The Boris Johnson government and the European Union loathe each other. They are far apart about Brexit. There is no secret about any of that. This week, though, they have also got themselves into a confrontation over whether they can even talk to one another about Brexit. That squabbling continued on Tuesday. It should be seen for what it is, a second-order procedural dispute. The two sides should try to move on, because the consequences of not talking will be serious, and not just for Britain, the principal culprit.
It is possible the row is simply for show. In its determination to leave by 31 October, the Johnson government has already practically embraced a no-deal Brexit. It knows it must sound open to talks. But it absolutely does not want to be trapped in the kind of manoeuvres that strangled the life out of Theresa May’s government. Talks are generally more popular with the public than no talks. Parliament is opposed to no deal. But talks that produced a new compromise could threaten the cohesion both of the UK government and of the painstakingly unified EU27. Neither side is eager for that.
Both sides behave as if there is no room for manoeuvre between them. But the slide of the pound and a surge in support for Scottish independence are among recent reminders of how much is at stake elsewhere. Even Mr Johnson must know that optimistic rhetoric may not be enough to stave off recession and keep the UK together. And the risks of no deal are not confined to the UK but to significant parts of the EU, notably Ireland. Even the Johnson government still claims to want a deal. So does the EU. They should thus find a way of holding the talks they each say they want to hold but which each claims the other is making impossible.
Both sides are trying to get the other to blink first. Downing Street said on Tuesday that Mr Johnson “wants to meet EU leaders and negotiate a new deal”. At more or less the same time the EU said it wants to talk “should the UK wish to clarify its position in more detail”. The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, offered another formulation. “Our position is that the withdrawal agreement including the backstop is closed. But there is always room for talks and negotiations,” he said in Northern Ireland.
There are very different approaches here, as well as very different goals. Yet if such words have meaning, they mean the two sides want talks that could save them from no deal. It is not necessarily true that these would be doomed to fail. Mr Johnson says the EU must drop the Northern Ireland backstop from the withdrawal agreement. The EU says the withdrawal agreement, including the Irish backstop, is not going to change. In this hall of diplomatic mirrors, that leaves some room for discussion about timing and implementation. It should surely be taken.
The question underlying all of this for Mr Johnson is whether there is some formulation on the backstop that the EU is prepared to make, that can keep his party together, win a majority in parliament and enable him to claim a breakthrough that provides a springboard for an election win that dishes the Brexit party. That is a very big ask, especially under the pressure of the 31 October deadline. Many suspect that Mr Johnson has already decided it is unachievable in the time remaining. But it may all the same be a less fraught route to his risk-laden goals than allowing a crash-out from the EU that rallies the remainers to take their revenge and whose consequences in the food industry and on the petrol station forecourts frighten public opinion in ways to which his bullish bombast proves wholly unequal.
