Today represents another hurdle in May’s battle for/against/whatever she’s now doing with Brexit, involving a meeting of the Brexit subcommittee. What makes it all the more daunting is that the prime minister has lost an ally in Amber Rudd on the subcommittee. She is also near the point where continuing to fudge everything is becoming impossible. Having said that though, May has seemed at a point where fudging would have to end before, and she always finds a way to do it some more, so perhaps this will be more of the same.
If I were Theresa May, and I appreciate that I am not in more ways than one, I would call a halt to the fudging today. I would say to the Brexit subcommittee something along these lines:
“I realise that around this table there are many differences of opinion on how the final settlement with the European Union should look once we leave the EU. Some of you appear to be dead set against any sort of customs arrangement with the EU whatsoever. I have heard your point of view and considered it carefully. However, as the person who has had to be front and centre during these negotiations with the EU, I can say for certain that, in my view, a customs arrangement – and being honest here, a customs union – will be absolutely required by the European Commission if we wish to keep the border with Northern Ireland open.”
“Some of you favour a technological solution. Besides the fact that this is practically impossible at present, the European Commission have rejected this proposal outright. It has come to this: either we accept a hard border in Ireland or we do not. I, having promised that there would be no hard border in Ireland of any kind, am not willing to roll back on this pledge. This means if I remain prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I will be coming to an agreement with the EU that involves the UK remaining in a customs union.”
“Having heard what I intend to do, I leave it up to you to decide if you wish to depose me as leader of the Conservative Party. I would warn you against doing so, as I feel certain it will place the Brexit negotiations into a perilous position. I would go as far as to say that asking me to step down at this time may even imperil Brexit taking place at all, given the thin nature of our majority. I would even add that you are very much risking Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister with such a manoeuvre – but I leave that to you to ponder. All I can say is that I have now made up my mind about what I think is the only reasonable step that can be made regarding EU-UK customs arrangements post-Brexit and so long as I remain prime minister, I will act in accordance with this.”
How about, ‘I have decided to call the EU’s bluff. There will be no customs union; and also, we will not impose a hard border in Ireland on our side. If the EU wants to say a hard border is necessary without a customs union, and impose one on their side, then we will make sure everyone knows that is their choice, not ours.’
Except it would be the WTO’s choice, not the EU’s, technically speaking. Although the EU would indeed have a need to impose a hard border along an external customs border anyhow. Worth adding that it also means no transitional deal, meaning a nightmare for certain sectors, in addition to the UK being in no way ready for such a thing.
I’m sure the EU could fudge things if they really wanted to.
If they don’t, well, the consequences of that are on them.
Also, under WTO most favoured nation rules, if we choose to have no border with Ireland (and hence the EU) we cannot have a border with any country. This would destroy farming and manufacturing and probably other industries very quickly.
Not true at all. ‘Having a hard border’ and ‘having no trade barriers’ are not at all the same thing. WTO rules are about trade barriers, not physical barriers.
For instance, at the moment, there is no physical border across Ireland, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t goods on which duty is due when they enter the UK from Ireland (famously, for example, petrol smuggling, avoiding UK fuel duty, is rife in the bandit country).
There’s no reason this situation couldn’t continue, where there are no physical checks but smuggling is controlled through other means, just as petrol smuggling is now.
It might take a big of goodwill and willingness to fudge the rules on both sides, but if we’re willing to fudge the rules in goodwill and the EU aren’t, then it’s their intransigence which is preventing the solution, not ours.
Nick
In saying this “Except it would be the WTO’s choice…” you have put your finger on a key aspect of the Border problem: the internationalisation (and judicialisation) of policy-making and implementation that should be best left at the lowest level possible for action to be taken – whether at national government level or at inter-governmental level.
There are a host of international bodies – diplomatic, bureaucratic, legal, technical, whatever – to which decisions have been incrementally outsourced upwards by governments over the past few decades for good, or at least understandable, reasons – not the least of which being the European Union and World Trade Organization.
But what happens when collective decisions taken at those higher, international bodies start cramping the style, so to speak, of western, democratically elected and accountable national governments?
Governments that tell their electors, “We can’t do that because EU/ WTO/ ECHR/ etc., rules don’t allow it, simply invite the frustrated response from voters, “Well, why not? We elected you to take action or deliver a particular policy on our behalf. If you claim you can’t or won’t do it, then we will elect someone who says they will deliver.” And consequently you get Brexit or Kurz, Trump or Viktor Orban.
Nick,
I LOVE YOU