Brexit was meant to make Britain global. It has
made us friendless
Rafael Behr
A strategic partnership with the EU is not on Boris
Johnson’s agenda, and any alliance with the US will be dictated by Donald Trump
Published
onWed 15 Jul 2020 07.00 BST
It is not a
secret that Britain is leaving the EU. The coronavirus crisis has dominated
2020 but not obliterated memory of the years before. Still, to be on the safe
side, the government is spending £93m on a Brexit refresher campaign with the
slogan “check, change, go”.
This is
aimed at people who have dealings with Europe and might be under the illusion
that it will be as easy in the future as it has been in the past. No one has
done more to cultivate that misapprehension than Boris Johnson. The
government’s new message on Brexit is to disregard what the prime minister used
to say on the subject.
The
essential issue here is that Brexit can make EU membership go away, but not the
EU itself. When the only problem was being inside, escape was the only solution
worth talking about. Hardline Eurosceptics were no more bothered by the issue
of how an ex-member state might manage relations with Brussels than arsonists
are interested in what to do with ashes.
As a result
of that complacency, the UK does not have a policy towards the EU, only an
impulse away from it and that is of fading relevance. No one followed us out.
The fire didn’t catch.
It is
important to distinguish strategic European policy from the detail of borders,
tariffs and regulations. The UK has a detailed agenda for that stuff and
negotiations are ongoing. If those talks fail, there is always the World Trade
Organization (as Brexit ultras never tire of pointing out). But even if it were
economically sensible to fall back on WTO rules (and it isn’t), the question of
Britain’s geopolitical alignment would still remain unanswered.
The rubric
for the current talks is “the future relationship”, but the UK has narrowed the
discussion to exclude everything apart from trade. Johnson took foreign policy,
security and defence cooperation – the stuff of which international alliances
are made – off the table. European leaders were baffled by that choice, which
seemed to defer discussion of something no less urgent than fish quotas and
customs declarations, and more important in the long term.
The UK
position is consistent with the Eurosceptic doctrine of pristine sovereignty.
In that view, EU institutions eat national power. Every programme, even
something as ostensibly benign as the Erasmus scheme for student exchanges, is
a trap. The whole point of new “global” Britain, as an upgrade from the old
European version, is that it is freer to deal with other global players
peer-to-peer.
The
limitations of that approach are quickly becoming clear. In January, the government
announced that it would allow Huawei, the Chinese telecoms company, a limited
role in developing British 5G infrastructure. Yesterday, the limit became an
exclusion, starting next year.
The shift
follows pressure on Johnson from Tory MPs who complain, with good reason, that
Huawei has the potential to be a conduit for Beijing security interests and
want its kit stripped out of the network even sooner. The more decisive factor
is US sanctions against the company and the demand from Washington that Britain
be more demonstrative in its transatlantic loyalty. The unambiguous message
from the White House is that trade and security policy are intertwined. A
country that wants a deal to access US markets can expect to have its foreign
investment relations vetted for intimacy with undesirable states. Beijing has
warned of trade retaliation against countries deemed hostile to Huawei.
Any prime
minister would prioritise the security alliance with the US over a commercial
deal with China. But Johnson happens to be the first prime minister to be
confronted with the choice in stark, binary terms, because his trade policy is
a blank sheet of paper and Donald Trump is holding the pen.
As an EU
member, Britain’s trade deals were brokered by the European commission, which
mobilised the scale of the single market – 28 countries; 450 million consumers
– as leverage in negotiations. That is what concessions in national sovereignty
buy, and every government that has felt the benefits considers it a price worth
paying. The UK was no exception. David Cameron was a casual Tory Eurosceptic,
happy to play-fight against Brussels banditry, but when the choice became real
he campaigned to remain. Would Johnson have been a leaver if his Downing Street
ambitions had come to fruition five years earlier and he had spent some time
hobnobbing with fellow heads of government at EU summits? I doubt it.
In less
volatile times an independent seat at the WTO would have been meagre
compensation for losing Britain’s influence as one of the big three EU members.
As international trade policy gets ever deeper submerged in geopolitical
manoeuvres, that swap looks like the worst part-exchange in strategic history,
even if you throw in a new royal yacht and call it Britannia.
Johnson
knows it, too. If the prime minister thought the WTO was where the action
happens, he would nominate a credible, intelligent statesman with a reputation
for probity as Britain’s candidate to be the next director general. He offered
Liam Fox instead. (Fox will not get the job.)
The UK is
sliding into a strategic void because its only foreign policy is a plan that
devalues old European alliances and shifts the balance of power to other
continents when trying to make new deals. Johnson cannot address this challenge
without exposing the basic flaw in Brexit, which is that the sovereignty he so
jealously demands from Brussels buys no clout in Washington, Beijing or
anywhere else.
The UK
national interest requires a new strategic partnership with the EU, but Johnson
refuses even to include that concept in the negotiation. The obstacle used to
be confidence that Britain had no need of Europe. It looks now more like fear
of admitting how much of Europe Britain still needs.
• Rafael
Behr is a Guardian columnist
.jpg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário