Dawning realisation

The third round of Brexit negotiations, which started this week, has not gone well. Michel Barnier has called on the UK to start "negotiating seriously” as the mood across the continent hardens against the British government's policy of constructive ambiguity. There are, of course, two sides to this story. One is the domestic shenanigans which increasingly dominate the UK debate as the government slowly gets to grips with the enormity of the task at hand (shamefully slowly, many would say). The view from continental Europe is far less strident, almost bordering on indifference. Brexit is seen as a problem for Britain to sort out and come to terms with.

The domestic narrative is viewed from two sides. The Remainers have little confidence in politicians to deliver a deal, with chief negotiator David Davis known for his breezy confidence rather than his ability to knuckle down and deliver. Meanwhile, Leavers such as international trade secretary, Liam Fox, have hit back by suggesting that the EU’s position on the exit bill amounts to blackmail. Whilst I share the Remainers’ lack of confidence in the UK government’s position, the EU's approach should not be accepted uncritically as the application of fair-minded logic.

When Barnier talks about serious negotiations he really means the UK should fall into line with the EU's payment demands and only then might it be willing to talk about a trade deal. In doing so, the EU is behaving in the time-honoured fashion of a big economic block using its position to try and intimidate a smaller one, as the Greek government found to its cost, and as the UK will discover further when (or if) Fox is allowed to complete the many trade deals he claims are possible. But as I have noted before, the UK cannot realistically commit to paying a sum, the magnitude of which will likely only be revealed in 2018, without getting something concrete in return. None of this should come as a surprise, of course: We all knew that the EU would play hardball and that the UK is negotiating from a position of weakness.

There are ways out of this impasse. One possible solution floated earlier this week was that the UK pays a sum of around €10bn per year into the EU budget for the next three years in return for a transitional arrangement. This effectively means continuing to accept EU laws (freedom of movement and ECJ oversight) in return for single market access whilst losing voting rights. Indeed this is similar to the idea I floated in March except for the fact that the annual cost is too high, as it is broadly what the UK pays now in net terms. The government would have to be desperate to maintain the status quo without any voting rights. Yet according to today's Sunday Times, “Theresa May is set to approve a politically explosive Brexit bill of up to £50bn after the Conservative Party conference in October in an effort to kickstart trade talks with the European Union. Under plans being drawn up in Whitehall, Britain would pay between £7bn and £17bn a year to Brussels for three years after Brexit before ending sizeable direct payments into EU coffers in time for the 2022 general election.” So much for saving £350m per week (£18.2bn per year) to spend on the NHS.

Meanwhile, the public appear to be getting a little restless. There is concern that negotiations are not proceeding as rapidly as anticipated and that the UK will be forced to accept a deal on terms which they were promised would not happen. Indeed, the DailyTelegraph recently carried an article by the European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, who responded to claims that the EU was being inflexible in its negotiating tactics by pointing out that the EU had actually been very flexible in offering membership on terms which suited Britain. "An opt-out from the euro, but banker to the Eurozone. An opt-out from Schengen, but access to the security databases linked to it. A blanket opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs, with the possibility to opt back into the most effective crime-fighting measures. The list goes on." All true, of course, and exactly what I pointed out in the wake of the referendum. What was notable was that the Telegraph offered Verhofstadt such a platform in the first place. This was after all the newspaper which in August 2016 blamed the economic problems facing the UK on "the pessimism of the previous government, the Labour Party, Barack Obama, global institutions, sections of the media and, of course, the Bank [of England]". The gung-ho confidence of the Brexiteers which characterised parts of the media a year ago has dissipated.

For that, much of the blame should be directed at those prominent campaigners who argued that the EU would be begging to do a deal and "they need us more than we need them". Moreover, those naive campaigners who suggested that "absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" clearly miscalculated the EU's position. Unfortunately, this problem has been exacerbated by the UK government's own decision to leave the single market and customs union (even if the letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50 did not explicitly suggest the latter).

In a way, this goes to the heart of the domestic Brexit contradiction. The electorate apparently voted to regain sovereignty, which for many meant controlling borders (i.e. immigration). But many of the leading campaigners are free marketeers who simply want to trade more freely. The fact that they are fantasists with an old-fashioned liberal view of the world (some call themselves Whigs) is where the trouble starts. They have the influence and political clout but no practical idea of how to achieve what they want. More importantly they have totally failed to understand the EU and what it stands for. For many Brits EU membership is a transactional arrangement, but for the original six members there is a much deeper political commitment. The hero of many free-traders is Adam Smith, who pointed out the benefits of comparative advantage – specialising in what you are good at. But that only works if the trading arrangements under which we operate allow everyone to benefit. The ideological thrust at the heart of the free-traders’ campaign is not consistent with the realities of modern day trading arrangements in which the UK is not a major exporter of goods and relies heavily on a services industry which sells to the rest of the EU. Faced with the evidence, maybe even a rationalist like Smith would be forced to agree that the free-trade case for Brexit is weak.

As a final thought, it is worth pointing out that Brexit is not the issue in other EU countries that it is in Britain. The EU has moved on, with France dealing with its own issues and Germany preparing for an election. Ultimately, Brexit boils down to a domestic debate about what role Britain wants to play on the world stage. It can either choose to be outward looking and deal with rising economic powers as an equal, or it can leave the EU and suffer the increasing economic irrelevance that goes with it. Boris Johnson is about to be proved wrong: you can't have your cake and eat it.