Earlier this week Anand Menon, Director at UK in a Changing Europe, wrote an article for The Times essentially criticising the EU for 'inflexibility' and ignoring its own interests. He has always seemed very pro-EU so it was a surprising intervention. There is no suggestion that Britain has behaved any better - in fact he is if anything more critical of our side, rightly so in my opinion. His argument is essentially that the EU should stop hiding behind legalistic arguments and admit their choices are political.
He is right to identify what is a looming battle ahead, far bigger than anything we have seen so far, which has perhaps not yet been fully recognised by most people. The battle might appear political but I am not sure that Menon's plea for flexibility will make any difference. The political issues are, if anything, far more difficult than the legal ones. He begins:
"So the EU’s approach to Brexit talks has not been about law but about political choices. Not least, the dominance of the commission. There has been a lack of member-state engagement and an egregious failure (with the exception of Ireland) to think about the longer-term relationship. 'EU unity', in short supply on other substantive questions, was paraded as an end in itself, eclipsing the substance. The effect was to drive the UK away, not just from EU membership but from wider European co-operation."
It provoked a quick response on Twitter from Mutabaa Rahman, formerly of The UK Treasury and the EU Commission:
Menon implies that the UK should be allowed to cherry pick saying "Michel Barnier, EU negotiator, suggested (incredibly) that allowing selective UK access would mean 'the end of the single market and the European project'. I have no idea what causal reasoning lies behind this claim but, as Professor Stephen Weatherill points out, 'the indivisibility of the freedoms is a political construct: the legal reality is already more messy'."
There is quite a long Twitter thread but well worth reading. Meanwhile, I noted another long thread from Katya Adler, BBC European correspondent, talking about the same sort of thing, which begins with this Tweet:
"You might think it makes no sense for the EU to cut off its nose to spite its face. Surely the EU needs and wants good trade and security and diplomatic relations with post #Brexit U.K. ? True, it does. But as was the case in withdrawal agreement negotiations.
"EU will always put single market first ahead of trade and other relations with U.K. The rest of single market is far larger, more lucrative than market U.K. offers alone. Brussels is wary of harming SM in trade negotiations with U.K. Of course there will be give and take BUT
"EU believes - as did with divorce talks - that it is in the stronger position.
1) It knows Johnson has promised not to extend transition beyond 2020 - he’s under time pressure (expect a return of Barnier’s “clock is ticking” pronouncements)"
2) EU knows the debate over fishing rights and level playing field regulations are politically toxic for Johnson back home, so they will likely play long and press hard
3) EU knows U.K. will want to conclude trade deals with other countries ASAP BUT other countries will hesitate to conclude agreement with U.K. until they know what relationship it has with EU
The EU recognise that Johnson has once again weakened himself by setting an impossible, self-imposed fixed time limit of eleven months. Nobody thinks this is remotely feasible and by May or June next year industry will be shouting again about the approaching cliff edge.
Finally, it takes an item in The Irish Times by Eoin Drea, to set it all out in a wider geopolitical context. He writes:
"Viewed through the prism of a continental lens, Brexit Britain will be a Ryanair-style competitor to the EU’s established Lufthansa brand. A wild jungle of unrestrained, US-style capitalism filled with exploited and vulnerable workers. This bizarre type of socioeconomic superiority fills the narrative of unrestrained Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Unfortunately, for the EU, this view is factually incorrect and more than a little moored in cultural chauvinism."
And he goes on:
"But what Europe has failed to understand is that Brexit Britain doesn’t want to reorient British business to compete with the EU as an offshore raider. Rather, it seeks to double down on globalisation and reinforce Britain’s role as a location for global business. The protection of British business died with Thatcher, whereas in Europe it lingers like the odour of a bygone era."
And perhaps he puts his finger on the issue:
"Brexit will have a detrimental impact upon Britain, but the longer-term impact of a successful Britain on Europe may be just as serious. That is why, for Europe to thrive, Brexit Britain must fail (and fail badly)."
The looming battle is neither a political or even a legalistic one. It is much deeper and a philosophical one. It is a fight between an Anglo-Saxon consumer-led anything-goes society and a European producer-led one which seeks to entrench rights for workers and the environment. to build a better future for our children.
For our sake we must hope the EU wins.
He is right to identify what is a looming battle ahead, far bigger than anything we have seen so far, which has perhaps not yet been fully recognised by most people. The battle might appear political but I am not sure that Menon's plea for flexibility will make any difference. The political issues are, if anything, far more difficult than the legal ones. He begins:
"So the EU’s approach to Brexit talks has not been about law but about political choices. Not least, the dominance of the commission. There has been a lack of member-state engagement and an egregious failure (with the exception of Ireland) to think about the longer-term relationship. 'EU unity', in short supply on other substantive questions, was paraded as an end in itself, eclipsing the substance. The effect was to drive the UK away, not just from EU membership but from wider European co-operation."
It provoked a quick response on Twitter from Mutabaa Rahman, formerly of The UK Treasury and the EU Commission:
Rahman says Menon is wrong and that the EU were focused on the long term future relationship from the very beginning in 2016. He argues that this was driven by the EU's fundamental understanding of its own substantive long term interests: "1) Protect Single Market (as trade among 27 compared to bilateral trade with UK); 2) Protect risk of precedent (this is not something that EU can afford to be complacent over, even with opinion polls on EU moving in right direction. Salvini in Italy & his friends across EU remain a 'medium to long-term challeng') & 3) Ensure legal certainty for EU at time of UK's exit (MFF; Irish border; & EU nationals in UK)"Conclusions like this make it necessary to revisit @anandMenon1 piece. The EU bent over backwards to deliver deal UK Govt wanted. @theresa_may failed to get it through Commons. Having spent 3yrs v close to EU side, think it's imp to correct some inaccuracies in @FT piece. Thread https://t.co/SAvDWIZjhR— Mujtaba Rahman (@Mij_Europe) November 20, 2019
Menon implies that the UK should be allowed to cherry pick saying "Michel Barnier, EU negotiator, suggested (incredibly) that allowing selective UK access would mean 'the end of the single market and the European project'. I have no idea what causal reasoning lies behind this claim but, as Professor Stephen Weatherill points out, 'the indivisibility of the freedoms is a political construct: the legal reality is already more messy'."
There is quite a long Twitter thread but well worth reading. Meanwhile, I noted another long thread from Katya Adler, BBC European correspondent, talking about the same sort of thing, which begins with this Tweet:
She talks about the problems waiting down the road for a Johnson led government in the future trade talks but she also recognises, as Rahman does, the importance the EU attaches to the single market:« Not in my wildest dreams would I imagine that a possibility » is how an influential European diplomat responded to Boris Johnson’s assertion that a trade deal with the EU can be completed by December next year /1— katya adler (@BBCkatyaadler) November 21, 2019
"You might think it makes no sense for the EU to cut off its nose to spite its face. Surely the EU needs and wants good trade and security and diplomatic relations with post #Brexit U.K. ? True, it does. But as was the case in withdrawal agreement negotiations.
"EU will always put single market first ahead of trade and other relations with U.K. The rest of single market is far larger, more lucrative than market U.K. offers alone. Brussels is wary of harming SM in trade negotiations with U.K. Of course there will be give and take BUT
"EU believes - as did with divorce talks - that it is in the stronger position.
1) It knows Johnson has promised not to extend transition beyond 2020 - he’s under time pressure (expect a return of Barnier’s “clock is ticking” pronouncements)"
2) EU knows the debate over fishing rights and level playing field regulations are politically toxic for Johnson back home, so they will likely play long and press hard
3) EU knows U.K. will want to conclude trade deals with other countries ASAP BUT other countries will hesitate to conclude agreement with U.K. until they know what relationship it has with EU
The EU recognise that Johnson has once again weakened himself by setting an impossible, self-imposed fixed time limit of eleven months. Nobody thinks this is remotely feasible and by May or June next year industry will be shouting again about the approaching cliff edge.
Finally, it takes an item in The Irish Times by Eoin Drea, to set it all out in a wider geopolitical context. He writes:
"Viewed through the prism of a continental lens, Brexit Britain will be a Ryanair-style competitor to the EU’s established Lufthansa brand. A wild jungle of unrestrained, US-style capitalism filled with exploited and vulnerable workers. This bizarre type of socioeconomic superiority fills the narrative of unrestrained Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Unfortunately, for the EU, this view is factually incorrect and more than a little moored in cultural chauvinism."
And he goes on:
"But what Europe has failed to understand is that Brexit Britain doesn’t want to reorient British business to compete with the EU as an offshore raider. Rather, it seeks to double down on globalisation and reinforce Britain’s role as a location for global business. The protection of British business died with Thatcher, whereas in Europe it lingers like the odour of a bygone era."
And perhaps he puts his finger on the issue:
"Brexit will have a detrimental impact upon Britain, but the longer-term impact of a successful Britain on Europe may be just as serious. That is why, for Europe to thrive, Brexit Britain must fail (and fail badly)."
The looming battle is neither a political or even a legalistic one. It is much deeper and a philosophical one. It is a fight between an Anglo-Saxon consumer-led anything-goes society and a European producer-led one which seeks to entrench rights for workers and the environment. to build a better future for our children.
For our sake we must hope the EU wins.
