Brexit: some growing up to do

07/10/2017

If in May 1940 the media had become obsessed as they are now with the affairs of the Westminster village, it's probable that the main headlines would have been devoted to Mr Churchill's bid for power, with the German invasion of France consigned to "other news" pages.

There is certainly a sense of this with the concentration on Mrs May's woes while the imminent collapse of the Brexit talks barely gets a mention. And even then, while Reuters writes it up in terms of the EU stepping up "quiet preparations" for a possible collapse of the talks, the nature of the impending crisis fails to register. It is as if this is of no consequence to the UK.

Elsewhere, we get the entirely predictable news from the Financial Times, to the effect that "Germany and France have dashed British hopes of fast-tracking talks on a two-year post-Brexit transition deal, insisting that the UK's EU divorce bill be resolved first".

We actually knew this already, although the story had been floated that British officials were hoping that the October European Council would approve the opening of talks on the transition period after Britain's exit in 2019, despite there having been insufficient progress on the so-called "phase one" issues.

According to European diplomats, we now learn, a Germany-led group of EU countries has demanded more clarity on the long-term financial commitments Britain will honour. They will not relax the current mandate. 

Back in the UK, that there should be this apparent air of calm – or indifference – in response to the prospect of an imminent collapse of the talks owes nothing to the expected outcomes. Even under the best of terms, Brexit was going to involve some painful adjustments for the UK, before we would set a course which would bring us the prosperity that we anticipate from leaving the EU.

But the effects of a "no deal" Brexit – which seems to be our current direction of travel – are almost too awful to contemplate. That makes it all the more puzzling that there is such a passive attitude.

Part of this must be down to the politicians failing to spell out the consequences, to the think tanks which have failed to do likewise, and to academia which has been largely irrelevant to the Brexit debate. Above all, though, this is a failure of the media. Obsessed in equal measure by the affairs of the Westminster village and by trivia, it has consistently failed to step up to the plate and warn the public of the consequences of the path our politicians are following – even if they are following it more by default than as a result of deliberate decisions.

These apart, there is another area of failure: the absence from the debate of any serious input from trade associations. They should have been looking in detail at the government stance, assessing the effects on their members and warning of any adverse consequences. Largely, though, they have been muted in their responses, the dogs that failed to bark.

Why this should be is not easy to work out but one view is that the consequences of a "no deal" Brexit are not as serious as painted. Allied to this is the belief that any harm would arise entirely as a result of barriers imposed by the EU, designed to "punish" the UK for its temerity in deciding to leave the EU.

Underwriting that is the further belief that these barriers, dismissed as the pejorative "red tape", can easily be removed by EU and, since "they need us more than we need them", they will be brushed aside on the day, to allow trade with the UK to continue uninterrupted.

In effect, warnings of difficulties arising after Brexit are not believed. There is a firm conviction that the EU is bluffing. It is simply trying to strengthen its negotiating position – primarily to extort as much from the UK as is possible.

However, the situation from the EU perspective could not be more different. And the best expression of where the EU stands came recently in three points made by Michel Barnier, delivered in his closing address to the European Parliament on 3 October.

The first of his points was that the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union – its own sovereign decision. It was also leaving – as the UK government had made clear – the Single Market and the Customs Union. After 44 years of integration, Barnier said, he would "recommend that nobody underestimates the complexity and the legal, human, social, economic, and financial difficulties of this decision". And he also recommended that "those who made this decision should shoulder the consequences".

His second point was that the EU respected the sovereign choice of the British citizens. The EU was putting in place the withdrawal that we wanted but he wanted this withdrawal to be orderly. For a number of reasons, Barnier said, "I think that it is better that you leave the European Union on 30 March 2019 with an agreement, rather than without one. It is in the common interest".

Thus, while the EU respected the UK's choice, Barnier wanted us to "respect the European Union". We ask you, he said, "to respect the fact that we are uncompromising on the integrity of the Single Market, and on the respect of the rules on the functioning and the autonomy of decision-making in the European Union. European Union taxpayers cannot pay for the consequences of Brexit. Brexit cannot weaken the Single Market and the four freedoms, of which they are an intrinsic part".

In his third point, he spoke of being "accountable to our citizens, whose rights are our priority". He stated: "We will have to be accountable to taxpayers. We will have to be accountable to businesses. We will also have to be accountable – if I may say so – to those who have built the European Union over the past 60 years, of which we are the co-guarantors and for which we share responsibility". "I simply want", he added, "the accounts that we render at the end of this negotiation to be fair and true accounts".

Looking at these points, it is easier to disagree with the last of those points than the other two. Surely, no one serious would argue that the EU institutions are in any meaningful sense accountable to the taxpayers of Europe. And that illusion is one of the reasons why we should leave the EU.

But the other points are valid. Summed up, they amount to the central fact that it was us, the UK which decided to leave. As such, we must accept the consequences – bad as well as good.

Throughout the debate, though, it seems to me that there is an almost child-like tendency to refuse to accept that there are any adverse consequences that arise naturally from leaving. Anything bad that happens, therefore, will be the result of the EU's desire for revenge an punishment.

It seems an odd point to make, though, that to get past this, we as a nation need to do some growing up. After 44 years of EU membership, we are behaving as wilful, petulant children who can no longer think for themselves. We need to accept that the adverse consequences that will most certainly arise from Brexit are not figments of "remoaner" imaginations, or an extension of "Project Fear". They are real, predictable and measurable.

Nevertheless, whatever problems that might arise are containable and, with good will and common sense, there are undoubtedly work-arounds. What makes those problems more serious – and impossible to resolve – is ignoring them. If the UK government pretends there are no problems, and tries to skirt past them, then we will be in serious trouble.

Yet, this is exactly what the UK is doing. Confronted with the three "phase one issues" that the EU has listed, the UK has been told in unequivocal terms, that "sufficient progress" on these is required before we can move on to phase two.

The UK response has been to turn this round and demand that we talk about phase two matters before resolving the first phase. And when the EU refuses to move, this is cast as intransigence, demonstrating that there was never any intention to negotiate in good faith.

Like it or not, this puts the UK in the wrong. We had the opportunity to set the agenda with the statement accompanying the Article 50 negotiations, offering detailed position papers and clear proposals for the way forward. Mrs May chose not to do that and handed the political initiative to the EU, where it has remained ever since. Our government has only itself to blame for its own incompetence.

Part of that incompetence, though, are the almost facile beliefs that seem to sustain the Prime Minister. From her own statements, it is quite evident that she is convinced the UK can conclude her "deep and crisp and even" trade agreement by the end of the two-year negotiation period. There is no other way that one could even start considering an "implementation" period.

Inevitably, that means there is a fundamental mismatch between the aspirations of the Prime Minister, and the practicalities of complex trade negotiations. This puts the UK in the position of seeking something which simply cannot be delivered in the time.

Despite that, in a statement yesterday, the PM gave no hint that she had any concerns about the progress of the talks. "Last month in Florence I set out my vision for a bold and unique new economic partnership with the EU", she said. "We are working hard to achieve this and are optimistic about our future as a global, free-trading nation".

One now really needs to stand back from this and consider the implications of this. If the Prime Minister of the UK is unable to frame realistic negotiation objectives, it would seem fair to argue two points. Firstly, she is entirely unfit for office. Secondly, it is not possible for the EU to respond coherently to something which is inherently incoherent.

For all that, here we are: a thoroughly incompetent Prime Minister has brought us to the brink, with Reuters calmly referring to a "collapse" of the talks. And the issue doesn't make headlines in any of the national papers. One cannot help but feel that, when Brexit hits us like a ton of bricks, there will be a lot of people who will deserve everything they get.