There is no guarantee that the EU27 and the Commission will accept her ideas. And there may be no deal at all. In which case the question lingers: are we ready?
The suggestion here seems to be to keep current and future EU law – and thus the ECJ. We would accept EU laws as they developed without a say.
From speaking to civil servants, it seems that – at least until recently – the Cabinet had not properly considered either a preferred end state or indeed transition policy.
Two cheers for a measure that, though mostly about managing, dividing and taming popular opinion, remains a reforming landmark.
The policy paper provides welcome clarity, but it’s time the Treasury gave up on the fiendishly difficult model it prefers.
We simply don’t know yet what outcome could command a broad consensus. Everything short of no deal and remaining in the EU should be kept on the table.
Unless either the UK or the EU want a trade war, its most likely consequence would be making use of a mass of small deals to achieve sizeable gains.
As the Higher Education Bill comes back to the Commons, the Government should take the Lords’ position to heart.
Plus: Hammond’s blunder. Peers’ folly. Stephen Hawking is not, repeat not, controlled by MI5. And: my inner Mary Whitehouse meets Katie Hopkins’ slack vagina.
If it is too exotic a model, try Australia or New Zealand. They, too, have opened their markets, removing tariffs and trade barriers, liberalising their economies.
Our democratic rules have not kept pace with the changing nature of the Union.
We will be an ally, not a member, of the United States of Europe.
The most successful ones will be those that maintain their partnerships in Europe, but also look farther afield to forge new associations across the globe.
Our own security services have managed superbly. But a danger thwarted is not a danger ended.
The decision of the EU to restrict Switzerland’s access to scientific funding after they voted to limit freedom of movement sets a worrying precedent.