Chris Patten
Chris Patten, the last British
governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs,
is Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
LONDON
– As Britain formally triggers the doleful negotiations to exclude
itself from the mainstream of European politics and economics, Prime
Minister Theresa May refuses to use the word “divorce” to describe what
is happening. My wife, a retired family lawyer and mediator, thinks May
could be correct. After all, the family house we are exiting still
contains much of our history and family silver, as well as our future
economic interest. In that sense, divorce is scarcely an option.
Britain has not been
as insular an island as some people take it to be. From our reigning
royal family (which is German) to our exports (overwhelmingly to
Europe), we have helped to shape and in our turn been shaped by
developments in the rest of Western Europe. We are separated by just 20
miles (33 kilometers) of water – these days, apparently a very wide 20
miles – at the Strait of Dover.
So why are we
leaving? The cause is a mixture of frustration, delusion, mendacity, and
bloody-mindedness. We were fed up with Europe’s inability to tackle
some of its biggest challenges – from competitiveness to immigration –
without seeking to acquire more central powers.
In addition, our
political leaders have for years played into the hands of those hostile
to the EU, by appearing to accept any and every criticism of it, many of
them a compound of falsehoods. We refuse to see ourselves for what we
are: a mid-size country that no longer rules much of the world. We are
too easily persuaded that you cannot be a patriot without being a
nationalist.
We can and should
manage the consequences of this break-up without bringing further woes
down on our heads. But the process of separation thus far doesn’t offer
great hope.
The Brexit
referendum last June was itself a disaster. A parliamentary democracy
should never turn to such populist devices. Even so, May could have
reacted to the 52% vote to quit Europe by saying that she would hand the
negotiations to a group of ministers who believed in this outcome and
then put the result of the talks in due course to parliament and the
people. Instead, she turned the whole of her government into a Brexit
machine, even though she had always wished to remain in the EU. Her
government’s motto is now “Brexit or bust.” Sadly, we will probably get
both.
So what happens next? No one has a clue. The cliff beckons; the lemmings are lining up.
We know that almost
half our exports go to the EU, five times more than go to the entire
Commonwealth and six times more than to all the BRICS countries. But we
have given up on staying in the single market (which would require us to
accept European jurisdiction and the free movement of labor) or the
customs union. Apparently we want a free-trade agreement with the EU on
our own terms, covering our main industries and services.
May’s foreign
secretary, Boris Johnson, argues that the cards are in our hands in
these negotiations, because Europeans want to continue selling – Prosecco,
for example – to us. But anyway, May’s ministers say, it doesn’t matter
if we have no deal at all. We will simply walk away. No deal would not
necessarily be a bad outcome, they insist, because the world is eager to
do more business with us, which will be cheaper in the future as
sterling continues its steady decline.
All of this, to
return to the word May won’t use, feels like a rather unamicable
divorce. Every twist and turn in the talks will be accompanied by
xenophobic outrage on the right wing of May’s Conservative Party and in
the tabloid press to which she is now so beholden.
It is bad enough that
we are setting about wrecking our economy, which will make the poor
poorer and even the enterprising more vulnerable. On top of this, we are
overturning many of the rules and conventions of our parliamentary
democracy, which should encourage the search for consensus and
compromise, and shun majoritarianism.
A mere 52% of British
voters made the decision to exit the EU last June. What exactly they
voted for remains a mystery. But they have spoken, May and the
Brexiteers insist. So that settles it. Ignore, they say, what the
“enemies of the people,” the judges in our independent courts, have to
say. Shout down any point of view inquiring about what is actually
happening to us. Attack the reputation of anyone – business manager,
politician, or civil-society leader – who favors EU membership or an
open discussion of it. Tell the BBC that it must accept Brexit
enthusiastically or face popular wrath. Above all, close down
parliamentary debate – all in the name of “restoring parliamentary
sovereignty.”
This divorce is not
going well. And the proceedings have only just started. There is a long
road ahead. Heaven knows what sort of country we will be at the end of
it. But, as with any divorce, we can be fairly confident that it is the
children who will suffer the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment