The white paper on Brexit: a wish list disguised as a strategy
|
Version 0 of 1. Just one cryptic line in the government’s 77-page Brexit white paper deals with what happens if it cannot persuade the rest of Europe to agree to its many demands. “We will ensure that our economic and other functions can continue, including by passing legislation as necessary to mitigate the effects of failing to reach a deal,” reads the final sentence of the final chapter. Other than echoing the ominous tones of the 1980s civil defence manual Protect and Survive, what this means in practice is left unspecified. It hints, perhaps, at subsidies for exporters hit with new tariffs and customs barriers. More likely, it is a reminder of the chancellor’s recent threat to race his neighbours to the bottom by turning Britain into an offshore tax haven. But the sentence stands out primarily as a rare admission that Downing Street is currently in no position to guarantee it will be able to achieve any of its aims for Britain’s future relationship with Europe – that what purports to be a strategy document is in effect little more than a wish list. The emptiness of many of these ambitions can be demonstrated by applying a technique beloved of subeditors looking to cut unnecessary verbiage. If you reverse a claim and it makes no sense, there is a strong likelihood that the original assertion is meaningless too. “The government will prioritise securing the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods and services,” reads the report’s section dealing with a desired new free trade agreement and customs arrangement. It is hard to imagine any government seeking such agreements admitting it wanted to de-prioritise trade and make it as difficult and cumbersome as possible. Instead, the reaction among experts in commercial negotiation is that Thursday’s white paper is largely a throat-clearing exercise, designed to buy time and keep parliament and the public from asking too many awkward questions too early. “All the extra commentary in the white paper only serves to highlight the conundrum at the heart of the 12 objectives: the UK is committed to leaving the single market and yet is seeking the ‘freest and most frictionless trade possible’ with the EU,” said James Coiley, partner at the London law firm Ashurst. “Ultimately, the white paper has to be read as an opening gambit, not an outline of the likely endgame. This is not what anyone wants to hear, but realistically we have to expect the Brexit smoke and mirrors to continue for some time to come.” There are, however, hints of where the UK’s negotiating strategy might lie in future. One of the only times the word “negotiation” is used comes in a chapter on European security co-operation and defence, an area the British government believes it has the whip hand. “As we exit, we will therefore look to negotiate the best deal we can with the EU to cooperate in the fight against crime and terrorism,” concludes a section that makes clear cooperation can be withdrawn as well as extended. Similar veiled threats are made about financial stability in the event of a bad deal for the City of London. There are also repeated references to the economic incentives for both sides to continue with existing open markets and borders – an argument that the Brexit secretary, David Davis, believes is his most powerful. The government is also increasingly aware, however, that there will be more to the negotiations than money. The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, told MPs at a select committee on Wednesday: “While we have always seen the EU as largely an economic project, many of our colleagues have seen it as a more political and perhaps emotionally committed relationship. We need to show sensitivity to that.” For now, though, the government appears determined to keep its negotiating strategy rooted in mutual economic self-interest. “It makes no sense to start again from scratch,” reads one section of the white paper stressing how much easier it would be to simply act as if Britain was still a member. Whether this is rational or not depends on which side of the negotiating table you happen to be sitting. |