Observer Editorial, London, 26 Aug 2018<\/p>\n
Another week and Britain\u2019s feeble and ill-formed negotiating strategy is laid bare yet again<\/em><\/p>\n For months, trade experts, business organisations \u2013 and even the Treasury \u2013 have been warning about the calamity of a no-deal Brexit<\/a>. And for months, the prime minister and most of her cabinet have shrugged those warnings off. \u201cNo deal is better than a bad deal\u201d is the standard refrain.<\/p>\n No more. Last Thursday, the government finally published the first tranche of no-deal notices, which set out advice on preparing for a no-deal Brexit<\/a>. The government didn\u2019t admit that no-deal would be a disaster in so many words. \u201cOur institutions will be ready for Brexit \u2013 deal or no deal,\u201d came the reassurance from Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab. But the drily named \u201ctechnical notices\u201dbetray a different reality: the huge upheaval businesses and consumers will face in the event of a no-deal Brexit.<\/p>\n For every business that exports, there will be layer upon layer of additional bureaucracy. Pharmaceutical companies have been advised to stockpile medicines for at least six weeks. Consumers may face more expensive credit card transactions with retailers on the continent, and organic farmers a nine-month block on exports to the EU as they wait for the UK organic certification bodies to be approved by the EU. These are the just some of the gritty realitie<\/a>s that will together produce the \u00a380bn annual price tag of a no-deal Brexit estimated by the Treasury.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s own scenario planning rubbishes two of the main arguments Brexiters advanced during the referendum campaign. Voters were told that leaving the EU would allow Britain to take back control<\/a>. But the technical notices make clear just how much control Britain would give up in a no-deal Brexit. In order to maintain supplies of food, energy and medicines, the government says it will have to shadow EU regulations. This is the first admission that \u2013 whether we leave without a deal or remain part of the single market \u2013 Britain will shift from rule-maker to rule-taker as a result of Brexit. And that\u2019s before we try and independently forge trade deals with giants such as the US, which will insist on imposing its laxer regulations in areas such as food on British consumers.<\/p>\n The reality is that the Brexiter fantasy of regaining control harks back to a time when Britannia ruled the waves. There\u2019s no such thing as 19th-century-style national sovereignty in an interconnected world where economic success is built on international trade. The future lies in more, not less, intergovernmental co-operation and the European Union<\/a> \u2013 for all its faults \u2013 is the most functional model of that. The reality is that the UK is giving up membership of the world\u2019s most significant trading bloc \u2013 in which it has exerted real influence for a decade \u2013 in exchange for having its terms of trade dictated by other governments.<\/p>\n Second, Brexiters promised that shunning Brussels would lead to the slashing of red tape. But a no-deal Brexit will create a huge increase in bureaucracy, and not just for businesses. Raab has said it would require up to 16,000 extra civil servants \u2013 half the number of staff employed by the European commission<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the impossible conundrum of what to do about the Irish border remains unresolved. And Herman Van Rompuy, former president of the European council, warns in the paper today that a no-deal Brexit could potentially risk the unity of the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n The crazy pretence that all will be well in the event of no deal \u2013 the equivalent of the government sticking its fingers in its ears \u2013 is the product of the impossible political bind Theresa May finds herself in. The hard right of her party want her to \u201cchuck Chequers\u201d and are actively lobbying for no-deal chaos. The tightrope she walks between keeping them on board, while simultaneously moving negotiations with the EU forwards, becomes ever thinner as the article 50 deadline draws closer.<\/p>\n And the technical notes underline the extent to which the Chequers plan falls short as a starting point for those negotiations. It would require the EU to pick apart its four freedoms, which it has said it is not prepared to do.<\/p>\n The British negotiating strategy rests on the idea that the EU has just as much to lose as the UK from no deal, forcing it to allow the UK to cherry-pick the bits of the single market it likes. But in saying that Britain will unilaterally adopt European regulations in the hope that the EU will return the favour, the technical papers put paid to that strategy: the reality is that the EU is in a stronger position and can dictate the terms on which it would do so.<\/p>\n Raab implied the blame for any no-deal Brexit would lie with the EU. But the public won\u2019t buy this: most voters say they\u2019d blame the government for a bad deal. That\u2019s the problem with mainstream politicians adopting a populist-lite strategy. Once they\u2019ve bought into the idea of a scapegoat \u2013 and taken it out of the equation, on leaving \u2013 the blame for the ensuing chaos will rightly and squarely be directed back at them. Populists such as Nigel Farage<\/a> will be standing by to capitalise on it. Theresa May is about to learn a hard lesson: you can\u2019t beat the populists by aping them. And it will be ordinary Britons who suffer the consequences.<\/p>\n