National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty has recommended that Parliament pass Theresa May’s Brexit deal, effectively proposing that Britain marry her sunk costs and move on to greener pastures.
Ah, yes; greener pastures.
Greener pastures surrounded by a ten-foot, bureaucratic fence as the EU continues to treat the U.K. as a “Member State for the purpose of E.U. law” and the European Court of Justice maintains jurisdiction. Greener pastures with the EU as gatekeeper since, if ratified, May’s plan cannot be exited without the EU’s say-so. Greener pastures with a U.K.-wide “backstop”, keeping the entire nation in the customs union, and tying Northern Ireland ever closer to the EU. Greener pastures where free trade with non-EU countries is compromised. Those greener pastures.
In an earlier post, Dougherty described a stumbling block for one green, white, and orange pasture:
“No Deal” Brexit is the worst possible situation for Ireland, and would include a hard border. Ireland may suffer the most in the long run, because a fortified border may do real economic and political damage within Ireland and Northern Ireland, without significantly impressing London or Brussels as they negotiate their future relationship.
True, the U.K. makes up €1 billion of Irish trade per week and 10 percent of jobs. More than half of Irish timber is sold in Britain as well as 45 percent of all food and drink exports. But what does one mean by a “hard border”? Surely, in the event of no deal, the U.K. would still invest in technology and border staff to allow the smooth movement of goods and people?
Of course, there is another concern. The 310-mile border between the North of Ireland and the Republic comes with serious political baggage; the 1970s and 80s saw it manned by armed guards, and it loomed as a symbol of fear and violence. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement began to restore peace and now the Anglo-Irish relationship is on steady ground. Nevertheless, this recent history has been used effectively as part of scaremongering campaign by the pro-Remain Irish government and EU who continually conflate a logistical matter with a symbolic one. However, as Liam Halligan, the Anglo-Irish economist and journalist wrote recently:
By changing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without Ulster’s consent, it’s the EU’s ghastly withdrawal agreement that could upend the Good Friday Agreement, not minor changes to the administration of Ireland’s somewhat limited cross-border trade.
Britain’s political class has screwed up Brexit — yes. But its Irish counterpart, ironically, has forgotten the importance of sovereignty, democracy and self-determination.
So, what other options does the prime minister have at this point? According to her own testimony — none. She provides three scenarios: Her deal (which was effectively written by the EU anyway), no deal (note: May previously said, “no deal is better than a bad deal” . . . though Dougherty might add, “but not for Ireland!”), and no Brexit (which would be completely unacceptable given the referendum result).
An additional concern is that there is a leadership vacuum. Of course, this is true whether or not Parliament pass this deal. But if a general election is sparked, there is a real chance that Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the Labour party, might be the next prime minister. Besides, who can lead the Tories if not May? We’re back to scaremongering. And in this version of events, the Tory rebels resemble the charismatic and irresponsible shoulder devil in The Emperor’s New Groove. (“I’ve got three good reasons why you should just walk away”):
The real devil, of course, is in the detail. And it’s important not to be sidetracked from this. Anything can happen in politics — even Prime Minister Corbyn, alas — and at this point, much of this is out of the Tories’ control. What is in their control, however, is this deal. And the 585 pages or so of the Withdrawal Agreement show that this deal is not a real Brexit at all. Attempts to convince voters of its merits is merely political spin which takes advantage of the U.K.-EU’s complex relationship and the general public’s ignorance of EU law.
But Martin Howe QC, a leading barrister in EU law, has compared the deal to “the system imposed on the former Soviet republics of Moldova, Georgie and Ukraine in their EU association agreements,” and thus calls it “debasement.” Likewise, Carl Baudenbacher, the former president of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States, said, “It is absolutely unbelievable that a country like the U.K., which was the first country to accept independent courts, would subject itself to this.”
Moreover, it is important to remember that “no deal” is not the same as “just walking away”. (This, indeed, has been another successful scaremongering campaign.) What “no deal” really means is that we fail to reach a U.K.-EU free-trade agreement before March 2019, in which case EU law and the World Trade Organization rules provide a safety net. There would be turbulence, yes. An economic cliff’s edge due to the reckless failure to prepare for the event of “no deal.” But regardless, Britain must not throw away her two strongest negotiating positions: access to Britain’s market and some £35-39 billion in divorce payments.
Hence, I disagree with Dougherty and think Parliament should not take the deal. Either the government should insist that the E.U. agree to a better deal (unlikely they’ll budge, sadly), or Britain should leave with no deal.
As for the question of leadership? Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. Who knows, it might just lead to greener pastures.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this post mistakenly dated the Good Friday Agreement, 1988. It has been updated to read 1998.