Advertisement

The EU's new negotiating stance is laughably deceitful

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, and Michel Barnier, the EU's Chief Brexit Negotiator, ahead of the opening sessions of the European Council summit at EU headquarters in Brussels. PA Photo. Picture date: Thursday October 17, 2019. See PA story POLITICS Brexit. Photo credit should read: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire Image title: POLITICS Brexit 14122619 - Stefan Rousseau/PA

Now who is cherry picking? For three years, EU negotiators refused to countenance British proposals for a bespoke deal, however much such a deal was in their own interest. Their rules were paramount (yes, they kept saying that with straight faces) and Britain must choose an off-the-peg model. Michel Barnier was forever brandishing a chart with a staircase on it to show that, if Britain didn’t want to keep free movement or stay in the customs union, its only option was a free-trade agreement like that signed with Canada.

“Fine then,” said Boris Johnson when he took over from Theresa May. “Canada it is.” At which point, suddenly and shamelessly, Eurocrats began to backtrack. Actually, no, not Canada. When they said “Canada”, what they meant was: “Canada plus an obligation to let Brussels set some of your rules in perpetuity.” True, they had offered Canada-style agreements to lots of other countries, but Britain was different because it was nearer and bigger and mimblewimble.

The EU’s new position is so dishonest that it hardly merits serious refutation. Are we supposed to believe that physical closeness is a barrier to unrestricted commerce? You might argue – indeed, I would argue – that globalisation makes geography less important than it used to be. But no one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to present proximity as an obstacle. Certainly the EU hasn’t.

Its ruling treaty, as well as mandating a general policy of global trade liberalisation, contains the following clause: “The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on co-operation.”

Sure enough, the EU has signed trade agreements with every country it touches (except Belarus and Russia, who form a rival customs union). But Britain, we are supposed to believe, is uniquely dangerous.

In a similar vein, the EU is happy to have trade deals with Canada, South Korea, Japan and others based on the various international conventions on environmental protection and labour law to which they all subscribe. But Britain, we are supposed to believe, is uniquely untrustworthy. Even to take these objections seriously, though, is to play the Eurocrats’ game. It would be more honest of Mr Barnier to say: “We are still affronted by Brexit, and we want you to suffer a bit. If we can’t inflict pain on you without also inflicting it on ourselves, so be it. We can’t bear the thought of Brexit being seen to work.”

It follows from that attitude that anything Britain asks for must be rejected. When Mrs May acceded to the EU’s demands and promised, at the Salzburg summit in September 2018, to accept EU rules while paying for the privilege, Eurocrats said no. When her successor took them at their word and accepted the Canada-style deal they had been proposing from the start, they again say no.

To see how risible the EU’s position is, imagine it the other way around. Suppose that the UK were to say, “We’ll have a trade deal with you, but only on the basis that we can set your social and environmental standards, that our vessels have unrestricted access to your fishing grounds, and that British judges continue to have a say in what happens on the Continent. Oh, and we want to reopen the issue of France’s illegal occupation of Calais.”

Can you imagine a single commentator, on either side of the Channel, taking that stance seriously? Yet when the EU makes such demands – its negotiating mandate drags in both the status of Gibraltar and Greece’s perennial claim to the Elgin Marbles – plenty of British politicians and pundits nod sagely.

The polarisation here has, sadly, created a body of opinion that will unhesitatingly and unquestioningly take the Brussels line, be it ne’er so vile. No self-respecting country should agree to terms offered in a spirit of vindictiveness. I hoped and believed that the EU and the UK would seek a mutually beneficial arrangement. But if the EU does not want that – if, in effect, it determines that you cannot have friendly neighbours, only full members or antagonists – then we have no choice but to pivot to the Atlantic, adopting a regulatory stance designed solely for increased competitiveness.

Nor, by the way, would the Irish protocol survive such an outcome. It was agreed on the basis that, as promised in the accompanying Political Declaration, there would be a comprehensive free trade agreement in 2020. Without such a deal, no British government could in conscience impose checks on goods between Northern Ireland and the UK.

Three years of dealing with Mrs May seems to have convinced the EU’s negotiators that Britain will end up accepting any proposal put before it, however humiliating. But things have changed. Mr Johnson now has a parliamentary majority that would allow him to push through a measure of economic liberalisation unthinkable during the last parliament. More to the point, he has a more secure lease on power than his 27 EU counterparts. Any disruption at the beginning of 2021 would be long past by the time of the next general election here. By contrast, at least six EU states, including Germany, will have general elections next year.

In any case, the EU’s refusal to agree to a normal trade deal would have asymmetric consequences – and not in the way that Brussels seems to expect. From the EU’s point of view, there is no upside at all. Without a trade deal, it would face increased friction with its single biggest export market, but nothing else would change. The UK would face the same friction, but would also have the ability, from day one, to adopt a more competitive regulatory regime and to remove its tariffs unilaterally.

To be clear, that is not my preferred outcome. Like most British people, I am fond of the individual countries that make up the EU. I don’t want anyone to suffer needless disruption. I’d rather that we all stayed friends. But if Brussels refuses to negotiate in an amicable spirit, there is nothing we can do about it. And we have friends across the ocean who feel no such animosity.

Watch the latest videos from Yahoo UK