19/11/2016
Even before Mrs May reassured Angela Merkel in Berlin yesterday that Brexit was "
on track", the
Guardian was retailing another tale of woe,
suggesting that defence cooperation talks with the EU could delay the Brexit process.
The bones of the story is that the MoD and the FCO are working together on plans for how the UK could continue to cooperate with the EU on defence and foreign policy issues which, the paper says, makes it less likely that the cabinet will seek a fast-track divorce that severs all ties with the EU.
Furthermore, it says, including the areas of foreign policy and defence in any deal makes it more likely that talks will not be concluded in the two years required under article 50, meaning an interim deal will be required.
In this respect, there is some reason in what the paper says. Although the media (and political) focus has been on trade, it is a matter of record that numerous other issues need to be resolved in the Article 50 talks. Defence and foreign affairs are amongst the more important of these.
For that reason, we covered both issues in
Flexcit, devoting a full chapter to the areas that will need to be discussed (see page 213,
et seq). That a national newspaper, years later, now feels the need to highlight many of the same points says a great deal about the febrile nature of the Brexit debate, and the superficiality with which it has been treated.
But what is interesting is that the
Guardian is reaching exactly the same conclusion about an interim deal, in the same way we did. Essentially, there are so many issues to discuss and settle that we need to "park" trade in order to make time for the more immediate issues.
Within the
Guardian article, there is the statutory reference to "eurosceptics such as John Redwood" who are pressing for a clean break by next summer, leaving only a basic trading relationship with the EU. They are arguing that talks could deliberately be made more complex in an effort to stall the process.
Here we are descending into the pits of stupidity, as one does not have to make the process
more complex. It always was complex and, even with the best will in the world, it will be nothing short of a miracle if we are able to cover all the ground in two years and come away with a satisfactory deal.
Nevertheless, officials in key departments are said increasingly to recognise that it would be a mistake for the UK to sever all defence, foreign policy and security links with the EU, and that it would be easier to resolve those broader relationships after agreeing an interim deal.
Also, says the paper, it is being argued that if the UK makes a clear offer to cooperate in these areas, it could oil the wheels in the more difficult negotiations on participation in the EU single market.
With such sentiments it is very hard to disagree, and no one but the wildest of zealots would argue that we should not cooperate at the highest levels on defence and foreign affairs. And there are really serious matters at stake here, not least being our loss of access to the
Political and Security Committee once we leave the EU.
This builds on Article 38 of the Treaty (TEU) and comprises a committee of Member States ambassadors, chaired by the representatives from the European External Action Service. It meets twice a week, and more often if necessary, and provides invaluable insight into the views of the other 27 EU Member States, as well as offering a forum for early responses to world events as they happen.
It would be facile to argue that the level of contact with Member States will not be diminished by Brexit, and it follows logically that the UK will be seeking to establish consultation mechanisms which partially replace the facilities that we will be losing.
On top of that, there are also security and crime issues, one aspect of which was brought into high profile this week when
European resources helped Romanian police tpo smash a computer fraud gang accused of stealing millions of euros from unsuspecting victims.
With the growing internationalisation of crime â and the massive increase in cyber-crime â cooperation between nations has never been more necessary.
Yet, despite it being in the best interests of everyone to continue working together, the EU and Member States are going to be reluctant to make special arrangements for the UK if they create additional administrative and diplomatic burdens.
The European External Action Service (EEAS) and diplomatic resources of Member States are already overstretched so, on a purely technical level, serious discussions are going to be needed, with no obvious solutions that we can fall back on.
Obviously, as far as defence is concerned, we have Nato as a forum but so much of the European defence posture is being settled outside this framework that we will need additional points of contact.
As regards foreign affairs, there is a long history of cooperation between the UK and European nations, formalised as
European Political Cooperation (EPC), and once again there are going to have to be a series of detailed discussions to reactivate working arrangements outside the framework of the EU.
To say that this is the case is not needlessly to complicate the Brexit negotiations. These are legitimate issues and must be settled in time for them, to be included in the Article 50 settlement. Complexity has always been part of the Brexit package, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise.
