What has the EU done to deserve Brexit?
In the midst of the Brexit mayhem that has engulfed the UK, there is a tendency to forget that this exercise in British futility and self-destruction is having a critical impact on the EU as a whole, and on each of its individual member states. It is astonishing to observe how the Brexit debate has turned UK-centric when the impact on the partner in this divorce, or at least trial separation, and its own interests, needs and, no less significant, its hurt, are being utterly neglected.
Some in British politics and the media chose to take offense when Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel recently mocked his British counterpart Boris Johnson for refusing to join him for a press conference unless it were moved away from a group of peaceful anti-Brexit protesters. Whether or not Bettel’s actions strayed from diplomatic protocol is beside the point. What matters is to realize the level of frustration among many European leaders, not only at the decision by the
British people to no longer play a part in the European project, but at the manner in which they are going about it.
After three extensions to the deadline, there is still no certainty that Brexit will happen at all and, worse, whether Johnson is serious about taking the UK out of the EU by the end of October, deal or no deal — or even if he will be legally able to. This leaves Brussels in complete limbo, spending much of its time, energy and effort on an issue it would rather not have to deal with. And, even more urgently, being deeply concerned about the fate of millions of EU citizens living in the UK, and vice versa.
If, in the immediate aftermath of the 2016
Brexit referendum, there was a feeling of disbelief among Europeans, it was gradually replaced with bewilderment about how to go about it, and then by increasing anger. This anger stems from being sucked into the mire caused by incompetent British politicians, who rejected the agreed deal a number of times and then put the blame on Brussels. And all this at a time when the EU’s energy and efforts should have been focused on other urgent issues, such as the slow-growing global economy, developing a constructive approach to migrants, the rise of nationalistic populism, and climate change, which have all become secondary to resolving Brexit.
Dealing with the current British prime minister — who, since he was a young correspondent assigned to Brussels, has made a living and a name for himself, particularly in Euroskeptic circles, by disparaging the EU with arguments based mainly on figments of his imagination — is dispiriting for his EU interlocutors. To increase the EU’s frustration, it is now being held at knifepoint to agree to change the withdrawal agreement before the Oct. 31 deadline, which has thrown its entire calculus into disarray and crisis mode.
If in London there is a sense that a no-deal exit is the ultimate threat that, at the 11th hour, if not before, will push the EU negotiators to cave in on the Irish backstop or any other issue, this is far from being the view across the Channel. And why should they back down? In the final analysis, enough concessions have already been made without going any further in undermining the very guiding principles of the EU, including its four basic freedoms. Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and
Michel Barnier are seasoned enough politicians to realize that, as bad as no deal would be for Europe, it would be much worse for the UK — let alone that it would go against a law that was recently passed by the British Parliament. In these negotiations, it is London doing most of the bluffing, whether it is aware of it or not. To realize that it is the EU in the driving seat in these negotiations, it is enough for its negotiators to skim through the Operation Yellowhammer report, which contains the views of the British civil service on the mayhem that a no-deal Brexit would cause across the
UK. It raises the prospect of fresh food and medication shortages, massive queues of lorries on the way to ports, more migration checks imposed by the EU, damage to fuel exports, and even mass demonstrations.
Putting aside its dismay at the British government’s wasting of more than three years by dragging its feet rather than seriously negotiating, and in the process undermining one of the most successful international peace projects in history, Brussels knows that Johnson is either bluffing or that his recklessness will inflict immeasurable damage on his own country, which will cause harm to Europe too, albeit a harm that it can cope with. Their neighbor across “La Manche,” which has been revered as a bastion of common sense, pragmatism, tolerance and competence, seems to be suffering from an eclipse of all these desperately needed qualities in face of the major crisis that Brexit represents.
Much of the EU’s perplexity and helplessness over Brexit derives from assuming that Brexit is irrational and illogical, and especially so should it happen without a deal. It resists accepting that we live in a world where such political traits are prevalent and need to be addressed as such. Moreover, in the same vein, Europeans also assume that London must understand that the EU cannot make any further concessions without risking the entire foundation of the union and without inviting other members to rethink their own commitment to it. This is especially crucial given that some of the underlining causes of Brexit prevail in other EU member states, including anti-migrant populism, xenophobia, and blaming Brussels for all the ills of slow economic growth verging on recession and stagnation.
As reasonable as these assumptions are, it is sadly the case that British politics has turned inwards and is unwilling or incapable of taking such factors into account.
However, now is the time for Johnson and his fellow hard Brexiteers to recognize that, for the EU negotiators, toughing it out with Brexit is essential in order to keep the EU together and to keep moving it forward, with or without the UK.