HOW on Earth is the Prime Minister going to sell her EU deal? She now has the public support of her cabinet and it looks like she won it by arguing that, while the agreement she has secured is not perfect, it’s as good as it’s going to get. Many of her critics, though, still believe she has reversed her old mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal. It now looks like she is trying to convince us of the opposite – that a bad deal is better than no deal.
The upshot of the agreement is that all of the UK will stay in the customs union if a long-term trade deal has not been negotiated by 2020. In addition – and this is the critical bit – Northern Ireland, as well as remaining in the customs union, would also remain in much of the single market for goods.
However, this looks like an odd result democratically. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, but the Scottish Government wants to stay in the single market and the DUP does not. The result: the DUP gets what it doesn’t want while the SNP doesn’t get what it wants.
For Theresa May, this means the DUP and the SNP are likely to be in the coalition opposing her deal. The Scottish Tories also look restless, mainly over their concerns the deal could mean staying in the Commons Fisheries Policy until a future trade deal is secured.
As for the SNP, its position has been clear – if Northern Ireland can stay in the single market, why can’t Scotland? It’s a fair question, not least because Northern Ireland could have an economic advantage over Scotland.
All together, Mrs May has taken a step forward and delivered a good speech outside Number 10 but those who are opposed to her plan now look way more numerous than those who are keen (if they exist). The plan may be less toxic than Northern Ireland alone remaining in the customs union, but the uncertainty must also increase the chances of a second referendum. Unless, of course, the PM – if she remains – can convince everyone that a bad deal really is better than the alternatives.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here