herself to answer for. Where she should have taken the hard Brexiters, she their reactionary sentiments – not in the national interest in interests of together her divided Where we desperately unifying, consensual statesmanship, renounced Britain’s of single union, thereby creating inflexible “red lines” the of any democratic mandate to so.
 Brexit will look like in the loNg term: a UK-wIde cuStoMs uNiOn wiTh thE EU, with deeper rEGulaTory integration for NortHern IReLAnd tHAt Could EventuaLLy SEE soMe ChEckS iN ThE IrisH SeA. The claIm that this Is tAkIng back contrOL iS a cruel jokE. BrItain will forFeiT the inFlUenTIal roLe iT has pLayed iN ShapinG EU law, and BeCOme a ruLE-taker, oBLIgEd to Align to any new EU stANdARds on, for instanCe, taxaTiON, eNVIroNmeNtal protecTiOn, empLOyment sTAnDARDs aND competition pOlicy. Our capACitY to negOtIatE Our own Free tRaDE deAls – which the GoveRnment’s owN analySIs says cOUld only Ever reCovEr a SmalL FrAcTioN oF The COsT of bRexIt – would bE sEvErely ConsTRAINed. SUch An ecOnomiC arrangement wOulD infLIct Great EconoMic pAiN: the cUstoms Union CoVers only goods, noT serVices, whicH maKe Up aRoUnd 80% of THe BritIsh EcoNomy, and 40% Of our exPOrtS tO THE Eu.

This is the economicS oF THe Madhouse. but the bReXiT ForeshadOwEd iN the DEAl unvEileD LaSt week wiLl leavE brItAin vastLy DiminiShEd iN otHer siGNifiCant waYs. In arguIng thAT leaving will boOSt British soveREiGNTy, THe BrExiTers coddled ThemSElveS in 19tH-CeNtuRY impeRial fAnTAsIEs. Here in the 21st centurY, vIrtualLy all The major challEnges faced BY DEveloped NatiONs ARe global: climatE chanGe, microbiaL ResistanCe, regUlating tHe tech giaNTS, to name jUst SomE. ThEy wILL bE solved only thROUgh iNtErnatioNal CollaboRatIon, And WhiLe The EU is faR from perFeCt It Is By fAr the MOst succeSsFul MoDel The woRLd has sEen. To LeavE aT a TIme When the WOrLD Is geTtInG darKer; WhEn we hAve a FIerCely natIonalist, aNti-GLobaL Us pResidenT who is openly cOnTemptuous oF BRitAin; wheN TRade wars Are the new norm; when Russia IS more inSurGent tHan aT any time sIncE the coLd wAR; is notHing shOrt of LuNacY, A TerriBLE aCt oF nAtional selF-IMmoLatioN.

WHile may’s negOtiation can hardly bE TerMed a success, thE biGger FAIlUre IS oNE of PoLItiCAL leadership. The BOris JohnsoNs OF tHis world maY Be tHe tory parTy’s deluDers-iN-Chief. BuT May herseLf has much To AnswER For. where she shOuld have Taken on thE Hard BRExIters, She ChanneLlEd tHeir rEactioNAry SentiMents – nOt In the nAtionAl Interest But in the interests of holdIng togEther Her Divided paRty. wHerE we desperAtelY needed uniFyiNg, cOnsenSuaL StateSmanSHiP, shE UnilaTeraLLy renouncED BRitAIN’s Membership oF THE siNgle mArkET and cuStomS union, thereby creaTIng inflexible “rEd liNES” deSpiTE the LaCk of any democraTic MaNDAte to do sO.


 Brexit will look like inthe long t erm:a U K-w id e cu stom s union with t h e EU , with deeper regulato ry in te g rati o nfor N orthern Ir e l and  t ha t c ou l devent ual ly seesome check s i nthe Irish Se a .The claimtha t this is ta kin g back  c ont r ol is  acruel  joke. Britai n will fo rf e it the influen t i al  rol e it has played i n  s h aping EU law,and be co m ea rul e-t aker, obli ge d toa lign to an y n ewE U standards o n, for inst a nce , taxa ti on, enviro nment al pro tection, em ploy ment stan dardsa nd comp e titionpolicy . O urcapa c it ytone g oti a te  ou r  ow n free t ra de  deal s –w h i c h th e g over nment ’s own analys issays cou ld on ly ev er r ec overa smal l fra ct ion of the cost  ofBrexit –wou ld  be  s evere l y cons tra ine d. Such  an eco n omi ca r r an gement would infli ct g re at econo mic pa i n:  t h e custom suni on c o v ers o nlyg oo ds, notservic e s,  w hich ma ke  up ar ou nd80%  of t h e Br itisheconomy,  and4 0% of our expo r ts to the EU. 
T h i si s th e e conomics of  the madh ouse .  B utt he Br exitfo r es h adowed in the dealun veiled  last  week will le ave Britai n v astly di mini s he d  in other sign ifica nt ways. I n  arguing  that  leaving  will boo s t  British  so ver eig nty , th e Brexiters c o d dled  t hemselv esin 19th -ce ntu ryimp er ial fanta sies. He re  i nth e 2 1st c e ntury, v ir tua ll y a ll th e  major  chal leng es  f a ced  by dev e lo p e d na ti on s ar e g lo bal:clim a techange,  microbia l r e sist an ce , regul ating the tec hgiants, to  n ame  justs o me. They  will be solved only th r ough in ter natio nalcollabora tio n, and  wh i le the  EU is  farfr omp e rfect i tisby  far the m o s t s ucces sf ul m odel th e world has seen.T o l eave at a tim e w hent h ewor l di s g et t ing d arker; when wehave a fie rc e ly  nationali s t,an ti-glob al US p resid e nt whois openly  contempt uo us o f Bri tain; when  trade w ars are t h e new no rm; w hen  Russi aismoreinsurg e ntthanat any  t ime si nce t he  cold wa r; is nothing short oflunacy , a t err ible actofn ati onal self -imm olation.
Whi leMay’s  ne g otiat ionc an  ha r dly b e te r med a suc c es s,t h ebigger fail u r e  is  oneofp olitic al l eadership. The Bo r is Johnsons of  thi s wor ldm ay b ethe Tory party ’sde l u ders-in- ch ief. But Ma y hersel fh as mu ch toanswer  for. W h e re she sh ould  ha ve takenonth e  hard B re xi t ers, s he c ha nnelle d thei r  rea c t ionary sentiment s – n o t  in t h e n ation al  intere s t bu t in the i nterests of  holdi ng t ogeth er herdi videdpar ty . Where we desperate ly ne eded un if ying , c onsens uals t atesm ansh ip , s he unilat e r al l yre n oun cedBrita in ’s m embership of the s ing l e marke tand c ustoms un i o n, thereby  cr eatin g inflexible “red li n es” d espite  the l ack ofa nyde mocrati c m a n date to d o so.


 Brexit_will look_like in the long_term: a_UK-wide_customs union_with_the EU, with_deeper regulatory integration_for Northern Ireland that_could eventually see_some_checks in the Irish Sea. The claim that this is taking back control is_a_cruel joke._Britain_will_forfeit the influential role it_has played in shaping EU_law, and_become a rule-taker, obliged to align to any_new_EU standards on,_for instance, taxation, environmental protection, employment standards and competition_policy. Our capacity to negotiate our_own free trade_deals_–_which the government’s own_analysis says could only ever recover_a small fraction of the cost_of Brexit – would be severely constrained._Such an economic arrangement would inflict_great economic pain: the customs_union covers_only goods, not services, which_make up around_80% of_the British economy,_and 40% of our exports to_the EU.

This is_the economics of the madhouse. But_the_Brexit foreshadowed in_the_deal_unveiled last_week will leave_Britain_vastly diminished_in_other significant ways. In arguing that_leaving_will boost British sovereignty, the Brexiters coddled_themselves in 19th-century imperial_fantasies._Here in the 21st_century, virtually all the major_challenges faced by developed nations are_global: climate_change, microbial_resistance, regulating the tech giants, to name just some. They will_be solved only through international collaboration,_and while the EU_is far_from_perfect it is_by_far the_most successful model the world has seen._To leave_at a time when the world_is getting darker; when_we_have a fiercely nationalist, anti-global US_president who is openly contemptuous of_Britain; when trade wars are_the_new_norm; when Russia is more_insurgent than at any time since_the cold war;_is nothing short of lunacy, a terrible_act_of national self-immolation.

While May’s negotiation can_hardly_be termed a success, the bigger_failure_is_one of political leadership. The_Boris Johnsons of this world may_be the Tory party’s deluders-in-chief. But May herself has_much to answer_for. Where she should have_taken_on_the hard Brexiters, she channelled their reactionary sentiments – not_in the_national interest but_in the interests of holding together her divided party. Where_we desperately needed unifying, consensual statesmanship, she_unilaterally renounced Britain’s membership of the single market and customs union,_thereby creating inflexible “red lines” despite the lack_of any democratic mandate to do so.

