Months have gone by and ”strong and stable”, once the battle cry of the Tories, would be singularly misplaced as a trade mark for this government´s negotiating stance. In fact if negotiating is indeed the correct word for something that is becoming more farcical every day. The quest for Theresa May´s ”deep and special relationship” with the EU is becoming more and more elusive. The 27 members of the EU have drawn up three red lines via their chief negotiator Michel Barnier. The so called divorce bill, citizen´s rights and the Irish border. These red lines being not in the form of concrete proposals but a statement that these issues must be satisfactorily resolved before negotiations on anything else can begin. In taking this approach the EU is showing an unwillingness to put itself into a situation that could easily get out of hand at a later stage and result in some undesirable consequences. Unpreparedly rushing into Article 50 as the British government did, should be warning enough.
The basics of successful negotiating are rather simple. You should: 1.Know what you want. 2.Thoroughly understand and stick to your red lines. 3.Have a list of various acceptable compromises. This is really where the problem lies and the root of that problem is easily traced back to an inane question in the referendum a year ago. In itself the question was quite clear, as would a ”Remain” answer have been . ”Leave” on the other hand has caused quite a gaffufel underlining the theory it was an unexpected answer and has given rise to a few Tory headaches.
If somebody asked me if I ever thought of leaving my golf club, I would not be alone in understanding the consequences of such a decision e.g not having to pay the annual fees. Feigning surprise at suddenly not enjoying the club´s facilities nor being able to play the course would simply invite derision. Not so with the UK. Suddenly, leaving meant so many different things and great importance was attached to getting a ”good deal” to retain as many benefits as possible. Why leave in the first place you might ask? It is becoming crystal clear though, amongst all the fudge, that a ”good deal” for Britain as a non member and one acceptable to the EU would be akin to watering your whisky and proudly exclaiming you don´t drink alcohol anymore. Much like a ”pretend Brexit.” In fact a scenario involving political abdication concerning membership, meaning no influence on EU lawmaking, might even result in the EU having more influence on the UK than before Brexit.
Understandably this kind of deal is not something your common or garden Brexiter would be over the moon about not to mention the Tory rabid right. From a business point of view this might be acceptable over a transition period but more than that it can hardly have appeal to anyone. At best it might be considered a reasonably good deal if coupled to talks on ”where do we go post transition” Now we are back to the EU´s three red lines. There will be no trade talks until the big three are resolved. This is the Catch 22 that came as a result of hastily and arrogantly invoking Article 50. All three red lines are intrinsically coupled to the post Brexit ”deep and special relationship” and even though they are open-minded red lines they cannot be solved without revealing the nature of that relationship during transition and after. The likelihood of David Davis or Theresa May finding a solution acceptable to the EU, the Tory right-wing and the, key to the door, DUP are least said slight. With a ”good deal” not being within grasp, it boils down to Donald Tusk´s last two alternatives. Both might be considered quick fixes, at least in the short term.
The one a ”no deal,” also referred to as the UK crashing out of the EU, is to many the answer that was implicit in the referendum. That may be so but analysing the information that answer was based on and the catastrophic economic and political consequences for the UK, there is little conviction in the argument that this is ”the will of the people.” If this ”no deal” was at anytime an alternative then Theresa May would have stood by her red lines concerning the budget bill, controlling immigration and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Last but not least ”no Brexit.” All things point to the possibility of this being an option, both legally and politically. The irony here is that the more damage the economy suffers before March 2019 the greater the likelihood of a ”no Brexit” yet also resulting in less domestic political damage as people begin to understand the ramifications of Donald Tusk´s first two alternatives. Revoking Article 50 will extricate the UK from the nightmare that the result of the referendum plunged the country into. Much will be on track again but it will definitely not be a quick fix. The country is divided and even with a changed mood there will be resentment and a feeling that somebody shot the Unicorn. Theresa May will no longer be of interest, at best pitied. The Tory party, sullied by the likes of Boris Johnson who profess patriotism yet exhibit the opposite will need a makeover. The ”no Brexit” UK will no longer be facing economic purgatory but will have to do more to improve peoples lives, re-distribute income and put the disgusting tabloids and xenophobia in their place using the tools of economics, information and education. The world will stop laughing when the Brexit joke is over but never fear, like Suez, it will not be forgotten. Jeremy Corbyn talks about a ”Brexit for the many not the few.”
There is no such thing Jeremy but there is a ”No Brexit for the many not the few.”