One Endgame or Many?

With the politics of the process changing almost by the minute, Richard Parry assesses the ‘stable text’ of the Brexit agreement. 
 
The final phase of negotiating action in recent days was when the EU27 started to push back against some aspects of the UK-wide solution on Ireland upon realising that the backstop might be turning into a back door for long-term UK access to the single market. It was always an impossible conundrum to solve when the only land border between the EU and a departing member had to be invisible for political reasons.  Both London and Brussels continue to perpetuate the line that the Irish backstop is a redundant failsafe mechanism that will never be needed and would be superseded by something better before it came into effect. But if the backstop was so difficult to negotiate, so detailed in content, and delineates the minimum necessary to prevent a visible border, how could anything better be agreed? The mechanism in the Withdrawal Agreement is a negotiated reality, requiring mutual consent to drop, and the best template we have on future UK-EU relations. 
 
Last December’s joint report was a victory for the EU as the UK chipped in 21 further months of normal financial contributions and free EU citizen access after 29 March 2019. The new text moves in a direction more favourable to the UK. The delineation of Northern Ireland as separate from the UK is partly attenuated. The UK as a whole gains a route to a soft Brexit free customs access from January 2021. Wary of special statuses and still scarred by their relations with Switzerland – where adjustment to changing EU rules is not automatic and dynamic – the EU27 has now conceded in the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland something that looks new, a 175-page template including non-regression on environmental and social standards and 90 pages listing EU regulations that would apply to the ‘United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland’ (annexes 5-8), the price-tag for the invisible border.
 
The piece of substance that has suffered in the endgame is the Future Framework of UK-EU relations. As recently as July the UK was seeing detail as close as possible to its Chequers plan as a prerequisite for the Withdrawal Agreement. Although more work is planned before the special European Council on 25 November, at the moment it is a shockingly brief seven pages of aspirational bullet points identifying areas for negotiation and choices that will have to be made (including fishing). There is a new time constraint, a deadline of 1 July 2020 for deciding (by consensus) whether to extend the transition period. Precision on the framework would have required negotiating capacity that is not there at the moment, but leaves the UK vulnerable to post-Brexit EU27 demands. Moreover, with the backstop in place, there is a default status available that only dreamers of global trade deals would put their all into overturning. ‘Temporary’ could prove just as temporary as the border between Northern Ireland and the 26 counties set in 1921.
 
Will this deal obtain political consent? As with all deals, its effectiveness may reside in its being not inherently a sell-out and equally liable to rejection by both sides. UK politics apart, the need for European Parliament and EU27 ratification has always been a vulnerable and neglected link in both timing and content – there are just too many opportunities for delay and veto.  But in terms of the UK as a negotiating party, events changing by the hour include the scenario of Conservative meltdown and second referendum, the last hope that the UK will not leave the EU on 29 March 2019. 
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Richard Parry's picture
post by Richard Parry
University of Edinburgh
15th November 2018
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts