May’s Brexit gamble goes down to the wire
With UK Prime Minister Theresa May trying to iron out final differences with EU Council President Donald Tusk before Sunday’s EU summit, observers on both sides of the Channel have been taking stock of the febrile political situation.
UK media have followed the ups-and-downs of the Brexit saga ever since the country voted to leave the EU in June 2016. The internal debates in Britain have been at least as tumultuous as the negotiations.
When the-then chief Brexit negotiators, Michel Barnier for the EU and David Davis for the UK, met for their first session, a photograph showed the two men at a negotiating table, Barnier with seemingly well-prepared dossiers stacked in front of him and Davis without even so much as a notepad.
That image was a harbinger of things to come.
There were frequent requests by the UK team for flexibility and the strict response by Barnier that he was following instructions from the EU Commission, Council and Parliament and would stick to the agreed process. He had, after all, at least 30 bosses, counting the three aforementioned institutions and the 27 member governments.
Barnier played his cards well throughout the process and with two UK Brexit secretaries. He insisted there was no cherry-picking, and managed to keep the 27 member governments on side and united in their negotiating position.
That was no mean achievement. UK diplomats are known for getting their way. Previously, they had been able to exploit differences among their EU counterparts. Not so this time.
Even if all goes swimmingly on Sunday, May needs to return to Britain and pass the two documents through a “meaningful vote” in the UK Parliament.
Cornelia Meyer
In fact, it was the UK side that was disjointed, though through no fault of Davis or his successor, Dominic Raab. Brexit drove a wedge though society, families and the country as a whole. Nowhere was this more acutely felt than in Westminster, where the ruling Conservative Party could find no common ground.
The opposition Labour Party cannot decide where it stands either, spouting instead that nothing short of the same trading positions currently enjoyed in the Customs Union and the single market will do.
The political interactions have become dysfunctional. Another image engraved in the collective memory this side of the Channel are photos of the prime minister in command at her country residence, Chequers, when she hammered out the government stance on Brexit last autumn. It all unraveled a few days later, with May losing both her Brexit and foreign secretaries. She has never really recovered.
Fast forward a few months, and the negotiators were able to agree on a 585-page withdrawal agreement that will regulate the terms of the divorce, complete with a backstop for Northern Ireland, a transition period of 21 months (which can be extended, if necessary), and a divorce bill of £39 billion ($50 billion).
Northern Ireland had proved to be the main sticking point, because it was important to keep the borders between Ulster and the republic open in order to preserve the peace achieved via the Good Friday agreement.
The document is accompanied by a rather vaguely worded political declaration that sets the framework for the negotiations of the future relationship between the UK and EU. The document states: “The parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both parties.”
No wonder then that the current documentation got only a lukewarm reception from the British business community, which has been calling for clarity. Many European business partners in the Netherlands, Germany, France and beyond share the concerns of their UK counterparts. The financial sector is faced with even more ambiguity, which may in the long run undermine the City of London’s standing as a global financial center.
So May is heading for Brussels. The long-awaited summit to sign off on the agreement in principle will take place on Sunday. There were last-minute wobbles surrounding the EU’s attempt to gain more access to the UK’s rich fishing waters and Spain’s attempt to secure more of a say over the British territory of Gibraltar. In the end, both issues were settled because European powerhouses such as Germany want to see the deal agreed.
Even if all goes swimmingly on Sunday, May needs to return to Britain and pass the two documents through a “meaningful vote” in the UK Parliament. It is unclear how she can achieve a majority. If she fails to do so, it will leave her and the country in a muddle. Crashing out of the EU is not an option from an economic perspective. There is simply not enough time for either a second referendum or an election if the deal is to be in place by March 29. (In any case, the outcome of a second referendum would be far from certain.) May is probably also right when she says that the current deal was the best she could get.
Many UK parliamentarians seem unaware of the time constraints. Even if they asked for an extension of the 24-month Article 50 separation period, there is only so much the EU can give, because EU parliamentary elections will take place in May and things need to be settled by then. It is not only the UK Parliament that must have a “meaningful” vote. The parliaments of the EU and its 27 member states also need to ratify the documents.
Observers on both sides of the Channel will be holding their collective breath when the British prime minister returns from Brussels on Sunday night.
• Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macro-economist and energy expert.
Twitter: @MeyerResources
