Deal or no deal? What does Boris Johnson want?

Rumor has it about the British prime minister’s intentions with his threat of breach of contract with the EU.

Leon Neal / Getty

Boris Johnson is not a politician who runs from risk. The fact that he doesn’t follow clear principles makes him unpredictable and he enjoys leaving his opponents in the dark. A year ago, he only reached a last-minute deal with EU partners on a Brexit treaty – Johnson downplayed the fact that this provided for Northern Ireland to remain in the EU’s internal market and thus certain property controls to the British Isles. Now the prime minister has submitted a market law to parliament that threatens to break the recently sealed Brexit treaty for two reasons. Meanwhile, he made the adventurous accusation that Brussels wanted to block the British food supply to Northern Ireland. And at the national level, the openly propagated violation of international law has caused contradictions in the ranks of its conservatives, who traditionally see themselves as guardians of law and order.

Deal ends Brexit debate

Johnson has now tried to contain the party rebellion. Ahead of groundbreaking lower house debates next week, he tabled an amendment giving Parliament the right to block a specific breach of the Brexit treaty. But whether this will calm minds in the House of Lords is questionable. Furthermore, the debate in Westminster seems quite self-centered: from an EU perspective, whether the British parliament or government breaks the Brexit treaty is of secondary importance. Brussels has finally asked London to withdraw the controversial passages of the law and will likely have to take the first steps to resolve the dispute in early October in the context of the Brexit treaty to remain credible. So what is Johnson aiming for with his targeted escalation?

It’s conceivable that Johnson still wants a free trade deal and is lobbying the EU. It is reported from EU circles that despite the dispute over the Brexit treaty, free trade agreements will not be canceled on their own initiative. Johnson also claims he’s aiming for a deal. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything. But for him there are not only economic but also political reasons for a free trade agreement. For example, an unregulated end of the Brexit transition period in early 2021 could boost Scotland’s independence efforts and hamper efforts to establish a global network of free trade agreements – in the US, Congressmen and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is already warning London not to break the Brexit treaty. Endangering peace in Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, a free trade agreement with the United States would not be an option for them.

Last but not least, Johnson also has a political power interest in keeping his electoral promise with a deal. In the Crown crisis, the government leaves a less than competent impression: a chaotic Brexit threatened to solidify this image. Robert Shrimsley, the lead political commentator for the Financial Times, also argues that a no-deal Brexit would not end the fight for relations with Brussels, but would rather extend it well beyond 2021, with old options such as joining the EU at the final. – the internal market would re-emerge. According to Shrimsley, Johnson therefore absolutely needs a free trade agreement to finally clarify the Brexit issue, and because many Johnson voters in late 2019 did not vote for the most radical cut possible with the EU, but in advance for the end of the exhausting Brexit turmoil.

A no-deal Brexit brings regulatory autonomy

However, it is conceivable that Johnson is targeting a no-deal Brexit, and he blames the EU for it. The renowned expert and former British ambassador in Brussels, Ivan Rogers, defends this thesis in an interview. With the law of the market, the government launched a spiral without agreements from which both parties could hardly find a way out. He doesn’t think Johnson has always wanted a no-deal Brexit, says Rogers. But now he believes it on the side of his senior adviser Dominic Cummings, who is pleading within the government for a radical break with Brussels.

According to Rogers, there are more and more conservative voices who believe the EU will only be ready to sign a sensible free trade deal with London after a no-deal Brexit. “Also, Cummings is confident in a new edition of last year’s Brexit culture war,” says government critic and Brexit opponent Rogers. “He is seeking a dispute with the British House of Lords and the judiciary and thinks that a meager free trade agreement can sell worse than a no-deal, for which the EU is to blame.” Cummings is on a revolutionary streak, wants to break down the old state and economic structures in Britain, and apparently plans to create a new subsidized tech industry, regardless of conservative economic principles and Brussels’ rules on state aid.

Rogers believes that Johnson, trailing Cummings with a “mid-Atlantic” Brexit, not only wants to expand his own power, but also wants to bring the country strategically closer to the United States. “Britain has a choice to remain European and orient itself to the Brussels rules or to enter the American orbit with the Washington rules,” says Rogers. “Ironically, both options offer little national control and sovereignty.”

Waiting for the American elections?

Ultimately, it is conceivable that Johnson is still undecided whether to go for a deal or a no-deal Brexit. The main factor is the course of free trade talks with the EU, which may continue beyond the official deadline of the end of October. Rogers believes Johnson could even try to keep all options open until the US presidential election in November. Biden’s election would speak in favor of a free trade agreement with the EU, as Biden would renew ties with Berlin and Paris and defend Dublin’s interests in Northern Ireland. But if Trump wins, Johnson could switch to a no-deal deal with Brussels and a quickly concluded trade deal with Washington. “A re-election of Trump and a no-deal Brexit threaten a deep rift in the Western world,” says Rogers. “I wonder if this geostrategic dimension is sufficiently taken into account in EU capitals.”