Introduction

The upcoming Tory Leadership Contest in 2019 is expected to be a contentious debate, focusing on how candidates plan to deliver Brexit. However, it is likely that some of the candidates will make dubious statements about Brexit and the past three years. This article aims to address these claims and provide evidence-based counterarguments, ensuring a balanced and informed discourse.

Economic and Political Impacts of Misleading Claims

While the debate may not revolve around the issues raised during the run-up to the Brexit referendum, it is anticipated that candidates will emphasize their strategies for delivering Brexit. However, it is crucial to recognize that the European Union (EU) is no longer willing to negotiate any further on this matter. Many of these candidates may claim that a particular Brexit deal will be forthcoming, but in reality, they are unlikely to deliver. The impasse arises due to the EU's stance that it will not re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, and any promise of a new deal is likely to be unfulfilled.

Parliamentary and Political Risks

One possible scenario is that some candidates will insist on a no-deal Brexit as a negotiating tool, despite the potential political and economic risks. If a candidate is genuinely committed to Brexit, they might pursue this path. However, this could lead to a vote of no confidence and potentially a general election. Another possibility is the formation of a potential coalition between the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Brexit Party. This hypothetical scenario, while intriguing, may not substantially change the political landscape.

Contradictory Claims About Brexit

Claim 1: The Euro elections prove we need to deliver Brexit now.
This statement is misleading. Euro elections merely reflect public interest and support for the bloc, and do not provide any indication of when Brexit should be completed. The results of these elections have no direct correlation with the urgency of completing Brexit.

Claim 2: The Euro elections prove we need to deliver a hard Brexit now.
The idea that the Euro elections support a hard Brexit is equally fallacious. The controversy surrounding the elections does not imply a preference for a more restrictive form of Brexit. Both the concept of a hard Brexit and its validation through the Euro elections are dubious claims.

Strategies of Boris Johnson and Their Limitations

Claim: Boris Johnson's 'Boris Brexit' strategy.
Boris Johnson's "Boris Brexit" is often presented as a fresh and innovative approach. However, this strategy is essentially a rehash of May's failed strategy. Johnson seeks to use the threat of no-deal as a negotiating tactic, but the EU was not impressed by this approach during May's tenure, and it has weakened her position. Johnson's strategy does not fundamentally change the negotiating dynamic.

Claim: Re-negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Johnson has proposed re-negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement. However, the EU is resolute in its stance that the agreement is final and cannot be reopened. The proposal to simply move the UK into the existing agreement hands control of the remaining negotiations to the EU, a position even Brexiteers find unpalatable.

Johnson's attempts to describe the UK's vision for Brexit using the "Canadian model" is similarly misleading. This model essentially emphasizes what will be removed from the relationship, rather than what the UK wants to include. The negotiations in a "Canada model" framework are likely to be just as contentious and unworkable as those in any other model.

Conclusion

While the 2019 Tory Leadership Contest is expected to be a debated among political figures, it is vital to question and debunk the misleading claims surrounding Brexit. The basis for delivering a successful Brexit must be rooted in facts and a realistic understanding of the EU's negotiating stance. The potential for a no-deal Brexit as a negotiating tool is fraught with risks and uncertainties, and the formation of a coalition does not necessarily resolve the underlying issues. As we move forward, it is important to avoid being misled by these dubious statements, and instead focus on evidence-based policies and strategies.