On 18 April Theresa May called a snap general election because she was confident it would strengthen her hand in the Brexit negotiations. As voters head to the polls, it is no small irony that Brexit has factored so little in the campaign. It is difficult to escape the impression of a country drifting into the unknown, while the rest of Europe readies itself to move on. No doubt many reasons led to the absence of a genuine, well informed debate on Brexit in this campaign – but none of them make the situation less surreal, or less worrisome, considering the challenges that lie ahead. In an election ostensibly intended to set the stage for the biggest strategic shift the country has undergone in decades, it is remarkable how little attention has been brought to the process, not to mention the solutions that may allay some of the consequences of self-inflicted harm.
Instead the election has been broached more like a cathartic exercise to deal with the trauma of discovering on 24 June 2016 how deeply the country was divided and fraught, with immigration, austerity and Europe all lumped together in no small degree of confusion. The nation retreated into that most British of mindsets, “Let’s just make the best of it”, rather than questioning the notion of what a hard or soft Brexit might mean. It was also natural that the shock of terrorist attacks focused minds elsewhere than on the intricacies of upcoming negotiations with Brussels. But with the exception of the Lib Dems, party leaders shunned the Brexit debate, convinced they’d never gain from it. Mrs May knew she had no precise answers to provide on how some access to the single market might be preserved, nor on the cost of cutting down immigration.
Mrs May’s interventions have not dispelled the impression that a farce will follow the Brexit drama. She repeatedly claims that she will be a “bloody difficult woman”. But these are likely to be bloody difficult negotiations. The worry during this campaign has been Mrs May’s willingness to tear up agreements to garner applause from her rightwing base. This week it was ripping up human rights laws that, she claims, protect terror suspects. While this might win votes, it is in practice about declaring a “public emergency” to temporarily suspend certain safeguards offered by the European convention on human rights. France, for example, has repeatedly extended what is known as its “derogation” following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. Rather than being circumspect in matters of national security, Mrs May threw caution to the wind. The rest of the continent looks on more with bewilderment than angst. However acrimonious the Brexit negotiations may become, the EU has reason to believe that – for Britain much more than for itself – no deal is much worse than a bad deal. Time will run out fast now that article 50 has been triggered, and a cliff-edge withdrawal would have severe costs. Hard Brexit means a bad Brexit. Respecting the referendum vote need not mean adding much more damage to an already bleak outcome. But that needs cool heads to prevail.
On so many issues that matter to Britain but on which its voice is set to fade, progress will be sought and deeper cooperations nurtured among the remaining EU members. The EU has a lot of work to do. Whether on climate, on a digital union, on economic integration, on growth, on social protections, or on defence and security, Brussels knows full well that it has to get its act together if it wants to defend its interests, especially in an uncertain world. With a reinvigorated Franco-German relationship at its core, and signs of economic improvement, Europe seems to be pulling out of its doldrums – showing more confidence. That these efforts will be undertaken with Britain on the sidelines can only be regretted. Mrs May has tried to cast the EU as an entity entirely punitive in its negotiating stance. That is as disingenuous as it is risky. Whoever wins the election, continentals have mostly digested Brexit, and are now trying to look ahead.
