“Brexit means Brexit” has been the mantra since Theresa May came to power. The UK is seeking a “win-win” deal with the EU which will free it from obligations such as the freedom of movement of people, restoring control (please…) of UK borders and allowing restriction of immigration from the EU to the UK. It will also end the supremacy of the European Court of Justice and, by also crashing out of the Customs Union, enable the UK to strike “jumbo trade deals” with despots and democracies alike. (This week howls of protest have been heard across the nation as Liam Fox, the minister for International Trade said that the UK and the Philippines had common values "built on a foundation of shared values and shared interests" – many thought that telling that to a president who openly admits to extrajudicial killings is a step too far). All of this, of course, is seen through the rose-tinted spectacles of a pro-leave UK government some of whom still seem convinced that the EU needs the UK more than it needs them and that trade issues trump all else (Mr Johnson’s prosecco and German cars argument).
With the delivery of Article 50 notice, power passes from Westminster to Brussels over the timing, agenda and conduct of the negotiations about the UK’s exit. The EU leaders have produced guidelines about the conduct of the Brexit process which were endorsed by the European Parliament earlier this week. In a major blow to UK hopes, it has been made clear that the nitty gritty of the UK’s separation from the EU must be dealt with before there can be any talk of transitional arrangements or a post-Brexit EU-UK trading arrangement. Mrs May had hoped that the two issues could be dealt with in parallel.
An obvious flash-point will be the settlement of existing UK commitments to EU projects and its share of debts in respect of things such as pensions for EU staff. The exact cost involved is uncertain, but is estimated to be as much as €60 billion. This would be politically difficult for the May government as polls suggest that less than 10% of the public would be willing for the government to pay more than £10 billion for such an item (naturally, UK tabloids are suggesting it is an “exit bill” and “divorce settlement” which does nothing to calm sentiment). Time is on the side of the EU since, unless the UK could achieve unanimous support for an extension, the UK has only until 29/3/19 to resolve all outstanding issues. The transitional deal that the UK wants covering the 3 years immediately after exit is again only in the gift of the EU. Should the UK follow through on its suggestion that “no deal is better than a bad deal” and fall back on WTO trade rules, the unified position of the EU seems to be that such a decision would hurt the UK much more than it would the EU – a position that is hard to argue with. After all, Mr Johnson, the UK is not the only market for prosecco or German automobiles in the EU or the wider world.
Harold Wilson, former UK PM, once said that a week is a long time in politics – the two years of exit negotiations will be an eternity in comparison. The question is will the “will of the people” falter in the face of political and economic reality and a greater understanding about the costs and consequences of a decision to leave the EU?