“This week’s experience has quite simply shown that we make better progress where our respective positions are clear.” So said Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, at the end of talks on Thursday. After a round of negotiations remarkable only for how little progress the two sides made, it is hard to disagree. The government appears confused about its own Brexit strategy and the befuddlement flows from the top. Ministers need to get on top of the detail and then pursue a Brexit plan that puts the economy first.
Theresa May spent much of her first year in office refusing to talk about her position on Brexit. A shrewd negotiator does not reveal her hand at the start of the game, after all. Yet too often the government has refused to play at all. By saying that it would be bad tactics to reveal where they want to end up, ministers have batted away the question of where they want to start. This has left the EU to make the running. In May the commission’s mandate set out its objectives, and it has since published reams of position papers detailing its approach to technical issues. Britain has not.
In late June the government finally arrived at a stance on citizens’ rights. The substance of its position is reasonable but it has still left the EU seeking clarity on exactly whom the British government wants to count as an EU citizen, and how those citizens should be able to interact with their home countries’ social security systems.
The lack of leadership is clearest over the money. Ministers have said Britain has financial obligations to the EU that will “survive” withdrawal. That is not enough. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, needs to go into the next round of negotiations with a clear view of what Britain should pay for, and what it should not. It is not generous of the EU to demand that there be “sufficient progress” on the bill before trade talks begin, but those are the terms Brussels has set and there is little time to quibble over sequencing. Britain therefore needs to get into the weeds, interrogating the EU’s analysis of the financial settlement line by line. Winging it is not an option.
Through all the technical fog, the government deserves some credit. If it is rudderless, that is better than being steered in the wrong direction. In part it appears confused because the cabinet is pivoting towards a strategy that better serves the economy. All ministers, for instance, are now said to be behind a transitional period, championed by Philip Hammond, the chancellor. That would mean keeping the status quo for long enough to let business and government prepare for a post-Brexit world. It will not be possible, for instance, to build new immigration and customs systems in two years. The government should show pragmatism over the European Court of Justice, too. Where accepting its oversight is best for trade, that is the best for Britain.
Advertisement
On the economy, however, the government has yet to face up to the big question posed by Brexit: what does it really mean to take back control of our laws? The global economy is divided into rule- makers, economic superpowers that set their own regulations, and rule-takers, those who accept standards to make trade smoother. It is not talking down Britain to acknowledge that the UK, outside the EU, will not be in a position to makes rules for large parts of the world.
In practice businesses that want to trade with Europe will follow EU regulations. If the government commits to keeping step with those rules, companies will not have to put their goods through destructive EU checks. A bonfire of Brussels red tape and fully frictionless trade are logically incompatible. The government has to decide which it is after. The EU appears to know exactly what it wants. So far it has been Brussels in the driving seat. Britain needs to assert control and provide clarity.