Reality Check: Brexit can be win-win for UK and Europe, says Theresa May

Theresa May and a cameramanImage copyright
Getty Images

Theresa May has delivered her long-awaited speech on Brexit, giving some-more sum of what she wants from a UK’s destiny trade arrangements with a European Union.

Here are some of a pivotal lines from a speech.

There was a time when supervision ministers were suggesting that this was going to be a easiest traffic in history.

That tongue has gone. The primary apportion suggested that there would be formidable days ahead, and unavoidable points of disagreement.

The bottom line is that Mrs May still intends to take a UK out of a singular marketplace and a etiquette union.

But she emphasised that both sides mount to benefit from a successful traffic of a new partnership, since a EU still sees Brexit not as a win-win though as a lose-lose.

After a conflict of the past integrate of days, a primary apportion motionless that she indispensable to residence Northern Ireland early on.

It was a re-statement of what was concluded final Dec – no tough limit with a Republic, though no etiquette limit with a rest of a UK either.

The difficulty is there wasn’t most fact about how that round can be squared. Later in a debate she did pronounce about a use of record during a limit and a streamlined etiquette arrangement or even a new-style etiquette partnership (but not a etiquette union).

Scepticism about a UK position in Dublin, and elsewhere in Europe, won’t have eased all that much.

Yes, a primary apportion says to a EU, we have a indicate – we can’t only collect off a good pieces (although there will be those who disagree that she tries to do only that after in a speech).

But there was an honest estimation here of a “hard facts” – particularly that marketplace entrance will be reduction than it is now, and that a UK will still have to take account, in some respects, of a rulings of a European Court of Justice.

It was a picturesque estimation of where any successful traffic is expected to end. On a other hand, a primary apportion insisted that a UK will still wish to denote that it has taken behind control of a money, a border, and a laws.

There’s zero wrong with being ambitious, though there will be those who indicate out that a broadest and deepest probable partnership anywhere in a universe currently is enshrined in a EU’s singular marketplace and etiquette union.

It was distinguished in this debate how most of a stream attribute Mrs May wants to keep – staying close, for example, to EU regulatory agencies, to environmental and consumer insurance laws, and to EU policies on state assist and satisfactory competition.

But a primary apportion also indifferent a right to separate from EU policies where necessary. In Brussels and elsewhere, that will still be seen as cherry-picking, and will be unsuitable to EU negotiators who are dynamic to strengthen a integrity of a singular market.

This was important. A bonfire of EU regulations is not going to happen. And if a UK can successfully negotiate a new indication of associate membership of EU agencies, that umpire chemicals, pharmaceuticals and a aviation industry, vast sections of UK business will breathe a whine of relief.

Mrs May offering to compensate for entrance to these agencies, and most of a imagination a EU relies on is formed in a UK. But there will still be disagreements about legal slip and a purpose of a European Court of Justice.

It is another sign of how most there is to negotiate in an unusually brief duration of time, and because a transition duration after Brexit will be so important.

Mrs May called for a confidant and artistic agreement on services – a zone of over-riding significance to a UK economy.

She mentioned dual sectors in sold – broadcasting and financial services – that have never been scrupulously lonesome in a giveaway trade agreement before.

Her evidence is a informed one – restricting entrance in all areas of mercantile activity will harm we as most as it hurts us.

She spoke of a UK and a EU progressing a same regulations over time while usurpation there would be “consequences” (loss of marketplace access) if a UK chose a opposite path.

On a one hand, it doesn’t sound like “ambitious managed divergence” and that might not be excusable to some supporters of Brexit in a UK.

On a other hand, it does meant a UK adhering to some EU manners and not others – and that will not be excusable in other capitals around Europe.

Or as a primary apportion pronounced in her speech: “This is a traffic and conjunction of us can have accurately what we want.”

Read some-more from Reality Check

Send us your questions

Follow us on Twitter

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » appearance » Widgets » and move a widget into Advertise Widget Zone