Good bye Britain from the EU – welcome Britain as a friend and ally
Published January 31, 2020
© Georg Boomgaarden
Today is Brexit-day, from midnight Central European Time the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European Union. The long debate about a deal or no deal for the withdrawal agreement is over, it is good that any no-deal-scenario has been avoided, the deal makes the transition smoother, the no-deal scenario was much worse. A divorce agreement is normally not too helpful to re-establish friendship, it only settles the accounts and arranges the technicalities and the consequences for the common offspring.
Now we have to switch to a new mode of operation: the future relationship has to be shaped. The Brexit campaign, the debates about the withdrawal agreement and the fight between those who wanted to stop Brexit and those who wanted to get Brexit done, were all elements that strained good will and let relations become rather sour. To continue to be unfriendly with each other is very possible but totally unnecessary. That can and must be avoided.
So it needs a deliberate effort from both sides to start the next phase with a new good will to come to the best possible relations between the UK and the EU. Civil society on both sides should be aware that a great task is waiting for it: to keep bounds of friendship where political institutions no longer bind us together.
Relations are something not well defined. it can be everything from trade to tourism, from culture to science, from old to young, from family relations to political understanding, from pacts and alliances to competition and even enmity.
Good relations are based on something we have in common: interests and values, Desires and facts must come together for that purpose. Wishful thinking has been very strong during the British Brexit campaign. A more realistic outlook should be helpful. On the EU side there was a certain arrogance that Britain would have to do what was seen as logical in Brussels.
But the logic of the people that wanted to „take back control“ was different. It was a revolutionary logic – creating new facts instead of recognizing the old facts.
The first round of negotiations will deal with trade questions. The starting point is to continue with frictionless trade and full alignment with EU regulations til the end of 2020. The Brexiteers have always insisted that this full alignment cannot continue when Britain is „independent“ again.
There exists a great misunderstanding about what alignment would mean in the future. Trade agreements with third countries – as the UK is now for the EU – list up case by case under which conditions goods may enter the EU or reciprocally the UK, The easiest part is to set the tarrifs, hopefully to zero for most or even all goods.
But then come the non-tarrif-barriers: no region in the world allows the import of goods that do not fulfil certain properties and standards. There is no export to the US without keeping US-standards, no import to the EU without keeping EU-standards, and surely not into Britain if British standards will not be met. Services are rarely included in such agreements.
As long as the standards are the same this does not trouble anybody. When Britain wants to have different – higher or lower – standards, then the EU may recognize that or not. If different regulations are possibly equivalent, would be decided case by case – or just rejected.
There are three kinds of standards that could be troublesome for any new trade agreement: social, environmental and data protection standards. It is quite common in world trade relations that one country is using standards just to keep out competitors or to get an advantage on the international markets. The EU has to protect its own member states and their business from such unfair practices.
So there is certainly no need to keep EU rules in place in Britain for the British market, but there are very good reasons to do so to facilitate trade with other countries, especially the EU market and those who recognized EU-standars in respective trade agreements with the EU. The British government must explain case by case where it wants access to the EU market and how standards will be met. Certainly it is much easier to accept all EU standards, but it is up to the UK to say where it wants frictionsless trade and where different standards are worth less access to the Common Market.
When the EU speaks of a level playing field, it could also call it „fair trade“ – and a good negotiation has to find out what set of rules is beneficial and fair for both sides. If there is dumping the EU never hesitated to invoke anti-dumping measures in conformity with the WTO-rules. And the UK is free to do so likewise.
The access to any market in our world has a price. Reciprocity is a key element of agreements on trade. For members to be part of the European Single Market is a privilege bound to obey the laws of the EU, to respect the European Court of Justice and the other institutions and to pay a contribution to maintain that common market.
To get access to that market from third countries is a different affair. No goods sold in Britain need to be conform with EU rules any more – only goods entering the EU must do so – otherwise customs officers would reject them. This is the most normal thing in world trade. Customs controls have to look if goods are admissable and if there is no free trade, customs duties have to be paid.
The relationship that developed during more than 40 years of British EU membership is far broader that just a trade relationship. As a leading member Britain took part in creating many institutions where cooperation is embedded. Leaving the EU also means leaving all these institutions. Many Programs and organisations which facilitate cooperation inside the EU are normally not open for non-members. But there is a number of programs that allow non-members to participate if they want to do that.
This implies that the rules that govern such programs are observed. A financial contribution may be necessary. If big data are involved this means data protection has to be conform with EU standards, if legal right or duties are involved it means that there must be a recourse to the European Court of Justice. This is not the same as it was when the UK was a member of the EU – it only involves submission to rules of the organisations or programs, or of the institutions, where Britain deliberately wants to participate.
Trade agreements have further developed during the last decade and have become more complex including more issues than just trade in goods. The consequence has been that such agreements often need several years to be negotiated. With Mercosur the EU haggled for more than 25 years now and still the ratification of the results is not yet safe.
The self-imposed limit that Boris Johnson put into law saying that the transition period must not be prolonged, makes it impossible to negotiate a comprehensive and far-reaching trade agreement in the available time of just 8 months (February to November except 2 months summer recess). So a basic agreement coping with the most important trade issues may be concluded, leaving other agreements on more sophisticated issues to later negotiations. This is not necessarily a disadvantage. It forces both sides to concentrate all energy on those topics that help to make Brexit less disruptive for the economy and leave out the good-to-have things.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants to avoid any impression that he will embark on a similar path as Theresa May did walk when hopping from one prolongation to another under humiliating circumstances. He has a clear majority now (thanks to Jeremy Corbyn running blindly into the trap of the formally unnecessary election at a time when he could not win).
I have very little trust in long-term predictions so I will not endorse any prophecies about Brexit having catastrophic consequences or leading into a bright future for Britain. Even if things go wrong all the people involved will deny their responsibility – because all facts get too complex to single out a specific causal chain. Brexiteers will cheer Brexit even if Britain is sinking – because for them the reason can only be the European intransigence. Remainers will accomodate if things go well, but in such a case would insist that there were many other reasons for prosperity but certainly not Brexit. For a generation the true assessment of the consequences of Brexit will be a question of faith – not of facts.
But in the short run Boris Johnson will be confronted with difficult choices. He won many constituencies which were Labour strongholds before, he must now cope with the expectations that he really is in control of those decisions that are crucial for the daily life in disadvantaged regions and areas. The EU bureaucracy is no longer available as a scapegoat for all that does not go well in Britain.
Even in case of a successful new era the Tories will not keep the new voters if they continue distributing wealth from the lower to the upper classes. The differences between ultraliberal Tories who want a kind of Singapore-on-Thames and the Compassionate Conservatives may break up soon. Jonhson’s majority is big enough to hold the government together for five years, but he may have to disappoint a lot of voters because he promised too much.
While the future framework for relations with the EU is negotiated the foreign policy routine goes on – the international crises, climate change, migration, trade wars, cold and hot military conflicts, terrorism and many more challenges continue to haunt the UK as well as the European Union and its member states.
The Trump administration has reinvented the old American tradition of isolationism and protectionism. He may challenge democratic institutions like the Supreme Court and Congress and embark on a way towards manipulating the next elections. The US is at crossroads – even under a new democratic president it may not go back the multilateralism and global leader’s role that it had for the last half century.
NATO’s military structures are intact and work quite well. However when the political leadership is the brain of NATO, French president Macron may be right to call NATO brain-dead. Europeans urgently need to be prepared to go alone without any guarantee of support from the United States of America. It is not just rhethoric when President Trump calls the EU an enemy – even worse than China – such rhethoric can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Europe needs a defence not against American military force – that is hopeless! – but against an American (and Russian and Chinese) policy of dividing Europeans between themselves.
If the United Kingdom will be on Europe’s side or not, if the old balance-of-power policy comes back trying to divide the continent, is an open question. It would be tragic for both – Britain and Europe – but it is possible. Trump and Johnson are both not shy to woo the far right on the continent – ruling already Poland and Hungary. This is a dangerous game – and the greatest danger for the cohesion of the EU. If Le Pen wins in France the EU may also become history – even if institutions remain in place they would no longer be the same thing.
Helmut Kohl has been a keen European. He knew that the EU was a crucial contribution to the longest peace we ever had in EU-Europe and he believed that without the EU war could become a real possibility again. Some thought he was a bit too alarmist – but to be on the safe side: Let us strengthen the democratic EU, let us offer to Britain a good relationship as a third country, and let us be prepared to take control in our European hands.
Today we say: good bye Britain – but we must also say: welcome Britain as a friend and ally – we both need it.
Carsten Moser says (1. Februar 2020 um 9:09 Uhr)
I wish and hope UK and EU leaders read your article and follow your advice! Best regards,
Stephen Wright says (31. Januar 2020 um 18:22 Uhr)
Thank you for the promise of good will and for your emphasis on the need for civil society to make an effort to keep our relationships alive. It has been noticeable today that all the promises of goodwill have been coming from the European side, notably from the President of the European Commission. I would wish that the British side were equally explicit, but their silence on this confirms the need for effort, and particularly from the British side. This is a challenge we must address.
© Georg Boomgaarden