Brexit’s back alright.
After a period in which the issue was in abeyance as governments wrestled with the pandemic, the question of the UK’s future trade relationship with the European Union – whether it leaves the EU’s legal and commercial orbit with or without an agreement – returned this week to land smack bang into the middle of Irish, British and European politics, where it is likely to stay for the rest of the year. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, etc.
This now presents a whole new challenge for the coalition government, requiring time and attention previously devoted to other things. It will require senior officials and politicians to find time and space and energy (“bandwidth” as everyone calls it nowadays) that is not currently apparent.
There was no warning, no heads-up from London to Dublin about what was coming
The resignations of Barry Cowen, Dara Calleary and Phil Hogan were all political soap operas that captivated the Leinster House bubble; but the return of Brexit to the political agenda is the most significant thing that has happened since the Government took office.
Officials and diplomats burned up the phones all week in an attempt to construct a picture of what the British were at. The Irish are normally quite good at this, and their views are listened to in Brussels.
Senior Irish officials have consciously and deliberately cultivated and maintained close relationships with their British counterparts in recent decades. We have their mobile numbers and they have ours, one senior mandarin once told me.
No warning
But the Johnson administration has declared war on such niceties. There was no warning, no heads-up from London to Dublin about what was coming. “There was no call from somebody to somebody,” one EU diplomat told me this week. “This gives me a bad feeling about the future.”
This is a different sort of British government to the ones that Ireland and other EU member states are used to dealing with. It is one of the precepts of relations between states that a government is bound by the agreements made by its predecessors. This British government appears not to be bound by the agreements it has made itself. It’s some development, for sure. It is now an important task for the Irish Government to gain a new understanding of their counterparts.
Johnson’s people certainly don’t seem to care much about Britain’s standing in the world.
Out of a deluge of animadversions this week the most cutting – and inarguable – was from former prime minister John Major: “For generations, Britain’s word – solemnly given – has been accepted by friend and foe. Our signature on any treaty or agreement has been sacrosanct . . . If we lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost something beyond price that may never be regained.”
There are two questions the Government is facing now
The view in Dublin – nervous but settled, for now anyway – is that the British will want a deal, because it is crazy not to have a deal. Very few governments willingly inflict avoidable economic hardship on their countries, as voters tend to take a dim view of this sort of thing at the ballot box.
One Goldman Sachs analyst wrote this week that the British government “might ultimately decide that minimal market access is a price worth paying for maximal regulatory autonomy. From a political perspective, however, the allure of a Brexit deal before the end of a difficult year will be hard to resist.”
I think this is right. In the end, the British probably will want a trade agreement, and are probably engaged in manoeuvres to secure the best possible deal – one that gives them the greatest possible freedom, with the least possible constraints, but which ensures EU market access. Let’s remind ourselves of the simple fact that half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. Yes, half.
But – and it’s a big but – this week has severely damaged the trust necessary to achieve an agreement.
Border commitments
Either way, there are two questions the Government is facing now. The first is if the British are walking away from the withdrawal agreement, does that mean they are walking away from the commitments to maintain an open border in Ireland?
Last year, Johnson conceded a border of sorts in the Irish Sea in order to satisfy the EU’s demand of keeping the Irish border open. But before he did so, if you recall, the agonised question of whether the Irish government would put up border checks to maintain the single market in the event of a no-deal weighed on Dublin for months.
The eventual decision was that if it was forced to choose between full membership of the single market and maintaining an open border in Ireland, the government would prioritise the single market.
Preparations for border checks – not necessarily on the Border, but not a million miles from it – were at an advanced stage, and the then government considered publishing the plan. In the end, it decided to wait until the border checks were inevitable before telling people about them. A deal was done, and the plans were shelved. But they are currently being dusted off.
The second question facing the Government is how to deal with the monstering that the economy in general and many individual businesses would take from a no-deal and the avalanche of export-destroying tariffs that would result from a no-deal Brexit and imposition of World Trade Organisation trading terms. One example: beef would be clobbered with tariffs of 50 per cent or more. It isn’t hard to work out what that would mean for rural Ireland.
Of course, it might not happen. But it’s more likely than any time before now. Covid may only be the beginning of what this government has to face.