One of the most controversial terms in the current UK political climate is BINO – Brexit in Name only. Its usage derives from a previous US election where Republicans not deemed to be ideologically pure were dismissed as RINOs – Republican in Name Only.
To the hardline anti-EUer BINO is a way categorising any move not thought to be pure enough as being a sell-out. To the hardline Remainers it raises the question of “what the hell is the point?”.
On the previous thread posted at 1.36am GMT my son Robert came up with this analysis which is worth of a wider audience.
“What do you define as not BINO?
Because there is a ridiculously wide range of outcomes.
Let’s start with Norway+. This basically involves remaining part of the Four Freedoms, and the Customs Union, but leaving the political apparatus of the EU, the CAP, the CFP and large parts of the intrusion of the ECJ into domestic affairs. (So, they would still adjudge on whether a firm’s output constituted high tensile or ordinary steel, but not on whether prisoners got the vote.) Now, that’s pretty BINOy, but it also removes quite a lot of things people get upset about.
OK, now let’s talk about the TMay deal. This removes all of the above, but also involves ending Freedom of Movement, and maintaining a Customs Union and special situation in Northern Ireland until a technical solution is found. It does involve a high degree of alignment between the EU and the UK in certain areas of regulation – such a data protection and product standards.
Then there’s Canada Plus. This basically means leaving alignment on certain product standards (albeit in all likelihood, given most are set by the ISO, the actual impact would be negligible). It’s quite possible for us to get to Canada Plus via the Withdrawal Agreement, of course.
Finally, there’s WTO, where we trade with the EU, and all the countries that the EU has trade agreements with, to trade on the misnamed “most favoured nation” status.
Which ones are BINO?”
Over to you.