Is there anything about the Brexit negotiations that gets people's backs up so much as the suggestion from anyone remotely connected to the UK government that it would be better not to have a deal at all than to have a bad deal?
And yet how many people have considered the possibility that that might be pretty much the EU's own negotiating position?
The situation prior to the referendum was actually not far from being optimal for the EU: ok, the UK wasn't in the Eurozone nor part of Schengen, but there was substantial trade balance in favour of EU27 countries, the UK provided a large number of employment opportunities for EU citizens, with remittances to support families left behind in the countries of origin, and what's more the UK paid handsomely for the privilege of being in the EU.
From the EU's point of view, therefore, any change is to the EU's detriment, so that is why Brexit cannot be a success.
No-one can argue that the EU position has been anything other than consistent and clear from the outset: in order to get any sort of deal, the UK will have to settle its accounts according to the EU's own interpretation of what the UK's liabilities are, and the UK will have submit to the authority of the ECJ on citizen's rights.
The EU might calculate that the political situation in the UK means that there is only a small risk of such a deal being rejected, but even if the UK government summons the courage to do so, the EU would be reasonably happy to trade with the UK under WTO terms. They anticipate that we will lower tariffs on 3rd party countries, allowing the EU to take advantage of MFN (most favoured nation) and TBT (technical barriers to trade) rules, without having any need to reciprocate itself. EU importers would have to start paying tariffs, but adjustments to the GBP to Euro exchange rate would likely cancel out most of the effects, and so the total cost of the goods to the EU customers will remain relatively unchanged, with the EU benefiting from the income from import taxes in the process.
The EU would accept reduced exports to the UK as a price worth paying to maintain the integrity of single market, and besides it would be another beneficial crisis to drive further EU integration. They know that there is always the possibility of a trade deal in the future, should circumstances take an unexpected turn, such as exports to the UK collapsing. And they can always blame the British for anything that goes wrong.
This leaves only 2 possible outcomes: No Deal, or acceptance of EU terms with a Norwegian-style arrangement, the latter being a personal humiliation not just for Theresa May, but also for David Davis and Boris Johnson. Those who say we should call the EU's bluff in order to get a better deal have missed the point: they are not bluffing. Looking at it in that light, the PM's Florence offer makes sense - if No Deal is to be a realistic option, the UK needs time to prepare.
You could say that the UK therefore has to do a cost-benefit analysis in order to work out whether it is worth paying the settlement to minimise medium-term disruption, but the trouble is, there are too many unknowns to take into account to be able to do so with any level of confidence.
In my view, the decision will therefore boil down to politics - which option is least likely to result in defeat for the Government at the next election? Safety-first at a substantial price, or a gamble that might pay off handsomely in the long term provided that the Marxists can be kept out of Downing Street?
