Money

Europe risks no-deal Brexit by sitting on the fence


We are about to reach an important moment in the Brexit process — but not in the UK. The leaders of the EU will meet this week in order, among other things, to review Brexit. It is the perfect moment for a massacre of the “unicorns”.

European leaders have hitherto been divided between those who want the UK to reverse Brexit, and those who want the UK to get on with it. The tide is turning towards the latter.

One accelerator has been the victory of the Brexit party in the European elections in the UK. Nigel Farage and his followers are once again framing the British debate, just as they did before for the 2015 general election. EU leaders have no appetite for going through it all again.

The best course of action for the EU remains the same today as it was in March: to confront the UK with the binary choice of whether to accept the existing withdrawal agreement or to leave without a deal at the end of October. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, argued in favour of a guillotine in April. He compromised then. But more members of the European Council are supporting him now.

Theresa May, the outgoing UK prime minister, was a good negotiator, but a poor strategist. She showed this when she framed the Brexit choice as a three-way bet — between deal, no deal and no Brexit.

The human mind has difficulty in handling interdependent three-way choices. The same goes for political systems. When confronted with such choices, we often get into a muddle — like the futile attempt to take no deal off the table when it is the legal default position and nothing else has a majority in the House of Commons.

If in December Mrs May and the EU had agreed to reduce the choices from three to two — deal versus no deal — the Commons would have had a much greater incentive to vote in favour.

If Boris Johnson succeeds Mrs May as prime minister, as I expect he will, his best course of action would be to start at the point where his predecessor lost her way. He should not bother to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. The EU will not enter fresh negotiations. He could procure a new political declaration, and then present the package as a final, fateful choice.

For that strategy to be credible, Mr Johnson would need the EU to behave as an active co-conspirator. With a hard deadline, the House of Commons, not the prime minister, chooses between deal and no deal. There would be no need to prorogue the UK parliament over its own choice. Best of all, we would no longer have to hear from Tory candidates about negotiating skills. There would be nothing left to negotiate.

For a binary choice of a deal v no deal to be credible, of course, the threat of no deal cannot be a bluff. EU leaders must prepare for it. They should ask the European Commission to ensure a free flow of vital supplies.

A confidential cabinet memo seen by the FT in the past week warned that a no-deal Brexit would endanger pharmaceutical supplies into the UK. My understanding is that the problem goes in both directions. The EU should not, therefore, be flippant about how the UK would be worse off under no deal.

EU leaders should also give some thought to the future relationship. If the withdrawal agreement is passed, the talks will start soon. If not, the EU, the UK and Ireland will have to find immediate arrangements for the Irish border. Whatever is agreed, the Irish backstop will quickly become a distant memory. The UK has already legislated to ensure the rights of EU citizens. I have no doubt that it will also settle its financial obligations. The backstop, citizens’ rights, money and the transition period were the main items in the withdrawal treaty, all to be superseded in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

I am among those who are willing to give Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement a chance of posthumous success. This is why I am not yet ready to predict a no-deal outcome. The probability of such a result, however, has always been higher than most commentators suggested.

Why? Wishful thinking may play a role. Not every commentator or MP has bothered to read Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Everything I have been saying about deal v no deal is in there. The European Court of Justice added to this very succinct text the idea of unilateral revocation. And that’s it — the entire universe of choices.

The next prime minister should offer the Commons one last chance of an agreed Brexit. The European Council should help them — not by opening up the withdrawal agreement but by ruling out another extension. European leaders should recognise that they could end up triggering a no-deal Brexit simply by sitting on the fence.

munchau@eurointelligence.com



READ SOURCE

Leave a Reply

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.