The past week has arguably been one of the most challenging for the British government since the 2016 referendum. It began with the momentous call by Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to push for a customs union with the European Union, which firmly clarified the party’s standing as a supporter of a “soft Brexit” and one that has a pragmatic answer to avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
A week full of developments
It was telling that the proposal from a party led by an avowed socialist, committed to returning large sectors of services to state ownership, was welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry as offering a “real world” solution, while Martin Donnelly, who was permanent secretary at the Department of International Trade until last year, compared Brexit to “giving up a three course meal... for the promise of a packet of crisps.”
Then came the EU’s draft Withdrawal Agreement which translated into legal terms the progress of negotiations so far. It highlighted how far apart positions remained 20 months on from the referendum. Among its suggestions was that should no other agreement be reached, Northern Ireland would remain in the customs union, creating, in effect, a border within the U.K. between the mainland and Northern Ireland. This proposal was welcomed by the Republic of Ireland and rejected outright by the Theresa May government.
The government was also forced into a damage limitation exercise, as details emerged of a leaked letter from Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson in which he suggested that even a “hard border” in Ireland would have limited impact on trade.
And if that wasn’t enough, in an extraordinary intervention, former Prime Minister John Major lambasted the current direction of government policy. He urged that a free vote be given to parliamentarians on the final deal along with the possibility of allowing for a second referendum, giving voice to the sizeable backing within the Conservative Party for a softer stance. He said in the highly acclaimed speech: “Of course, the ‘will of the people’ can’t be ignored but Parliament has a duty also to consider the well being of the people... The emerging evidence suggests Brexit will hurt most those who have the least. Neither Parliament nor government wish to see that.” This was a reference to the oft-trotted out retort in the right-wing tabloids (and among some politicians) against those who sought to suggest that Brexit entail anything other than a clear break with the European single market and customs union.
Then there was a bombshell from the U.S., which plans to slap a 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminium exported there, and belatedly on cars from the EU. This appeared to make the U.S. President’s suggestion that the U.K. and the U.S. could strike a “great” trade deal after Brexit rather questionable. The British government has signalled such deals — from the U.S. to India and Australia — would be key to its future success as a “great trading nation”.
Theresa May’s speech
With all these developments it was little wonder that Ms. May appeared nervous ahead of her key Brexit speech on March 2. With EU leaders and industry awaiting details on Britain’s stance, which has largely focussed on vision rather than substance so far, it would have been a particularly challenging time for a politician who was opposed to Brexit before the referendum. Following her speech, when asked by a journalist whether she regretted Brexit, Ms. May simply said that it was incumbent on Britain’s politicians to deliver on the results of the referendum.
Given the trying circumstances, and the competing positions of senior figures within her own party, Ms. May’s speech was arguably as good as it could have been. Facing accusations that her previous key speeches were more focussed on vision than detail, this one got down to the nitty-gritty and belied the rose-tinted vision of the future served up by some of her cabinet colleagues.
Both the EU and the U.K. would have to face some “hard facts”, she said, and life would inevitably “be different”. Access to each other’s markets would be less than it is now. “This is a negotiation and neither of us can have exactly what we want,” she said. Ms. May spelt out the details of what Britain would be willing to agree to. She said Britain may choose to commit some areas of regulations like state aid and competition to remaining in step with the EU’s, and guaranteed that Britain would not “engage in a race to the bottom on workers’ rights or the environment”. U.K. law would not necessarily be identical to EU law but would attempt to “achieve the same outcomes”. Britain and the EU should explore ways in which the U.K. could remain part of EU agencies such as those critical for chemicals, medicines and aerospace, she said. However, the EU would also need to introduce flexibility in its approach, she insisted. It had continually sought a tailored approach in its relationship with other nations, making Britain’s insistence on a specifically tweaked deal, with sector-by-sector considerations, not unreasonable.
“If this is cherry-picking, every trade deal is cherry-picking,” she said. The Prime Minister also sought to offer specific solutions on the Irish question, such as an agreement to waive the requirements for entry and exit declarations for goods moving between the U.K. and the EU and a “trusted traders” scheme to reduce delays at the border.
Little time left
The carefully crafted speech with reality checks appeared to offer something to a spectrum of views. While Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, a staunch advocate of a hard Brexit, welcomed the “statesman-like” speech, Anna Soubry, a vocal Conservative rebel pushing for a modest move away from Europe, said it was an “honest and conciliatory speech”. Europe’s chief negotiator on Brexit, Michel Barnier, welcomed the “clarity” and recognition of “trade-offs”.
Yet, there will be little time for Ms. May’s government to rest on its laurels. Her speech offered a glimpse of the complexity ahead, following 20 months of bombastic, fuzzy vision. There will be fewer opportunities to fall back on trite references (“taking back control” and a “global Britain”) when the reality suggests that these objectives are only partly achievable. Ms. May may have outlined the details of the niche deal she hopes to conclude, but it does little to change the EU’s view on “cherry-picking”. The European Parliament’s lead on Brexit, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “While I welcome the call for a deep and special partnership, this cannot be achieved by putting a few extra cherries on the Brexit cake.”
Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar suggested that even the details presented left many fundamental questions about the customs union and single market challenge for the island of Ireland unresolved. With just over a year to go before Britain officially leaves the EU, time is not on its side.
vidya.ram@thehindu.co.in
