19 November 2019

Financial Times: An inflexible Brussels is damaging its own interests over Brexit

The EU has behaved inflexibly during the Brexit negotiations. In doing so, it has ignored its own interests, which favour a close and collaborative relationship with the UK.

Because this is a debate haunted by “whataboutery”, let me make this clear: to say the EU has handled the negotiations badly is not to argue that the UK has handled them well. [...]

The EU should of course defend its own interests as it sees fit. Nor should it be expected to undermine its own legal system to do the UK a favour. However, a continued partnership with the UK is self-evidently positive for the EU.

Start with trade. Outside the EU, the UK would be the EU27’s second-biggest export market for goods after the US, importing, for example, more than double the value of EU goods than Switzerland. This is not about who needs whom more (a pervasive and annoying Brexiter totem). This is about preserving a flourishing economic relationship. Or rather, doing as little damage to it as possible. [...]

Consider the supposed legal constraints. The UK, so the EU argument goes, has to choose between a Norway-style deal inside the single market and a free trade agreement, without options in between. Michel Barnier, EU negotiator, suggested (incredibly) that allowing selective UK access would mean “the end of the single market and the European project”. [...]

So the EU’s approach to Brexit talks has not been about law but about political choices. Not least, the dominance of the commission. There has been a lack of member-state engagement and an egregious failure (with the exception of Ireland) to think about the longer-term relationship. “EU unity”, in short supply on other substantive questions, was paraded as an end in itself, eclipsing the substance. The effect was to drive the UK away, not just from EU membership but from wider European co-operation. [...]

Perhaps Brussels was holding out to ensure a softer Brexit. What did they expect after the Salzburg debacle? That the House of Commons would magically discover a majority for a referendum? That Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, would ride to the rescue? That a Remainer would succeed Mrs May at the Tory party’s helm? The reality has been more predictable and more damaging to EU interests. Boris Johnson has set the UK on a path towards a far looser relationship with the EU. Neither side emerges with flying colours. But the notion that a flawed UK made unreasonable demands on a rationalist, legally constrained EU does not fly. This is worth reflecting on as the negotiations move towards their second — and more important — phase.

Full article on Financial Times (subscription required)

© Financial Times