Could this be Brexit breakthrough week?
Although we are convinced that Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn secretly read German Retail Blog, we also couldn't find a politician who wanted to chat. This is most unusual for a generally loquacious breed, especially as we also offered them tea and scones.
On the eve of three House of Commons votes this week, we therefore turned to a prominent legal-eagle for some enlightenment. One well-known commentator in both media and academia is Thom Brooks, Professor of Law & Government at Durham University. So we asked him to get out his intellectual machete and hack a path through the Brexit jungle...
"It's a mess!"
No. It is a plan that attempts to deliver on the Prime Minister's red lines. Different red lines would lead to a different deal and, I believe, a better one. I think the main issue is May took a number of options off the table and then wanted the European Union to simply accept this. The plan was never going to work.
Would it leave the United Kingdom at the EU's mercy as critics claim?
No. The UK has a choice. It does not need to have this plan, and it is not required by law to leave the EU. The referendum result in June 2016 was advisory only. Of course, there would be a huge political problem if the result is ignored – but there is also a huge political problem in the government's failing to address electoral laws that were broken and serious allegations of foreign interference in the campaigning.
Is it really her deal or no-deal?
This is how the PM wants to present the choice. There has been almost no planning for a no-deal. The consequences would be devastating, at least in the short to medium-term. However, Parliament has voted against accepting a no-deal outcome, so this is really off the table. The European Court of Justice has confirmed that the UK could stop its plans for Brexit and remain in the EU up to the final minute. Avoiding 'no deal' is therefore very possible.
There is also time to request an extension of departure from the EU. This might be granted if a referendum on May's deal or the chance to choose 'Remain' were put to the public.
Are the fears of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) etc. justified that a backstop agreement for Northern Ireland would compromise a fragile peace?
No. The irony of the Irish backstop is that the PM is the person who proposed it – later discovering it was the one idea least supported in the deal overall.
I still believe there is only a very little chance of this happening. This is because there has been virtually no planning by government and even less preparation by businesses and private citizens for the consequences of No Deal.
Would a hard Brexit really lead to the type of chaos and supply shortages Remainers fear, or are they exaggerating the doom and gloom as scare tactics?
It could be worse. Britain is reliant on a number of imports. These would halt in the short-term causing significant disruption on a scale few have experienced before in their lifetimes. I think the fallout from this would be much worse than any fallout of holding a second referendum.
It could be significant. Everyday items would become instantly more expensive and harder to find. This would all be because of a political choice – and a consequence that Leavers said would never happen. They will be proved very wrong.
Will this benefit German discounters Aldi and Lidl UK over local British retailers?
Sterling will probably fall again if it comes to a hard Brexit. Won't this benefit UK food exporters?
No, because the UK will be out of the EU and farmers will no longer have access to the funding support previously received. While the government promises nothing will change, this has certainly not been tested and will not be something they can do overnight.
What are the chances of a vote of no confidence against the government and of a general election? Would this solve anything?
The chances are increasing. If there was a general election, it would create a new mandate for change. This would be a reason to reopen talks. The problem is that talks have ended. Any extension will be in agreement with the EU. I cannot see why Brussels would agree to delay Brexit to see if a different government came to power and which would have a mandate to reopen negotiations and start all over again.
Will there be a second referendum or so-called 'People's Vote'? Would it be a good idea?
I believe so. Parliament is divided. A second referendum for May's deal or staying in the EU would provide the finality that both the UK and EU require – and I would expect the EU to agree an extension to when the UK might leave the EU to hold it.
If May wins, she will have a major boost to getting her deal passed, and it would pass. If she lost, the UK would remain in the EU and the prime minister could save face claiming she was merely following the will of the people. Most see a referendum as obviously benefitting Remainers, but actually it also obviously benefits the PM. The sooner she realises this and the parliamentary majority it creates, the better.
Almost certain, but no one wants to be seen as the cause for requesting it. Expect a major blame game.
Premier Emmanuel Macron has warned that France, as one of the required EU27 signatories, might not sanction any Brexit delay unless Theresa May embarks on a completely new strategy. Other EU members demand negotiations on fishing rights, the sovereignty of Gibraltar etc. as a quid pro quo. How likely then is an EU agreement to an extension?
I think this puts huge pressure on the UK. I think the only viable extension is to hold a second referendum to secure finality by summer.
Should the extension be a short one until June or a longer one into 2020?
As short as possible.
Yes. I would not be surprised if this happened.
How likely are Canadian, Norwegian, Swiss or WTO-style trade agreements, and are any of these a credible option?
If May cannot pass a deal, these will be likely options for any alternative deal.
Could the UK negotiate bilateral trade deals with the US, India, China etc. to compensate the loss of EU membership, and in what timeframe? Will these partners demand more liberal immigration rules to the UK for their citizens?
I doubt the UK will easily reclaim the existing benefits gained under EU membership. I expect more liberal immigration rules will be a necessary part of any trade deal.
If it comes to a hard Brexit, should the UK opt for the highest possible level of free trade, or should it actively protect farmers etc. via special tariffs?
I think some strategic protectionism the wiser course of action in the medium-term. The UK will be in new territory. It must be careful about managing consequences known and unknown.
Any other concluding comments which you feel are relevant to the discussion?
It's a mess!