Britain will be granted influence only to the extent that it signs up again to EU rules
Philip Stephens
The echoes of Suez grow louder. In 1956 Anthony Eden’s failed expedition to regain control of the Suez Canal forced Britain to take a long hard look in the mirror. In place of the great imperial power they had imagined, the elites saw a nation struggling to retrieve lost glories. Brexit has forced another self-examination. The Brexiters promised “Global Britain” — a great power reborn, cutting a dash across every continent. Instead, the reflection shows Britain bowing to terms set by the Europe it was supposed to be escaping.
The threat to Theresa May’s premiership from a lengthening roll-call of ministerial resignations is hardly surprising. If it is anything, the deal is an accurate expression of the balance of power between Britain and the EU27. The hardline Brexiters had promised Britain could get whatever it liked from Brussels. Mrs May had colluded with talk of a “bespoke” deal. Instead Michel Barnier, Brussels’ chief negotiator, never once blinked. Now it is obvious that a plan that put Conservative party unity above serving the interests of the nation will deliver neither.
There is no need for detailed textual analysis of the near-600 pages of the withdrawal accord to see that it is a bad deal. More, it is a rotten deal that parliament should have no hesitation in rejecting. Beyond the uncontroversial bits — Britain pays a fair share of past financial commitments, the rights of citizens on both sides are guaranteed and the path to new economic arrangements is smoothed by a transition — the essential parameters would leave Britain markedly poorer, weaker in the pursuit of its national interests and less secure.
After a 20-month transition — far too short for substantive negotiations about the long-term future — it foresees a temporary customs union. Mrs May says she hopes this “ backstop” to preserve an open border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will never happen. Either way, what lies beyond it is an economic relationship with the EU27 as yet unspecified and uncertain. What little negotiating leverage Britain has had up to now will by then have dissipated entirely.
To put this another way, the one big decision demanded by Brexit — setting the point of balance between economic and political engagement with the EU27 and the repatriation of decision-making to Westminster — is still unmade. Mrs May has dodged it — hoping that a fudge would persuade enough Tory MPs to back her. All that is certain about the coming years is that Britain will be banished from the single market and sit on the margins of decisions shaping the continent’s prosperity and security.
Some say that the talks were doomed from the outset. The prime minister could never get an agreement as good as the one Britain enjoys as a full member of the bloc. This assumes the deal on the table, with all its complexities, continued entanglements with the EU’s regulatory regimes and ultimate uncertainty, was the best on offer. That is patently not so. Mr Barnier offered access to the single market. Mrs May, eager to draw red lines to impress her Brexiters, ruled it out.
Wait, you may hear loyal ministers say, look at the political statement accompanying the agreement. It is full to the brim of good intentions about forging a new partnership and allowing Britain to sit on the sidelines (yes, the sidelines) of discussions about foreign policy, defence and antiterrorism. In truth, the basic political realities have not changed. Britain will be granted influence, and occasionally a voice, only to the extent that it is ready to sign up again to the rules of the EU club.
Pro-Europeans in parliament understandably feel queasy about forging an unholy alliance with the Tory party’s English nationalists. Who wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with the authors of the mendacious and xenophobic Leave campaign? Mr Johnson and his pals have learnt nothing. Charging that a customs union amounts to “vassalage” is patently absurd. All trade pacts involve the ceding of sovereignty in pursuit of commercial advantage. A customs union is no different. The desire to avoid such company, however, is not a good enough reason for principled MPs to support a settlement that would hobble Britain for a generation.
Mrs May presents a false choice between her deal and Britain walking over the cliff edge to Brexit. There are plenty of other options. Most obviously, parliament could instruct the government, whether led by Mrs May or someone else, to request that the EU stop the clock on the negotiations to allow Britain to formulate a more coherent position. They would not be pleased in Berlin, Paris and Brussels, but this would be a request they could scarcely refuse.
MPs could decide — as Mrs May might have done as long ago as the autumn of 2016 — that, while the nation had rejected the political ambitions of the EU, a majority would be content to remain in the common market.
The best option would see parliament back a referendum — a vote offering an informed choice between the status quo and what everyone can now see is available outside the EU. Plebiscites are rarely a sensible form of democracy. They turn to tyranny when people cannot change their minds.
No one voted for the chaotic halfway house now proposed. Suez became a byword for duplicity and self-delusion. Brexit, on the prime minister’s proposal, is taking the same course.
Want to read more from the FT? Sign up for a free corporate trial for you and your team at: www.ft.com/am730