LONDON — In less than two months, the U.K. will leave the EU, unless there’s an extension of Article 50. The default remains no deal, until parliament ratifies an agreement.
Last month, the Brexit deal, which Theresa May’s and Michel Barnier’s teams had painstakingly thrashed out, suffered the biggest defeat in British parliamentary history. Last week, the same deal was approved by the House of Commons with the proviso that changes be made to the protocol for Northern Ireland — the backstop. European figures lined up to rule this out. That is to an extent understandable, but it’s also dangerous.
There are many talented European diplomats here in London, with nuanced understanding of our politics. But there is too often a tendency to misread developments here, just as we misjudge Brussels. And while much of Europe may be transfixed by the Brexit (melo)drama, that doesn’t mean that the dynamics are correctly appreciated.
Despite an endless circular national debate over Brexit, some things are becoming clearer.
First, although MPs are desperate to avoid no deal, they do not want to stop Brexit altogether and are wary of being seen to obstruct it. A short delay may be required but that only postpones the same decisions. A longer deferral of Brexit — say by 21 months — which some in Berlin and Paris now seem keen on, is politically impossible.
Some wonder if the EU’s commitment to use “best endeavors” to replace the backstop with “alternative solutions” was made in good faith.
Second, the huge media attention given to the so-called People’s Vote second referendum campaign bears little relation to their actual strength in parliament. Even if they secured the support of Jeremy Corbyn, which seems unlikely, they are still some 50 votes short.
Third, MPs have a wide range of views on our post-Brexit future, but no majority has emerged for a softer form of Brexit. Instead, parliament agrees that the current divorce deal is acceptable — other than a concern about the backstop.
At the core is a fear that the backstop — an arrangement explicitly intended to be temporary and only a backup — could become permanent. They worry that it will be le provisoire qui dure. Recent comments from EU negotiators offer little comfort. When Barnier’s deputy, Sabine Weyand, suggests that there are “no alternatives” to the backstop and patronizingly suggests MPs don’t understand the deal, some wonder if the EU’s commitment to use “best endeavors” to replace the backstop with “alternative solutions” was made in good faith.
These MPs seeking reassurance that the U.K. has not been bounced into agreeing a permanent relationship by the backdoor are now accused of wanting to put the Irish peace process at risk. This is galling. Conservatives need little reminding about the bloody conflict, during which their own party conference was bombed 35 years ago. The Democratic Unionist Party, which lend support to the Tories in parliament, needs no reminding at all.
After such a momentous defeat in the Commons, changes to the deal were inevitable. It is not unprecedented for Brussels to amend an agreement, even after signoff by the European Council: In 2009, Ireland secured concessions to the Lisbon Treaty through a protocol to allow it to complete domestic ratification. The U.K. faces a similar situation.
There is no need to tear up that text — keyhole surgery, not amputation, is required.
Some insist that while the EU will compromise to assist a member state, a departing state is owed no such favor. But that argument is fallacious, even though it implicitly reveals that the objection to moving on the backstop is political, not substantive. It serves both sides to find the smoothest path to divorce. The U.K. will soon be a third country, but we will always be a uniquely close ally. Reaching agreement is profoundly in the EU’s interest, above all for the member most exposed to no deal: Ireland.
Although most insist that the deal is locked down, recent briefings from European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s team suggested the backstop could be softened if the U.K. shifts its red lines on the future relationship. This reveals that changes to the agreement aren’t off limits, while also conflating so-called withdrawal and future issues that the EU has so far been so meticulous about separating. For it was Brussels that insisted the U.K. must concede to a backstop, without agreeing its overall future relationship.
European leaders never sought Brexit, and would rather be discussing issues from the eurozone’s future to taxing digital companies. Yet politics — to paraphrase John Lennon — is what happens while you’re busy making other plans. EU law offers every country a right to leave, and the U.K. has elected to exercise that option.
A deal is on the table that ensures there will be no immediate disruption in our trade and, as importantly, our close cooperation on security, defense and intelligence. It protects the rights of millions of European and British citizens, and sets the tone for a constructive relationship benefiting both sides. There is no need to tear up that text — keyhole surgery, not amputation, is required. Ireland must know that it will never be abandoned. The U.K. seeks reassurance that the backstop will not be permanent, and that Northern Ireland’s political institutions will be respected.
A legally binding side agreement ought to do the job. We are within touching distance, but only days remain.
Henry Newman is the director of Open Europe.