Brexit claim that ‘no deal better than bad deal’ unsubstantiated: report

The claim by the British government that “no Brexit deal is better than a bad deal” hasn’t been backed up by evidence, according to a report by MPs out Tuesday.

The House of Commons Brexit committee says the claim is “unsubstantiated” and can be proven correct only if an economic assessment into the effects of no deal with the EU is carried out.

“The government should conduct a thorough assessment of the economic, legal and other implications of leaving the EU without a deal in place,” said Hilary Benn, the Labour lawmaker who chairs the committee.

“The public and parliament have a right to the maximum possible information about the impact of the different future trading options being considered. Parliament must be in an informed position to decide whether a proposed deal is, in fact, better or worse than no deal.”

He said it was essential that parliament had a vote on a future trade deal.

The committee also said that the U.K. government should set out what contingency planning is in place if there is no deal at the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiating period and Britain is subject to World Trade Organization rules.

“Leaving the EU without a future trade deal and in doing so defaulting to World Trade Organization rules is no less an important decision for the U.K.’s economic future than the terms of any future free trade agreement between the U.K. and the EU. It is therefore essential that such a step is not taken without parliament having a vote on the matter,” Benn said.

Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Brexit negotiator, has said that negotiations must finish within 18 months in order to allow time for EU institutions, governments and parliaments to ratify the agreement.

The British report says there is no evidence to support this timetable being “realistic.”