The government’s objectives for Brexit were finally declared by the Prime Minister in recent weeks. Her long-awaited speech was met with very mixed and often unnuanced reactions, highlighting the lingering societal divisions of the referendum campaign. Ironically, unity struck me as the opening theme of the speech, in sharp contrast to the apparent Brexit mentality of separation.
Mrs May surprised everyone with her renewed support for the EU, almost echoing Churchill as she said “it is only by coming together as one great union of nations and people that we can make the most of the opportunities ahead”. She was, of course, actually speaking of threats to the integrity of the United Kingdom (primarily Scottish Nationalism and Northern Irish political instability), but it is difficult not to notice the ostensible doublethink of belief in both Unionism and Brexit.
I also noticed this doublethink from the opposite perspective as an SNP spokesperson responded to the speech. They made the same flawed arguments used by the Leave campaign, of the relative importance of growth markets and current markets, only with contrary beliefs about the two Unions. What’s more, their figures were demonstrably false, just like the Leave campaign’s. Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is in fact growing faster than its trade with the rest of the EU; another means by which to trounce the ludicrous idea of independence.
“We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.”
Sir Winston Churchill, 1946
Other EU member states may choose to put unity ahead of economic concerns. They obviously don’t want to harm trade, but to give us a better deal than full membership (if that is actually possible within the existing framework) would risk other Eurosceptic nations following us out of the door and further shrinking their internal market. Contrary to populist belief, we need them more than they need us. We do import more from the rest of the EU than we export to it, but Europe is a significantly larger percentage of our export market than we are of Europe’s.
In the end, we are unlikely to face an ultimatum of choosing between EEA membership or complete separation. I think the idea of a Hard or a Soft Brexit is a false dichotomy, “there will have to be compromises” going both ways by the very nature of negotiation. It is also important to remember the advisory nature of the referendum; a majority want to leave the European Union, but at least half will likely still desire a close relationship with Europe. The government should take all views into account to bring the nation together over this effectively permanent decision. Mrs May has said moreover that she wants the devolved administrations to be “fully engaged in this process”.
Perhaps the best place to start the process is her expressed desire to secure the ‘right to remain’ of EU citizens here, and UK citizens abroad. By compromising on her aspiration for bilateral agreement (which was frustrated by other leaders refusing to discuss any terms before the triggering of Article 50) and proceeding with a unilateral declaration, she could gain ground and goodwill in the coming negotiations, as well as gaining favour with her opposition.
On the movement of people, the Prime Minister was adamant that “Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe”, but I still maintain that arbitrary limits on migrant numbers would be harmful to the economy. Again, it is important to not just account for the loudest or angriest voice, but to respect a range of opinions. For those who voted Leave on the basis of reducing immigration, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest that most do not recognise any difference between EU and non-EU migration… the latter, over which we have always had full control, remains higher than the former, which is an economic boon.
Free movement of workers is one of the four essential freedoms of the EU. The other three are the movement of goods, services, and capital. Membership of the EEA means accepting these freedoms, but as the PM rightly said, outside of the EU we would have no say on the relevant regulations. “What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market… Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”.
With this kind of agreement, we would be free to strike new trade deals with the fastest growing global export markets, however it is also by far the most difficult path to take. It is sensible to grasp for more than we think we can achieve in negotiations so there is more room to compromise on our side, but we should always remember that Europe as a bloc is firmly our biggest trading partner, and so should be our first priority over any currently intangible trade deals. Continued membership of the Single Market is therefore the safest and easiest way to secure our stability and prosperity, despite its many disadvantages, and various claims to the contrary.
Outside of the Single Market, membership of the Customs Union would prevent tariffs on trade with the rest of Europe, but full membership would also prevent us from striking the aforementioned trade deals. We’ve been told many times by the EU that we can’t pick and choose the bits of membership that suit us, but in the spirit of optimism and compromise, it may just be possible to make a single amendment allowing us to make our own trade deals if we focus on that key issue.
Holding the upper hand in some aspects of negotiation, as we do in areas such as security and intelligence (ever more important for tackling shared threats in the current climate of terror), could give us more leverage to push on key issues. It is very welcome that the importance of continued collaboration on “major science, research, and technology initiatives” such as ESA and CERN was also stressed, but it does add another layer of complexity to negotiations.
“It is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability”, but the PM effectively ruled out transitional arrangements to secure free trade and collaboration, fearing potential perpetual political purgatory. Instead, she wants to reach an agreement within the prescribed two year negotiating window, followed by “a phased process of implementation”. This sounds very complicated: not usually good for stability. As no member state has ever left the EU, there is no precedent to follow, but we know that comprehensive trade deals take much longer than two years (CETA has taken almost eight so far), and it is Europe’s prerogative to extend negotiations.
“So, these are the objectives we have set. Certainty wherever possible. Control of our own laws. Strengthening the United Kingdom. Maintaining the Common Travel Area with Ireland. Control of immigration. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU. Enhancing rights for workers. Free trade with European markets. New trade agreements with other countries. A leading role in science and innovation. Cooperation on crime, terrorism and foreign affairs. And a phased approach, delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit.”
Theresa May
To the “voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path”, the Prime Minister took a more aggressive approach. She said “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”; “we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model”, and “have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain”.
I am not convinced. The last thing we want is a trade war with our friends and neighbours, let alone the world’s richest combined market. If the tax cuts failed to attract sufficient investment (a likely outcome on the implied scale), we would be left with an even bigger budget deficit and even less money for public services. In any case, Ireland already has a relatively low-tax economy and will remain free of barriers with Europe. We should be clear that this extreme Brexit is unacceptable, and that there exists significant support for the EEA option as an adequate fallback, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying to reach a better deal.
Mrs May confirmed in her speech that the final Brexit deal will be put to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, so there may yet be some recourse for this option. The Supreme Court ruling has also forced the government to give Parliament the final say on triggering Article 50, with proceedings beginning today. “This is not a game or a time for opposition for opposition’s sake”, however. I would argue it never is. Frustrating it may be to some, but I agree that revealing a more detailed plan would not be in the national interest, at least at this stage.
I believe in the EU as an exemplar of transnational democracy, political and economic cooperation, and a modern projection of progressive global power. But in stepping away from these things, as our own democracy dictates we must, there should be no ideological lingering. No clinging, misty-eyed, to the Single Market as the last vestige of our European vision if it transpires we can secure a better deal away from it, however unlikely, but the same applies to the extreme Brexiteers if we cannot. The national interest always comes first.
Andrew Bulman 