[ad_1]
WWhat Boris Johnson once described as a failure of government is now looming over Downing Street. As Britain prepares to end normal business contact with the rest of Europe, we must try to understand the end that is going through the prime minister’s mind.
Johnson has selfishly ensured that the final resolution rests with him. Only a major last-minute concession from him personally can prevent the economic calamity of a no-deal Brexit. In the Commons this week, he seemed to be pumping out anti-EU rhetoric, reveling in the cheers of what must be a small band of no-deal enthusiasts. Can you now find the guts to back off?
Throughout the negotiations, the Great Britain team has misjudged the weakness of its position. All that was required was a continuation treaty for the UK to trade freely with its 27 neighbors, as it had done for 40 years. At stake was 43% of the UK’s total export trade; in contrast, according to 2016 figures, the UK represents only 16% of the EU export market. It was never conceivable that the UK could dictate the terms of a treaty. The issue had nothing to do with democracy or sovereignty, just the terms on which each side wanted to do business.
Conservatives politicized the negotiations throughout. Constantly asserting that Britain would be better off doing deals with the rest of the world invited the EU to take a tougher position late in the game than it did in the beginning. However, the prospect of a trade deal that could make up for Britain’s lost trade with the EU was always illusory. Johnson often cites Canada’s agreement with the EU, but the Canadian equivalent of the EU is the United States.
Until the last minute, the only problem that remained seemed to be related to fishing, where the British fishing fleet has certainly been at a disadvantage. Both parties appeared to be close to reaching an agreement. But Britain has made this area a matter of principle, and duly invited France to retaliate with intransigence, promising to veto any deal that sacrifices the demand for continued EU fishing access to British waters. This was inept.
The same stubbornness seems to have prevented progress on the tedious issue of a level playing field. The fact that this has become a deal breaker makes me wonder if adult diplomats were ever at the table. Everyone has an interest in fair trade; a weakened Britain even more so than a strong Europe. If the UK wishes to continue to operate as it does now, it must obviously accept a continuity of common standards. If the competition is not fair, business partners will not tolerate it.
How equity is regulated is essentially a technical question. In this case, Britain left the EU and voluntarily retired from a role in setting the regulations. That was the price of Brexit. Until last week, the EU’s Michel Barnier proposed that if Britain changed its laws in a way that the EU considered detrimental to competition, the EU could impose unilateral “lightning” tariffs on UK products. But from the start, the EU was determined not to make it seem advantageous for member states to leave. British negotiators should have known.
Throughout the negotiations, it has been difficult to know what Johnson’s strategy is, other than getting publicity for every turn of events. The negotiations were subject to a barrage of bombast from London, in addition to bad faith assertions by ministers, since their withdrawal, that they were willing to violate international law on the Northern Ireland protocol. In the level playing field, Johnson was reduced to demanding the UK’s “right” to subsidize export industries, undermining inter-channel competition. This was as diplomatically implausible as it was ideologically bizarre. A conservative should welcome a regulated free market, not seek the freedom to corrupt it.
If an agreement is not reached by this Sunday, the cost to employment and economic growth will be immense. The police will lose access to vital EU data. British farmers could be affected by the tariffs. Scientific cooperation will be hampered. The British will find it difficult and expensive to travel the continent. Healthcare abroad will no longer be free. By a 2018 estimate, no deal would bring a savage 7.7% revenue loss to the British economy over the next 10 years, now in addition to the costs of the pandemic. The clock for half a century of pan-European cooperation would be turned back decades.
None of this was in Johnson’s meager Brexit manifesto, and it’s no secret why. Had the middle house been adopted to remain in the European single market, this fiasco could have been avoided. No one in the Brexit field can begin to explain why the insanity of not reaching a deal benefits anyone. Only Johnson can stop him, and he must stop him.
• Simon Jenkins is a columnist for The Guardian
