|
|
[...] A minimum of a two-year transition period, as proposed by Philip Hammond, the chancellor, last week, has torpedoed the blustering claims from the Brexiters in the cabinet that a deal with the EU will be simple and quick; that new trading agreements outside the EU will be bountiful and rapid; and that March 31 2019 will be “independence day”. The process, it turns out, is a lot more complex than any had anticipated. Brexit, it now appears, is a marathon not a sprint.
As with any public statements in this fraught process, Mr Hammond’s position on a transition period has elicited contrasting reactions. The arch Brexiters — with Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, at the fore — have rejected the duration of the chancellor’s proposal and claim it cannot cover free movement.
Arch Remainers, on the other hand, worry that by smoothing the flight path towards Brexit, Mr Hammond has made Brexit all the more unavoidable. And Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and most observers in Brussels find it irritating that, yet again, British ministers are putting the cart before the horse. For the EU, the major missing piece of the jigsaw is what the UK envisages to be its final status outside the EU. A transition period, Eurocrats point out, is only a bridge to another shore, the contours of which are still unclear.
The truth, of course, will depend on what happens next. If Mr Hammond’s valiant attempts at introducing a shaft of realism into the government’s approach are followed up by a workable plan for Brexit’s final destination then his announcement will represent a crucial building block in delivering Brexit. There is no sign of that so far.
The ability of Brexiters to shoot themselves in the feet should never be underestimated. I see little reason to think that more time will help. Just because a football team holds out for a nil-nil draw and gets an additional 30 minutes, there is no guarantee that they will not still mess up in extra time.
What is missing — both before, during and after the Brexit referendum — is any coherent vision of Britain’s role outside the EU. The negotiations are stumbling at the first hurdle because no one knows where they are heading. Mr Barnier has constructed a team of formidable technical aplomb, but they have no mandate to construct a vision for the future — only to provide the nuts and bolts.
Nor does David Davis, the Brexit secretary, have the skills to provide a distillation of the inchoate views of the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and the other victors of the referendum. Like Mr Barnier, his job is to help deliver a future over which he has little control.
Worst of all, Mrs May — who, as prime minister, should be serving the interests of the whole country — is in a position of mute irrelevance. Her inability to rise to the occasion is only matched by the meandering ambivalence of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Meanwhile the EU, under the reinvigorated leadership of Angela Merkel, German chancellor, and President Emmanuel Macron of France, seems set to evolve towards a union of “concentric circles”, with an increasingly integrated eurozone at its core. While this will take time — eastern European states are loath to become second-class members — it is an opportunity for Britain.
If parliament were to reject the fudge and confusion of the Brexit talks, and if voters continue to develop doubts about the wisdom of Brexit, it may be possible to hit the pause button. This would allow the space for wise heads to sketch out a new settlement in which the UK re-enters the EU orbit but in an outer circle. Britain could remain in the single market and the customs union, maintain its participation in the EU’s internal and defence security, while accepting a formal status outside the EU’s inner core with looser obligations governing freedom of movement. While difficult, I believe this is nonetheless achievable. [...]
Full article on Financial Times (subscription required)