Brexit has reached a critical point of clarity. For the past year and a half EU negotiators have consistently said there are only two viable trading relationships for the UK after exit: continued membership of the single market and customs union (the Norway option) or a looser arrangement based on a free trade deal (the Canada route).
Brexit has reached a critical point of clarity. For the past year and a half EU negotiators have consistently said there are only two viable trading relationships for the UK after exit: continued membership of the single market and customs union (the Norway option) or a looser arrangement based on a free trade deal (the Canada route). Yet Theresa May has squandered much political capital on advocating bespoke proposals for a midway option, keeping the UK aligned to the EU for goods. The British prime minister’s hopes were dealt a heavy blow this week. The Salzburg meeting of EU leaders laid bare the binary choice that faces, and has always faced, the UK. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, stated flatly that her socalled Chequers plan “ would not work” as it undermines the single market. In response, Mrs May warned that Britain must be treated with “respect” and “serious engagement” was needed. Again, she rejected both off-the-shelf options. The gloomy intonations in Salzburg caught many by surprise. More attention should have been paid to what the EU has said in public and private. A difficult reckoning with reality was always going to be part of the script; this will not be the last time that the prospect of a Brexit deal appears elusive. The blunt language from Mr Tusk and EU leaders increases the pressure on Mrs May — an uncomfortable prospect with her Conservative party conference approaching. Hardline Tories are pressing for a tougher stance. It is difficult to see how this makes a deal more achievable. Nonetheless, a smooth Brexit—to protect trade and diplomatic relations — remains in the interest of all parties. Along with resolving the economic relationship, the remaining critical obstacle to a deal is the Irish border. The EU’s proposals for a “backstop” solution risks breaking up the UK and creating different customs zones for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. EU leaders must recognise this is unacceptable. Mrs May has pledged fresh proposals to break the impasse. To succeed, these must avoid the error of trying to undermine the core principles of the EU. The Irish problem speaks to a wider challenge. Throughout the Brexit debate, toomuch attention has been paid to British politics — particularly the wants and whims of the Tories. But other European countries face great political challenges, too. Populist forces are on the rise from Italy to Sweden. The common thread is a revolt against Brussels. The EU27 leaders are not out to punish the UK, yet they cannot agree to a deal that confers advantages to leavers. The EU has to insist on the rule book and the terms of membership. If a deal is struck, it will still face the final hurdle of passing through the House of Commons. There is no majority among MPs for a hard or no-deal Brexit. There may be a path through parliament for a softer Brexit. But the arithmetic is tight. The best Mrs May can hope for now is to secure a “ blind Brexit”, where the only legally binding terms are those regarding the UK’s withdrawal. The details of the crucial future relationship are likely to be fudged and unspecific. This may result in a deal that is acceptable to MPs. But it would be wholly unsatisfactory. Vital questions about the nation’s future would be pushed into the transition period. A potential cliff edge would simply be shifted from March 2019 to December 2020. That means yet more uncertainty for businesses and citizens. As the talks move towards their conclusion, it is increasingly apparent that there is no good outcome. The focus over the next few weeks must now be on damage limitation to prevent a disastrous no-deal exit inimical to all.
