“Fog in the Channel, continent cut off”: the phrase may be worn out, but sadly it applies to much of what has been unfolding in the aftermath of the British referendum. Britain is now caught up in such an unprecedented level of domestic political, institutional and financial turmoil that it risks finding itself in a solipsistic bubble, not fully grasping how the rest of Europe is now reacting nor how that affects its future. Amid all the confusion, it’s hardly surprising that the messages coming out of this week’s European council meeting in Brussels – the first held since the leave vote – were meant to be loud and firm. They were aimed at clearing some of the fog.
What do Britain’s European partners think? That has been the object of much speculation since 24 June. But now they have spelled out in no uncertain terms three key points which they believe must inform the British debate if pragmatic, constructive approaches and not delusional fantasies are to define what happens next. What the rest of Europe now wants to see is responsibility, clarity and a sense of timing. Whether Britain’s political class is able to deliver any of this remains to be seen. But as far as the continent is concerned, the onus is on the UK, not on the other EU27, to draw the logical conclusions from its referendum.
First, there is the question of responsibility. The decision to activate article 50 of the EU treaty for divorce proceedings with the European bloc rests entirely on one sovereign state’s choice, not on that of others. Second, clarity must somehow emerge from the wreckage of last week’s vote. What happens next depends on one country’s capacity – alone – to determine what it really wants and how it plans to reach that goal. It should not rest on faint hopes that the rest of the EU will rush to concoct special solutions from which Britain could then pick and choose. Third, although the rest of the EU well understands that some time is needed for the dust to settle after the referendum shock, Britain’s partners believe that time is not unlimited, nor should it be. They wish to see article 50 triggered by September.
All of this was laid out to David Cameron when he met other European leaders for dinner in Brussels. And on Wednesday, for the first time since the UK joined the European project 43 years ago, the leaders of the bloc gathered solemnly without a British prime minister being present at the table. The symbol could not be more powerful: Britain was out of the door. Thinking things might be otherwise was delusional. That much Angela Merkel made plain when she said, ahead of the summit, that “there must be – and there will be – a palpable difference between a country that wants to be part of the European Union and one that doesn’t”.
The German chancellor remains Europe’s most authoritative leader and power broker. Close attention needs to be paid to her words. She could hardly have been clearer when she said that there will be no cherrypicking in Britain’s Brexit negotiation. She also insisted it was wishful thinking to believe that negotiation could be avoided. She stated, alongside other EU leaders, that there would be no informal talks with London before the UK submitted an application to start exit procedures. European leaders never wanted Brexit. They dreaded it. Now, they want to contain the toxic effects that they fear will spread to the rest of the union.
If there was any doubt that Britain is now perceived as a country deeply divided, weakened and humiliated, the expressions on faces and the statements in Brussels will surely have dispelled that. The other leaders have made it clear that the UK finds itself in a situation of its own making, not one that should be pinned on anyone else, so must bear the consequences. This does not mean it will be punished – that scenario is rightly discarded. But it means it must be realistic. Britain must define for itself how to pick up the pieces; that is not something EU partners can or want to determine.
Britain may delay triggering article 50 for as long as possible, hoping an escape route from its dilemma appears as if by magic. It may choose a path towards the Norwegian, the Swiss or the Canadian models of relations. But these are countries outside the EU, not inside it. EU leaders have said there can be no halfway house, however much they would want to preserve cooperation and ties with a non-EU Britain, and however important the immigration issue may be. In or out – the choice is Britain’s. It is binary and it cannot be avoided.
