Reza AB Choudhury writes for DOT :
On 23 June 2016 Britain took a historic step in its future. Whether to stay or leave the European Union (EU), a trading bloc of significant clout. It is a marriage of over 45 years. In this time, both parties’ lives have been shaped socially, politically, and economically. But lets no kid ourselves, Britain was always the reluctant partner of the EU.
It was Charles de Gaulle, the post-war President of France, that famously declared “non” to the idea of Britain becoming a member of the EU when the first original six nations mooted it. Indeed, ironically in its first referendum as to whether to join, there was much fanfare and uncertainty attached to it.
After joining in 1973 (and reaffirmed continued membership in 1975) Britain’s seat at the EU table was akin to an awkward uncle who everyone tolerated yet no one was quite enthusiastic about! Not least because the UK did not share the rest of the continental Europe’s vision of ever closer political union. Most of the current Conservative government’s mantra was always in Europe, not run by Europe”. For it was the Conservative Party that ruled Britain most of the period of the last 45 years of EU membership.
There were not terribly eager about the single currency of the Euro either as some may remember the crashing out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) which was a prelude to the single currency. This was in the 1990’s and under another Conservative government.
No doubt critics would say not being part of the single currency was a good decision after all.
The other main large political party in the UK the Labour Party on the other hand was the darling of the EU and all things European. They hailed much of the reform based legislation that sought to, in their view, transform the working man or the ordinary masses. These include consumer and employment as well as environmental protection laws which the current left wing Labour leadership continues to espouse. Throughout the UK’s EU membership a schism existed between the Europhiles and Eurosceptics within the Conservative party grass root members wing and the parliamentary group. They traditionally tended to be proportionately more Eurosceptics than Europhiles. So much so that the Party has been riven by civil war on the question of how far the UK should align itself to the EU’s vision of a United States of Europe.
And so it was with this in mind the then majority Conservative coalition government that promised in its election manifesto to hold a in or out referendum. Of course it was made by the then Prime Minister David Cameron on the proviso that his round of shuttle diplomacy with EU leaders to reform the EU club. These included demands of better governance, veto power, and budget contributions. Mr Cameron alas did not get very far. For on most of these things the EU’s view was that the UK already had generous packages. It seemed the bloated EU was very reluctant to change even if some of the other member states shared Britain’s concerns.
So the stage was set for the biggest constitutional showdown in the UK’s history. Many now agree the campaign ran by both Remain and Leave camp was wholly inept, inadequate, and misleading with both sides’ making outlandish statements of intent. Examples include saving large sums of money for the National Health Service (NHS) per week, getting sovereignty and control of our borders back. What the campaign really boiled down to was in fact the toxic topic of excessive immigration.
The outcome of the referendum vote was a horrific shock. Neither camp, quite frankly, expected the result. The clear victim of both pre and post result was the economy – with colossal losses of investment of tens of billions of pounds removed before 23 June 2016 and of course since.
David Cameron then decided to resign which, in the best traditions of British political convention, was perhaps right especially as he was a Remain supporter. The real question in many peoples mind was whether it was the right thing to do in the national interest. With this resignation came a leadership election in the Conservative Party which elected as it did Theresa May. She in turn opted, against better judgment and advice, to call a snap election rather than focus on preparing for the Withdrawal Agreement and a draft trading framework agreement. Her move did not pay off losing as she did 13 of her own MP’s. Although the largest party that won seats, it was short of forming a majority government. It had to be propped up by another party. The obvious choice for the Conservative Party was Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) which has 10 MP’s in the House of Commons.
It is safe to say the DUP are no push overs. They are veteran hard negotiators having been involved in the power sharing peace deal in Northern Ireland that resulted in the Belfast Agreement, commonly known as the ‘Good Friday Agreement’.
After intense bartering the Conservatives’ managed to persuade the DUP to support their government based on a ‘supply-and-confidence agreement. It also came with a financial string of £1 billion towards Northern Ireland which had not and still to this day any devolved government for almost 2 years due to the DUP’s intransigence.
With the DUP on side, the UK government began the process of Withdrawal from the EU, initially serving its formal notice known as Article 50 (of the Treaty of the European Union or Lisbon Treaty). Astonishingly, the next nearly 18 months was spent arguably by the Conservative Party negotiating with itself as to what kind of Brexit it wanted, instead of on the negotiating table with the EU. Needless to say the entire process has proved to divide what was already a divided country.
Fast forward to now, the UK government has finally negotiated a Withdrawal Agreement that runs to 585 pages long with only few pages of a political declaration on the future trading relationship. The latter is not legally binding while the former is. Crucially, the source of further discord and rancour amongst all shades of political party in Britain is the controversial Northern Ireland backstop’. This is the process by which in the event of no negotiated trade deal within the transition period after 29.3.19 and until 31 December 2020, Northern Ireland and by extension the rest of the UK would be locked into the EU’s custom union and single market. When asked for how long by MP’s of all sides’, the government prevaricated and said not for long.
Parliament demanded sight of the legal advice of its chief legal officer the Attorney General (AG). Despite unusually appearing before the House of Commons to answer questions on his undisclosed legal advice in theatrical prose, MP’s were none the wiser. A chorus of voices in the Commons demanded to see the legal advice but the government chose to hide behind lawyer client privilege as well as constitutional conventions. This did not wash as the opposition tabled a point of no order with the Speaker of the Commons to rule on whether there should be a vote on the release of the legal advice. The Speaker duly so ruled in the affirmative and the vote was called leading to a humiliating defeat for the government.
The AG’s advice tellingly revealed that the backstop’ would “endure permanently” should there be no trade deal and would require the EU’s permission to exist the same. More fuel to the fire, hardening MP’s on all sides views that the withdrawal agreement is a bad deal and does not deliver Brexit. A monumental defeat awaited the government in its promised MP’s vote on the final shape of the Withdrawal Agreement.
This was scheduled to take place on the evening of 11 December 2018 until it was pulled off late afternoon on Monday 10 December by Theresa May. Her reason given in a statement to the Commons was that she had listened and wanted more time to seek reassurances from Brussels (EU). No Prime Minister since the second world war has had to defer a vote on a significant international treaty.
Noticeably Mrs May did not say to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement. For the EU are implacably against any such move to re-open the text of the Agreement much less to renegotiate. What is also emerging is that the Good Friday Agreement is diametrically against any cancellation of EU membership as power sharing has to happen between the Irish Republic in the south and the devolved Northern Ireland government. In other words, there had to be open borders between the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Unless the EU decide to change the text of the Withdrawal Agreement (for instance by suggesting that the backstop will last as long as the parties are engaged in negotiating a trade deal in good faith, rather than permanently) which is highly unlikely, Mrs May has no chance of shifting minds, even on her own party to get the Withdrawal Agreement passed.
In such as case, it is music to the ears of the opposition (Labour) who will undoubtedly table a no confidence vote in Mrs May’s government. The Labour party want a general election though winning one is unrealistic given Labour’s low opinion poll ratings. Besides, their own Brexit policy is hardly clear and their general opposition to the government dismal.
British politics and government is in disarray with a strong possibility that Mrs May’s government may fall before the end of the year or even beyond. The British constitution is in a crisis and Britania is no longer ruling the waves.
The writer is Barrister, Mediator, and Arbitrator practicing in London.