Britain’s messy divorce

It is bad enough that Britain is setting about wrecking its economy, which will make the poor poorer and even the enterprising more vulnerable

s 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 Britain is exiting still contains much of its history and family silver, as well as its 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 its reigning royal family (which is German) to its exports (overwhelmingly to Europe), it has helped to shape and in its turn been shaped by developments in the rest of Western Europe. It is separated by just 20 miles (33 kilometres) of water — these days, apparently a very wide 20 miles — at the Strait of Dover.

So why is Britain leaving? The cause is a mixture of frustration, delusion, mendacity and bloody-mindedness. Britain is 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, its political leaders have for years played into the hands of those hostile to the European Union (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 per cent 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, Britain will probably get both.

So what happens next? No one has a clue. The cliff beckons; the lemmings are lining up.

One knows that almost half of Britain’s exports go to the EU, five times more than go to the entire Commonwealth and six times more than to all the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). But the United Kingdom has given up on staying in the single market (which would require it to accept European jurisdiction and the free movement of labour) or the customs union. Apparently, the UK wants a freetrade agreement with the EU on its own terms, covering its main industries and services.

Simply walking away

May’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, argues that the cards are in Britain’s hands in these negotiations, because Europeans want to continue selling — Prosecco, for example — to UK. But anyway, May’s ministers say, it doesn’t matter if Britain has no deal at all. It will simply walk away.

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 Britain is setting about wrecking its economy, which will make the poor poorer and even the enterprising more vulnerable. On top of this, Britain is overturning many of the rules and conventions of its parliamentary democracy, which should encourage the search for consensus and compromise, and shun majoritarianism.

A mere 52 per cent 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 Britain’s independent courts, have to say. Shout down any point of view inquiring about what is actually happening to the UK. Attack the reputation of anyone who favours EU membership or an open discussion of it. 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. No one knows what sort of country Britain 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.

Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former European Union commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford.