The Guardian view on the dash for a deal: Johnson’s Brexit is more dangerous than Theresa May’s

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/16/the-guardian-view-on-the-dash-for-a-deal-johnsons-brexit-is-more-dangerous-than-theresa-mays

Version 0 of 1.

For Boris Johnson, 31 October is a sacred date, beyond which Britain must not still be a member of the EU. But before 31 October, there was 12 April, and 29 March before that. The approach of a Brexit deadline in confusion and crisis is a sadly familiar feeling.

The urgency driving Mr Johnson to strike a last-minute deal in Brussels is a function of political bungling. Time is short because the prime minister squandered it with dangerous games, flirting with no deal and posturing to core supporters. But fear of humiliation in being compelled by law to seek an article 50 extension has focused his mind. He abandoned a convoluted multi-border plan for Northern Ireland in favour of a more realistic approach, closer to options discussed (and rejected) when Theresa May sat in Downing Street.

That shift is important given that Mr Johnson has been slow to grasp practical intricacies and historical sensitivities regarding Ireland and Brexit. But it is also important to set any progress on that front in the wider context of future relations with the EU. The Irish border problem first arose when Mrs May insisted on defining Brexit as withdrawal from the customs union and the single market. But she was then persuaded of the need for the UK to retain a high level of regulatory alignment with the rest of Europe. That judgment flowed from a commitment to frictionless trade, which led to “backstop” arrangements regarding Northern Ireland.

Mr Johnson rejected Mrs May’s deal largely because his ambition was served by appearing fiercer than her in Brexit spirit. But he also has different ideological instincts. Mr Johnson is a Eurosceptic in the tradition that vilifies Europe as the origin of red tape that suffocates enterprise. For Tories of that school, the very purpose of Brexit is liberation from a regulatory yoke imposed by “Brussels bureaucrats”. Hatred of the backstop has its origin in the ambition to extricate the UK economy from social protections preferred by many European countries. The theory is that a competitive edge is achieved by reducing the cost of doing business in Britain. In practice that involves cutting labour protections, lowering environmental standards and depressing wages.

That vision implies a different future relationship with the EU from the one signalled by Mrs May. The similarity of political constraints on the two Tory leaders – the strain of managing a minority government – creates a false impression that their Brexit deals are alike. But Mr Johnson’s approach renounces frictionless trade. It sacrifices access to EU markets on an altar of deregulation. His cut-throat competition model complicates negotiation of level-playing field provisions – the presumption of equivalent market conditions between trading partners. That introduces new hurdles for the completion of a free-trade agreement with Brussels post-Brexit. It erects costly new barriers, not just with Ireland but at every port in the UK. Hard Brexiters imagine compensation for restricted European access in the form of new free-trade deals around the world, but those would take time to negotiate, especially if discussions had to happen in parallel with the next stage of Brussels talks. The certain outcome is a prolonged period of trading limbo, the cost of which would come from the pockets of British workers.

Mr Johnson’s frantic rush to strike a Brexit bargain by 31 October has forced a focus on technicalities of withdrawal, but it also serves his agenda to distract attention from the bigger picture. Next week’s deadline has become a prop in a political drama, scripted by the prime minister, in which the 11th-hour delivery of a deal is meant to be the heroic climax.

But Brexit is not a game to help advance one man’s ambitions. It involves choices that will shape the strategic direction of the country for generations and affect millions of livelihoods. Any deal Mr Johnson can strike now is just the vehicle for withdrawal; what matters most is the eventual destination. The rhetoric he has relied upon, the fanatics he flatters and the political trajectory of his career all indicate a plan to take Britain in entirely the wrong direction.