Since 23 June, the choice to leave the European Union has been debated in Britain largely as if it were a reflexive action – something the nation does to itself. But Brexit must also be understood transitively – something this country does to other countries. Naturally, domestic considerations dominate the discussion, especially since separation talks have not begun. But as the outline of those negotiations comes into view, it is essential that more attention is given to perspectives from across the channel. That picture is far from simple. The EU position will combine the interests of individual member states and the priorities of supra-national institutions, as David Davis had occasion to remember on a trip to Brussels last week. The Brexit secretary met Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian prime minister who will represent the European parliament in the divorce negotiations.
MEPs must approve any final agreement and they cannot be expected to rubber-stamp anything. No EU leader welcomes the imposition of Brexit on to an already difficult agenda. France, the Netherlands and Germany all hold elections next year in which European solidarity will be corroded by insurgent nationalism. A constitutional referendum in Italy next week could destroy the government there. The eurozone debt crisis is in remission, not cured. This context makes the UK’s negotiating position weaker in two ways. First, embattled governments are disinclined to make time for British concerns. Second, a perception that Brexit is one of many forces conspiring to undo the whole European project strengthens the feeling that Britain cannot be seen to be rewarded for an act of destabilising, unilateral adventurism. That is the view taken by the commission’s lead negotiator, Michel Barnier, who also met Mr Davis. Mr Barnier said the encounter was a “courtesy visit” granted at the Brexit secretary’s request – a formulation that underlines EU officials’ refusal to be drawn into any substantial discussion before article 50 is triggered.
There is a tendency in Britain to caricature “Brussels” as a single entity that can be made to dispense concessions. But Brexit cannot be understood as one deal between the UK and the EU, because the EU itself is a negotiated entity – a complex system with multiple points of power and shifting internal dynamics. It is a process not a place.
There is also a complacent British habit of thinking that leaders from big countries can override fiddly EU diplomacy in ad hoc deals. David Cameron vastly overestimated Angela Merkel’s capacity to influence the outcome of his failed attempt to renegotiate membership. That mistake is repeated in the minds of Brexiters who think that economic interests – the need to retain access to UK markets for German exporters – will trump all other considerations. Their presumption ignores the premium that all EU governments, and Germany’s in particular, place on the long-term integrity of the European project. It does not matter that Theresa May’s stated intent is for a mutually beneficial trading arrangement.
In principle, any Brexit is hostile to the interests of those with whom she wants to do a deal. This problem must be better communicated to the British public, not just to prepare people for inevitable compromise but because the negotiations won’t make any sense without recognition that the rest of the EU perceives itself to be mitigating an existential threat. Lord Kerr, the former British diplomat who helped draft article 50, sagely advised ministers this week to let MPs consider a green paper explaining “to the country what the choices are and what the upsides and downsides are of the various [Brexit] options”.
The cost-benefit equation of Brexit for Britain has so far been formulated only in economic terms. This week’s autumn statement brought the fiscal implications of an uncertain future into sharp relief. That has revived speculation about a national change of heart; perhaps a second referendum as mooted separately by Tony Blair and John Major this week. Their voices can easily be dismissed by Brexiters as anguished cries from an ancien regime, unworthy of attention in the revolutionary world post-referendum. But the former prime ministers’ observation that voters are yet to confront the real cost of what is in store, and that their opinions might shift, is unarguably true. As the talks draw nearer, it will become clearer that the UK is not only imposing a financial penalty on itself but forcing a burden on essential allies at a time when the international order looks precarious enough already.
