Any trade-offs in a new Europe must be to our benefit

As Brexit looms, moving closer to Europe won’t be a solution to the uncertainty — nor will shifting towards London, says Dan O’Brien

THERE has been quite a lot of criticism — implicit and explicit — of the Government’s handling of Brexit. There are certainly aspects that deserve criticism.

It is, for instance, unclear what Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan’s repeated public expression of his “frustration” with London for not setting out its Brexit stall is designed to achieve. The Taoiseach’s line that the terms of the exit will be decided by prime ministers, though largely true, gives the appearance of underestimating the role of Frenchman Michel Barnier, who will lead the nuts and bolts part of the negotiations on behalf of the European Commission.

But while the current administration has not always got it right on Brexit, such challenges are one of things the Irish political-administrative system does well. They play to the strengths of the system, notably a capacity for teamwork and problem solving.

So it is with Brexit. Cabinet members are visiting and hosting counterparts on a weekly basis. There’s much thinking and discussion in and among departments. Embassies appear to be obsessing about the problems involved.

Phil Hogan, despite now being European Commissioner for Agriculture in Brussels, waded into the debate this month. He gave a wide-ranging interview on Ireland’s strategic direction and the conduct of its diplomacy to the Irish Independent’s John Downing on Monday.

Hogan warned against allowing relations with London to define Ireland’s stance towards Europe. He went on to speak of forging new relations with the continent “out of the shadow” of Britain.

Perhaps this is just a politician’s innate desire to see the upside — but no country can escape its geography and Ireland has as much chance of doing that in relation to Brexit as Mexico has of escaping the shadow of Washington’s new wall-builder.

Precisely the reason Brexit is such a strategic nightmare for Ireland is that it pulls the country between two of the poles which are so important for security and prosperity. Sometimes leaning towards London is required; on other occasions, interests will dictate leaning towards Europe.

Ray Bassett, a former Irish ambassador, has taken a very different position from Hogan. In an interview with Newstalk’s Sean Moncrieff last week, he said Ireland needed to ensure everyone in Brussels “feels the pain” if Britain doesn’t get a good deal in Brexit talks and that the two countries’ interests are “almost identical”.

He said being the “squeaky wheel” was the best way to get what you want in Brussels. He also said Ireland should consider following Britain out of the EU if Theresa May is not given a good deal.

Start with the argument about making Europe feel the pain. The squeakiest wheel ever to sit at a table in Brussels was Greece’s Yanis Varoufakis. And it is hard to think of any EU minister who failed his people so badly.

The reality is that countries usually don’t get their way by making threats in Europe. Small countries never do. The ultimate threat Bassett suggests is exiting the EU with Britain if that country doesn’t get what it wants. This is simply not a credible threat.

Ireland’s economic model is based on access to Europe’s single market. The reason there are 200,000 jobs in export-orientated foreign companies here is because Ireland is in the EU’s single market. There would be an exodus of these companies and the jobs they provide if Ireland was to leave the EU. Making a threat to leave would be a little like putting a gun to your own head and threatening to shoot if you didn’t get your way.

The difficulty of Ireland’s position in the Brexit negotiations is perhaps best illustrated by immigration. Whether hard barriers go up between the EU and Britain after it leaves the bloc will depend on what is agreed on the free movement of people. This is clearly a massively contentious issue in Britain. But it is not in most other countries — immigration concerns, if they are significant, tend to focus on arrivals from outside the EU, not from within it.

Because the right to live and work in other members is not unpopular in most other countries, there is a strong consensus among the 26 that Britain cannot curb the free movement of people if it wishes to maintain free movement of goods, services and capital.

As it is a vital national interest for Ireland to keep Britain in the single market, on this issue it would be best to give Britain its way. But given the feeling among most of the other 26, there is almost no chance of Britain getting such a deal. As such, if Britain prioritises border control over access to the single market, there is little an Irish government will be able to do about it.

There are no easy answers, no reliable roadmap to follow. Pragmatism and tactical flexibility will be required. That is how matters have been played to date. It is how they should continue to be played.

‘Relationships with the EU and UK need simultaneous consideration...’