A lot has been made about a ‘No Deal’ arrangement between the UK and the EU. The first major politician to mention ‘No Deal’ was the then UK Prime Minister Theresa May in 2017. May said that “No Deal is better than a bad deal”. This was seen as a strong stance from a strong woman as a negotiating ploy to, allegedly, tell the EU negotiators that the UK could not be messed with. A lot of the media in the UK praised this stance which pleased a lot of the voting public, providing some comfort, regardless of how they voted in the EU Referendum 2016, that the UK Government was in control of the economic destiny of the UK.
Since then there have been numerous debates and votes on whether or not the UK Government had the permission of the Houses of Parliament to accept or agree a ‘No Deal’ agreement. It is hard for the ordinary person to understand what progress has been made in this regard. It is quite probable that if we ask a politician they could provide a statement of a lot of words but I’m not sure a lot of people would understand it. I don’t think I would.
Prior to the COVID-19 worldwide health pandemic the UK Government does not appear to have made any progress on what the arrangements will be post the transition period of the UK leaving the EU Single Market trading arrangements.
What seems to have been obvious is that there is no such thing as ‘No Deal’. Why is this term even used? There are 2 options available for the UK to agree with the EU
- An agreed trading agreement with the EU
- World Trading Organisation trading agreement
There is no other option available. So let’s drop the term ‘No Deal’ and replace it with what is reality – WTO arrangements. Which, actually, means higher taxes for the British public and businesses.