EUROSCOPE. Looks like it’ll be a hard Brexit for UK

Ever since the shock referendum result last June, questions about the shape of Britain’s exit from the European Union have loomed large, with the government offering little clarity.

While tough talk ensued in the immediate aftermath of the vote, there were signs that the government would be seeking what has come to be known as a ‘soft Brexit’ — one that retained tariff free access to most industrial sectors. This was certainly the hope after car-maker Nissan was offered certain assurances, leading to it committing to building two new models in its Sunderland plant.

Business Secretary Greg Clark seemed to reiterate this position by committing to “access to the markets in Europe and vice versa without tariffs and bureaucratic impediments” for the auto sector in negotiations with the EU. Yet several months on, prospects for a ‘hard Brexit” seem higher than ever, with the government making it clear that its willingness to compromise on immigration restrictions for EU citizens in return for tariff-free access is waning.

The latest developments being interpreted as a sign that Britain is unlikely to obtain favourable terms for EU market access involve the resignation of Ivan Rogers, Britain’s well-respected permanent representative to the EU, brought in by the previous prime minister, David Cameron. His exit — several months before his tenure was due to end — came after he was heavily criticised by pro-Brexiters for telling the government late last year that it could take up to 10 years to renegotiate a deal with Europe.

While to many his estimates seemed credible given the fact that three of Europe’s leading nations — Germany, France and the Netherlands — are set to go through national elections that will pit the far right against liberal traditional parties, it didn’t stop sharp criticism from Brexiteers, including one Tory who decried his “gloomy pessimism”. Eager to dispel concern that the government had been caught off guard, Prime Minister Theresa May swiftly replaced him with Tim Barrow, a former ambassador to Russia who has close links to her and to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

The appointment has done little to ease concerns about Britain’s approach to its negotiations with Europe and in particular its willingness to squander talent and expertise in favour of people with an overtly pro-Brexit mindset. “Can’t understand the wilful and total destruction of EU expertise,” tweeted former permanent secretary to the treasury, Nicholas Macpherson, who also suggested that others with experience negotiating with Europe, including Cameron’s former advisor on Europe, were being kept out of the loop.

In a letter to colleagues as he resigned, Rogers himself made a scathing assessment of the state of things as he contrasted the serious “multilateral negotiating experience” of the European Commission and Council with that of the UK government. “I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power,” he said in the letter to colleagues.

However, his departure and reactions to it will do little to enthuse civil servants to speak candidly: he is far from being the only prominent figure to face criticism for daring to adopt anything but an overtly optimistic line on Brexit. Late last year, even the government’s own spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, came in for heavy criticism after it warned that the government would have to borrow an additional £122 billion over the next five years and that Brexit would cost the economy up to £58.7 billion. Its view was dubbed “utter doom and gloom” by former cabinet minister and prominent Brexiteer, Iain Duncan Smith.

Despite the warnings of European leaders and industry experts — the latest being Norwegian prime minister Erna Solberg — optimism persists within UK government circles about obtaining a favourable exit on Britain’s terms — or “having our cake and eating it”, as Foreign Secretary Johnson told The Sun newspaper last year. One cabinet minister has suggested that Britain could pay to retain free market access on its own terms, despite EU leaders repeatedly stating that “cherry-picking” was not an option.

Later this month, the prime minister is set to highlight the government’s unwillingness to budge on the issue of EU immigration (even if it means giving up access to the single market), in a major speech, according to details leaked to the British press this week. The toughening stance makes the outlook for post-Brexit Britain even more muddled: it will put the government on a collision course not only with opposition parties but with the heads of the UK’s constituent countries.

While Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he “understands and respects” the result of the referendum, he has made his party’s support contingent on access to the European market, and to European legislation protecting workers’ rights and the environment. Leaders of the Welsh and Scottish governments have also signalled the necessity of free market access to them too.

Whether they will have a say or not will depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court case currently pending, which will determine whether or not parliament must be consulted on the triggering of Brexit. The government had appealed the High Court’s ruling that it cannot trigger Article 50 without parliament’s go ahead, and the Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict later this month. Confusing matters even more are the often-contradictory statements from within government. Earlier this week energy minster Andrea Leadsom speaking to a farming conference in Oxford seemed to hint that some concessions might be made to enable farmers to continue to get seasonal labour from the continent. Possible exemptions for the construction and financial sectors have also been raised by her cabinet colleagues, and contradict May’s tough stance. The situation highlights the difficulties of hammering out a genuine, workable alternative to full EU membership, particularly given the government’s insistence on clamping down on EU immigration.

The latest developments also reiterated a weakness that many have identified in Britain’s negotiation strategy: its insistence on seeing membership of the EU as a purely transactional affair, without a recognition of the political ambitions, and alliances that built it and keep it together. It’s not the only relationship that has been seen in this light: following the visit of May to India last year, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told the BBC that Britain treated its relationship with India as a “tight professional engagement” rather than that of old friends.

All in all, the situation amounts to a muddled picture. Last year, the acting Indian High Commissioner to London said that many Indian firms with European headquarters in the UK weren’t taking any chances and had commenced the process of obtaining the necessary European licences that would be needed in the event of a hard Brexit. This increasingly looks like a wise strategy, with the likelihood of Britain remaining a gateway to Europe looking bleaker and bleaker.

COMMENT NOW