Sunday Scribbling

Thoughts on work and politics

The UK and Europe: The Road Less Travelled

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Robert Frost

David Henig is the Director of the UK Trade Policy Project at ECIPE. He is also a consultant and commentator who writes about the development of UK trade policy post-Brexit and wider trends in global trade. He has just published a substantial paper Negotiating Uncertainty in UK-EU Relations: Past, Present, and Future which can be downloaded here.

With Brexit, the UK opted to take the European road less travelled and to go it alone. David thinks the UK took the wrong road. Of course, he is right. However, his paper does not call for the UK to rejoin the EU road. It is a search for a third road, a road that has never been travelled before, and probably does not even exist.

I know and like David. He is one of a group of people in the UK who thinks seriously about the future of UK/EU relations. He does not belong to either of the “two tribes”, one of which says: “Brexit is done, we have reclaimed our sovereignty and independence and there is no going back”, the other asks “How soon can we rejoin and if there is to be a delay can we drop into the Single Market on the way?”

In full transparency, David shared an early draft of his paper with me and the published version reflects some of the comments I offered him. So, what I have to say below will come as no surprise to him.

As I said above, David thinks seriously about the future of the EU/UK relationship. I just happen to believe that he gets it wrong. I do not think there is a “third road”. For me it is simple. Live with Brexit and all the damage it does. Negotiate minor scraps with the EU from the outside from time to time.

Or join the EU as a proper member on the same terms and condition as very other member. There is no “rejoining” with the old opt-outs available.

To my eyes, David’s “third road” approach is just a sophisticated form of Johnsonian “cakism”.

John Wick

In the movie John Wick, the New York-based Russian mobster Viggo Tarasov phones Wick after Tarasov’s son, Iosef, has stolen Wick’s car and killed his dog.

“John, Let us not resort to our baser instincts and handle this like civilized men to move on.”

The phone at Wick’s end goes dead.

I am not comparing Brexit to some mob hit, even if only on a dog, though I know that there are those who would.

However, David’s paper seems to reflect the Tarasov approach. “Can we just forget about this terrible Brexit thing and move on in a civilised fashion” Now, I am not suggesting that David says as much in his paper, he is better than that, but that is the impression you are left with by the final page.

“Can’t we be grown-ups about this? It is embarrassing to keep referring to this Brexit thing. We British really are reasonable people and we will just be looking for reasonable things. And it would be ungracious of the EU not to deal with us.”

Like Wick, most Europeans would let the phone go dead. I’ll come back to why later.

Are we equal?

A second impression that you are left with is that the EU and the UK should be dealing with each other as equals. Again, I know that David is too smart to believe this, but it is where his ideas take him. Annual summits, frequent meetings between UK ministers and EU Commissioners, and multiple working groups of officials are what he proposes. Why would the EU of 27 Member States put all those resources and effort into dealing with just one country?

David would say that the UK is an important enough country to merit such attention. I just don’t think that the UK is as important as all that.

Especially given the issues that the EU must deal with as outlined in the Draghi report.

In effect, a “mini union” between the EU and the UK in which the UK has a co-equal say with the EU on the issues under discussion. The ultimate “opt-out” with the UK having an input on key EU policies from the outside. David, of course, will protest that he is saying no such thing, but I believe it is where the logic of his thinking leads.

Let’s have a process

A third takeaway from David’s paper is a liking for what might be called “processology”. To borrow from the title of a Sartre book, he is in “Search of a Method”.

I come out of an industrial relations tradition in which meetings were called when one side or the other had something to say. It came as a culture shock to me when I started working in Europe and the first item on the agenda was a discussion on the timetable for further meetings. I remember the look of disbelief on the faces of those opposite me when I said: “But why would we have meetings if we have nothing new to say or offer?” As if I had said something sacrilegious. I had. Europeans love “processology” and David knows this. Always a smart move to suggest “process” when there is nothing of substance to offer.

I fully understand that if people meet frequently they get to know and understand one another better. I have been running meetings for close on 40 years. One thing I have learnt is that if there is nothing of substance to discuss the meeting dies quickly. For that reason, I have never been a believer in “processology”.

But I can see the attraction for some of knowing that they will have to board the Eurostar in London every few months and head to Brussels. Even if the meeting is short because there is nothing to say, there will be time for a drink in the Grand Place. Or some frites in Place Jourdan.

All of the above are perfectly understandable positions for a British commentator to take, one who knows and regrets the damage Brexit has done to his country.

I think David knows that none of this is going to happen anytime soon and it frustrates him. Understandably so. When you want the best for your country and all you see is inaction, if not downright stupidity, it can get to you.

Back to John Wick

I accept that Brexit is done. The UK is no longer a member of the EU. But it is the only country that was a member of the EU and left. And it was not particularly gracious in its leaving. People like Michael Gove and David Frost said publicly that they hoped Brexit would explode the European Union and that other countries would follow the UK out. They didn’t. Even today, how many times a week does the Daily Telegraph predict the imminent collapse of the EU? And hope for it.

Remember the behaviour of Nigel Farage and his MEPs in the European Parliament, turning their backs on Ode to Joy, the European anthem.

You cannot wish away the past. You cannot pretend that the UK is just another “third country” wanting to do business with the EU. It is a country that walked out of the EU and that cannot be forgotten. It is not forgotten by many of us.

Brexit was a Tory project. And when the Brexit ultras took control of the Tory Party and the EU exit process they settled on a scorched earth strategy. Burn everything as we leave so that there is no way back. Leave no bridge standing. Deny the realities of the agreements you made. Tell people in Northern Ireland you did not agree to a border in the Irish Sea when you clearly did. Leave not a shred of trust behind you. Make acting in bad faith a badge of honour.

This is still the policy of the Tory Party, now in opposition in parliament, but sustained by a massive right-wing media ecosystem. Ready to pounce and denounce any “Brexit backsliding” by the Labour government.

Not, I think, that Labour is about to “Brexit backslide”.

Whatever may be the feeling throughout much of the Labour Party, the leadership team under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has nailed its feet to the floor and said: “No rejoining the EU, no return to the Single Market, no return to the Customs Union, and no return to Freedom of Movement”.

Not much wriggle room there, as far as I can see and after all my years in labour relations negotiations I can pretty much spot wriggle room when I see it.

Labour’s micro agenda

At best, Labour has a “micro agenda” when it comes to the EU. Its “big ticket” ask is for a defence and security pact. No bad thing in itself but, quite frankly, even if such a pact is negotiated voters would not even be aware of its existence.

Other asks on the table from Labour are for an SPS agreement to make food imports smoother by cutting border checks, an agreement to make it easier for UK artists to work across the EU, and an agreement on mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

Other than the SPS agreement, there is not much in this for the EU. What it comes down to is this: can you give certain classes of British workers free rein to work in Europe without us accepting the return of free movement? No thanks, I think will be the answer. It would certainly be my answer.

As I write this the Guardian is reporting that the EU is preparing a fresh proposal for a youth exchange scheme. It is also reporting that Labour will reject it as harbouring a return to Free Movement, which it certainly isn’t. But such is the grip of the Brexit mindset on UK politics and Labour’s fear of cries of “Brexit Betrayal” from the Tory media ecosystem that it will reject the proposal, perhaps believing that it can negotiate deals with individual Member States. I do not believe that it can.

If Labour is going to go negative on something as anodyne as a youth exchange program proposed by the EU, why would the EU entertain any of the UK’s requests?

If the UK, which has little or no leverage when it comes to the EU, other than a few fish, rejects the first significant proposal from the EU, then why would the EU commit to the “processology” proposed by David in his paper? Or open discussion on UK demands when the UK rejects its demand out of hand.

Or want to deal with a Britain where a future Tory government pledges to undo every European thing a Labour government might do?

In short, it won’t. At best it will be: “Well, at least we can be civil to one another.” As we should.

Iron in the soul

David’s proposals for the future of EU/UK relations seem to me to be built on the idea that if the two parties can agree on processes then progress will come. There is some truth in this. But I think processes can only be agreed if the UK, which is by far the lesser party and the demandeur, makes a downpayment as a sign of good faith. And that downpayment will be a willingness to open talks on a youth exchange program.

For now, there are no signs that Labour is prepared to confront the Brexit demons and agree to even talk about this. It has no iron in its soul.

To borrow from McBeth, until Labour is prepared to “screw its courage to the sticking place” and reject what the commentator Chris Grey calls “Brexitism”, then David is going to be a voice crying in the wilderness.

David, in his defence, will argue that there are always going to be talks between the EU and the UK. Of course, there will. When it comes to the EU, the UK is like the grumpy neighbour who does not like you and wishes you had never moved in next to him in the first place. But he has to talk to you from time to time, but as little as possible. For your part, you roll your eyes to heaven when you see him coming and say: “what does he want this time?”

But, at least, David is a voice crying out there. Even if he cries the wrong things. But still, better than silence.

Read David’s paper and think about things. He deserves our respect for putting time and thought into a substantial piece of work.