We must help Europe’s pragmatists to win the Brexit argument
The Government must use its valuable ‘soft power’ to improve communication and prove its credibility
Brussels: the very word conjures up an image of a single, monstrous entity doing everything it can to thwart our interests. Indeed, Brexit has generated an unprecedented show of unity and anti-british feeling on the Continent, where it is seen as an act of madness and an insult. But behind the façade, “Brussels” is not a monster. It is a complex network of interests and perspectives.
On Brexit, there are broadly two constituencies: those focused on “winning” and ensuring Britain “loses” to shore up the EU; and those with a broader eye on our future, strategic cooperation, who are more inclined to compromise. Britain cannot ensure that the latter group wins, but we can do a much better job of boosting its chances.
The slow pace of negotiations so far is not Britain’s fault. The process insisted upon by EU officials, in which the “divorce” is decided before any trade deal, makes no logical sense. It is clearly impossible to decide how to keep the Northern Irish border open before broaching the broader topic of EU-UK customs and tariffs, for example. Privately, former EU officials admit as much.
Still, Britain is going along with it for political reasons, knowing that the EU must be allowed to claim some sort of “progress” before it can admit the pressing need to discuss the future.
This artificial hiatus before any trade negotiations should not be wasted, however. It should be used to prepare the ground for a deal. And yet, more than a year after the referendum, Britain has not managed to convey any kind of consistent or definitive message about the future.
“What does Britain want?” I was asked, over and over, at meetings in Brussels last week. Who speaks for it? Are the Brexit hardliners in control or did the election change everything? Many people are convinced the UK will stay in the single market and customs union; a few are still unsure whether Brexit will happen.
Their confusion leads them to draw the conclusion, fair or not, that the UK is in a blundering mess. The most enthusiastic proponents of this view, when I visited, were not posturing EU bureaucrats, but non-european officials.
You might think that none of this matters, because hard economic interests will win out in the end. That is naïve. The mood music makes a difference. It is generating a political atmosphere that goes against our interests, in which both our threats and promises have no credibility. As David Cameron found, ignoring the Brussels mood and then hitting it with a list of demands is not a successful strategy.
It would be nice to blame the European Commission for all of this. But the EU’S chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, is hardly holding back a tide of pragmatism towards Britain. He is currently under no pressure to shift the EU’S position. European politicians resent having to think about Brexit and, convinced that Britain is simply being difficult and will roll over in the end, have put it on the backburner.
In turn, aware of the toxic atmosphere, the British Government is treading carefully. Its position papers have avoided extensive technical details and certain urgent topics, like the Brexit transition, have barely been broached. It is feeling its way forwards, afraid of triggering backlashes at home and abroad if it tables concrete proposals. This can’t last forever and is currently feeding the impression that Britain has no coherent position.
There are ways to counter this impression, however, and they are not being used enough. The first should be to draw on Britain’s large network of European contacts. Our regulators, MPS, ministers, bureaucrats, lawyers and business groups all have contacts on the Continent. The Government can’t divulge technical details of its negotiating plan to them, but it could brief them on the message Britain wants to send, the arguments in its favour, the consequences if the EU refuses to budge, and our broad vision for the future.
Confused European journalists and MEPS should also be briefed and told exactly who to call for clarification when documents leak or Tony Blair shows up in Brussels. Yet the Government seems to have no strategy for deploying this valuable soft power. It has only just set up an engagement team in the Brexit Department to widen its channels of communication beyond the official negotiation.
The second way to improve the UK’S position is for Theresa May to give a more detailed speech about Brexit. Her impressive Lancaster House address is now nine months old. She has said nothing substantial since losing her majority. She needs
follow Juliet Samuel on Twitter @Citysamuel; read More at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion
to say more about where Britain is going not just to EU governments and officials but to the British people. What possibilities await a post-brexit UK and why should voters believe in their country? At the same time, she must prepare voters for certain compromises: a proper Brexit cannot be achieved overnight and requires a transition; and Britain will put up some cash, provided the EU fulfils certain conditions.
These beliefs are generally accepted in Westminster, including by staunch Brexiteers, but this consensus is not shared by the country at large, nor is it understood in Europe. It is not enough to allude to them once and then rely on rigid repetitions. They must be explained in a human way, made explicit, and discussed openly.
The third and final task is for the Tories to demonstrate credibility by delivering functional government. First and foremost, this means getting legislation through Parliament, for which the Conservatives must rediscover a sense of discipline. It means ministers agreeing to execute a single Brexit strategy and avoiding off-message remarks. It means firing those who break ranks. It means backbenchers must avoid writing self-indulgent letters and the Home Office should stop wrongfully sending deportation notifications and leaking half-formed policies. It is shameful that the EU, managing 27 countries, has so far exhibited greater discipline than the UK.
I still believe the pragmatists will win out in the end on both sides. But their victory cannot be taken for granted. Angela Merkel will not simply fly to our rescue at the behest of her carmakers. The UK must do more to make it clear that cooperating is worthwhile for Europe. It does not have much time to get it right.