Theresa
May's supporters have been presenting the comments of Angela Merkel,
that she wants to be able to do a trade deal with Britain, and the
decision of the EU Council to start internal discussions on the kind
of deal they might offer, as some kind of success. It is simply an
indication of the extent to which their desperation is leading them
into further self-delusion.
Merkel and
other EU Ministers have simply cut off the potential for the Tory
party's Loony Right being able to claim that the EU was being
obstructive, and thereby pushing May into breaking off talks and
pushing a sharp, hard Brexit. It has helped to isolate the hard
Brexiters, but with Corbyn and Co also in Brussels, it is also
increasing the pressure for May and the Tory soft Brexiters to come
to some kind of a deal with Labour. It is an indication of the EU
politicians, as they have been all along, being several moves ahead
of the hapless Brexiteers.
The EU, as
expected said that not enough progress had been made on the first
stage talks to justify moving on to trade talks. Whilst Merkel, Tusk
and others played good cop, holding out an olive branch to May,
Juncker played bad copy, saying that he would have used the word
“deadlocked” four times, as opposed to Barnier's use of the term
three times. The fact is that there is a logjam, and it is is of the
British government's making. It is still hard to see how the UK
negotiators can get out out of it, and this is the easy bit of the
negotiations. The difficulties are both political and technical for
the UK politicians.
The
Finances
Britain has
tried to muddy the waters in relation to the financial settlement.
It comes down to this. Imagine that a couple decide to divorce. In
the previous years they have agreed to have a family, and now have
three kids, and they have also agreed to send the kids to a fee
paying school. They have also bought a house, and taken out a thirty
year mortgage to pay for it. Now as they divorce, they are to sell
the house. But, they are in negative equity. It is quite
reasonable, that both parties are required to share the cost of
covering the mortgage debt that exceeds the market price obtained in
the sale of the house. And, the fact that one parent has custody of
the kids does not excuse the other parent from having to meet their
commitments to covering the cost of bringing up the kids, and paying
their school fees for the next ten years and so on.
What the
Tories are trying to do is to get out of the cost of paying for the
kids upbringing, on the basis that they do not have custody, and they
are trying to deny any liability for the mortgage debt outstanding.
What Theresa may offered in her Florence speech was to pay €20
billion, to cover expenses up to 2020. In effect, she is only
offering to pay what would in any case be the membership fees for
that period, when she is trying to obtain a transitional membership
of the customs union and single market. Its as though, during the
divorce proceedings, she is saying she will stay in the house, and
pay her half of the monthly mortgage payment, and the school fees.
But, that
does not begin to address the longer term financial commitments that
have to be resolved, such as the costs of EU civil servants pensions,
and so on, which extend decades into the future. The Tories
repeatedly talk in bland terms of meeting their commitments, but
without nailing down the definitions of exactly what those
commitments are, such statements are meaningless. May knows that
technically this is easy to resolve. It is simply a matter of
nailing down those commitments, and agreeing to cough up what Britain
owes. Ultimately, whether Britain pays €20 billion or €100
billion is irrelevant, because for a $2 trillion economy, either sum
is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, especially as the latter
would almost certainly be paid in stages. The idea that this is a
stumbling block or the main issue for the EU is also silly, because
for a $14 trillion EU economy, the sums are even more trivial.
The problem
is political. The EU cannot allow Britain to get away without
meeting its commitments, because that would send very bad signals,
but more importantly it has no need to do so. It is the EU in the
driving sat, and it is the UK that triggered Article 50. The problem
for May is that if she agrees to pay what Britain owes, she will face
a revolt from her Loony Right, and may have to rely on support from
Labour to face them down. But, in many ways the question of the
money is the easiest to resolve.
EU
Citizens in Britain
The issue of EU citizens living in Britain should also be easy to
resolve technically. All it requires is for those citizens to be
granted the same rights they have now, and for a reciprocal
arrangement for UK citizens living in the EU. The cost of doing that
is pretty minimal. In fact, given that those EU workers make a net
contribution to the British economy, not doing so represents a cost.
But, again the problem is political. Firstly, a large core of the
37% who voted for Brexit is accounted for by that 25% of the
population that self-describes itself as racist. Recent vox pops,
show a significant number of these bigots, particularly amongst the
older sections of the population, who not only want to stop further
immigration, but who want to send existing EU citizens back home.
There has been a notable increase in xenophobic attacks since the
Brexit vote, and it is not surprising, therefore, that EU politicians
are keen to ensure that the three million EU citizens living in
Britain have the protection of the European Court of Justice behind
them. Many of those citizens when they have come to apply for UK
citizenship have found that their path has been obstructed, not least
by the 84 page application form they have to fill in to do so. But,
a main bugbear for the Tory Loony Right has always been the ECJ, and
they are determined not to allow it any jurisdiction.
Ireland
Politically, the question of Ireland is the easiest to resolve,
because on all sides there is agreement that the foundations of the
Good Friday Agreement should not be imperilled, and that there should
be no return to any kind of border between the North and the
Republic. The problem is that this is technically impossible to
achieve on the basis of the conditions that the Tories have already
set down. From the beginning Theresa May has said that Britain is
not only leaving the EU, but is also leaving the single market and
the customs union. But, if you leave the customs union, then that
means that there has to be a customs border between the EU and
Britain. That means a border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic, and a border between Gibraltar and Spain. That is a
contradiction in aims that cannot be bridged.
Britain has said that in order to resolve this issue its necessary to
couple it with the stage 2 trade talks. If as part of its aims in
those trade talks, Britain was proposing to remain in the customs
union that would be a valid argument, but Britain has already said
that its aim is to be outside the customs union. If Britain is
outside the customs union, no amount of discussion on future trade
arrangements can overcome the requirement for a border. The only
alternative would be if the EU allowed Britain to be outside the
customs union and single market, and yet to still have free access to
those institutions. That, obviously is what Britain wants to
achieve, and is the reason it has tried to tie the two things
together at this stage, but it is impossible to have your cake and
eat it in this way. There is absolutely no way that the EU can allow
the UK to be outside the single market and customs union, to make no
contribution to those organisations, and also thereby to be free to
make its own trade deals with other countries, and yet still have
access to the single market and customs union, as though it were
still a member. For the EU to do that would be to sign its own death
warrant. It makes no more sense than for a trades union to give
preferential treatment to non-members as opposed to members.
If Britain wants to have no border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic and between Spain and Gibralatar, it has to agree to remain
inside the customs union. But, then May will not be able to sell
that to her Loony backbenchers. If Britain is outside the customs
union then there has to be a border between Spain and Gibraltar and
between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Its not just a question
of the goods moving backwards and forwards across the border. In
Ireland, any such border will quickly result in a return of the
rampant smuggling that characterised the past. Many of those engaged
in that smuggling are parts of sectarian gangs, and it will not take
long for the more extreme of those to use the finances raised by such
activities to resume the violent conflict of the past.
On top of that, EU citizens will be free to fly into the republic,
and then to simply walk across the border into the North, and from
there they can simply cross into the UK mainland. Any idea the
Brexiters might have of reducing immigration, would, thereby go out
of the door on day one. Britain outside the single market and
customs union is simply incompatible with the idea of there being no
border between the Republic and the North of Ireland, or between
Spain and Gibraltar.
So, although the EU has given Britain more time to resolve these
irreconcilable contradictions, its unlikely they will do so, and even
less likely they will do so by Christmas. The idea that even if
stage 2 talks started in January a trade deal could be agreed by next
October is ridiculous, because those negotiations will be even more
difficult than the current ones. What the EU have also done is to
give businesses in Britain time to start making preparations for
moving out, rather than facing a sudden cliff edge if the Tory
Loonies had forced a walk-out. Many of those businesses have already
said that December was a cut-off for them.
It makes sense for the big banks to start to move their operations to
Frankfurt where the ECB is based. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs
has already been tweeting to that effect.
The UK economy already facing rising inflation as the value of the
Pound erodes due to Brexit, and facing increasing stagnation as its
productivity slows, and businesses fail to invest due to Brexit
induced uncertainty is set for a tough time, with no end to it in
sight.
Labour would do well to create clear blue water between it and the
Tories and the Brexit chaos they are bringing about. Now is the time
for Labour to set out clearly just what a mistake Brexit is, and just
how much people were deliberately misled by people such as Farage,
Trump, Johnson and co. Labour should commit itself to a clear
opposition to Brexit, and begin campaigning for Article 50 to be
revoked, before it is too late.
3 comments:
I wish that "Politically, the question of Ireland is the easiest to resolve" were true, but I doubt that it is. I suspect it will prove to be the hardest question to answer and thus the one on which the talks ultimately founder. That all parties are trying to ignore the Irish question at present is revealing.
For all the chuntering, there is a natural constituency within the UK to compromise with the EU27 on our financial obligations. Most remainers consider it a matter of principle to pay our tab in full, while there are enough leavers who would be happy to pay "over the odds" in order to be promptly shot of the EU (or accelerate trade talks) to dissipate the media furore.
Likewise, there is an obvious compromise available on EU citizens' rights in general, involving a generous grant to those in situ combined with a new draconian regime of migration post-Brexit. The latter will no doubt include exemptions to keep business happy, plus high-profile theatrics to keep the tabloids happy.
The problem remains Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement absorbed the Republic's constitutional claim to the North into UK law, albeit with a formal condition of majority support within the 6 counties. It also created binational institutions that have been interpreted by legal observers as amounting to "co-sovereignty", and explicitly committed to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into NI law, over and above its UK incorporation via the Human Rights Act.
The terms of the GFA can be maintained, but this would not only entail accepting qualified sovereignty but increasingly require exceptions to be made for NI, for example in respect of Irish citizens immigrating to NI post-Brexit or if the Human Rights Act were repealed in the UK. Just as with the Single Market and Customs Union, the DUP is opposed to anything that smacks of "special status", as it considers this would be a further erosion of NI's position with the UK (their attitude to the GFA is "thus far and no further").
Politically, the DUP would be happy to see the GFA weakened, if that could be sold as the consequence of bad faith by the EU or the Republic. The party's expectation is that Brexit will strengthen their position so there is no need to seek further compromise with the nationalists, hence their digging-in-of-heels over the language act. A "no deal" in Northern Ireland means a deal centred on the word "no", which has an obvious historial resonance.
David,
If you read again what I said, I think you will see that we are saying the same thing. I was saying that the finances and citizens rights were political problems for Theresa May to resolve, because she has to balance the desire to do a deal by some in her party, even if that means coughing up more money, or making concessions over the ECJ, with hostility to either of those things by her Loony Right. But, technically neither of those things are otherwise difficult to achieve.
On the other hand, both the Remainers and Hard Brexiters can agree that their should not be a reintroduction of the border. Politically, therefore, there is a shared end goal. The trouble is that technically it is impossible to achieve that goal, if your other requirement is that Britain should be outside the Customs Union, because by definition that means the reintroduction of a border around Britain, including around Northern Ireland.
There have been numerous EU politicians in the last couple of days appearing on TV who clearly understand this point, and who have pointed out both that the Tories aims are faced with an irreconcilable contradiction in that regard, and that it remains the Tories job to resolve that contradiction, and not the job of the EU to provide the solution to it for them.
Just a quick one about the border between Gibraltar (EU) and Spain (EU). Having visited Gibraltar from Spain whilst on holiday, I can only emphasise the costs of a hard border, as it exists already. Long queues to get over either way, two lots of police and customs officers both sides, and the need for every coach to be searched while passengers get off and walk with passports through customs points. I'm all for people having jobs, but if there were not the customs differences, there would be no need for any of this and the staff involved could do something else with their lives. Indeed, borders demonstrate the levels of waste of human potential under capitalism, as do so much supervision and security-related activities.
Leaving the EU, which does have some merits, will just add to these costs and the waste involved. Hope as they might otherwise, the Tories and their DUP friends will witness hard borders re-appearing between the 26 and 6 counties. I'm sure everyone voting for Leave was fully aware of this!
Post a Comment