Options are dwindling and time is running out for the United Kingdom to negotiate a deal to leave the European Union, experts told Pacific Council members in a teleconference on Brexit. This discussion took place on April 4, before EU leaders agreed to extend the official leave date from April 12 to October 31.

Speakers on the teleconference included Stephen Booth, director of policy and research at Open Europe, and Dr. Meredith Crowley, university reader in international economics at the University of Cambridge. Dr. David M. Andrews, a Pacific Council member and professor of international relations at Scripps College, moderated the discussion.

Listen to the full conversation below:

Booth explained that negotiations between the UK and the EU consist of two parts. The first is the withdrawal agreement, which is legally binding and contains many elements that are not controversial, such as citizens’ rights. It also includes the so-called “Irish backstop,” which is basically the EU’s unwavering demand that no matter what the final deal looks like, there can be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Such a border could result in the dissolution of the Good Friday Agreement and lead back to sectarian violence.

The second part is the political declaration, which is not a formal treaty but rather a list of aspirational dreams and demands on both sides of the negotiating table about what the potential future relationship might look like.

“The EU has always insisted that we can’t negotiate the future relationship until the UK has formally left,” said Booth. “The only way to do that is to conclude the withdrawal agreement on the UK side of the table. Much of what has been going on in Parliament the last couple of weeks has been a debate about that political declaration, in terms of what Members of Parliament (MPs) would like to see in the future, not the withdrawal agreement.”

Two of the options being debated include a customs union or a free trade agreement. The problem is that neither of these options allow the UK to keep the Irish border open and also allow the UK to conduct its own independent trade policy.

Crowley explained that the single market of the EU consists of four areas: free trade and goods, free trade in services, free movement of people, and free movement of capital and investment. The thorniest issue is the UK’s future trade relationship with the EU.

“Prime Minister Theresa May has three objectives she wants to achieve that are mutually incompatible,” said Crowley. “She wants to maintain an open border with Ireland to keep the Good Friday Agreement in place. The Tory government also wants the freedom to create its own trade policy for the UK, and they want to minimize time cost and disruption of moving goods between the UK and the EU.”

Two of the options being debated include a customs union or a free trade agreement. The problem is that neither of these options allow the UK to keep the Irish border open and also allow the UK to conduct its own independent trade policy.

A customs union would allow the Irish border to remain open, but wouldn’t satisfy Brexit hardliners who think that model still gives the EU too much say over its trade regulations, even though it would also restrict the free movement of people as well. A trade agreement would satisfy the trade and movement aspects, but would also require a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which the EU and most Labour MPs will not accept.

"The EU has said that at the end of the day, the border in Ireland has to stay open and that can only be the case if at some level there is harmonization of regulation between the UK and the EU."

Meredith Crowley

“The EU has said that at the end of the day, the border in Ireland has to stay open and that can only be the case if at some level there is harmonization of regulation between the UK and the EU,” said Crowley.

Crowley added that bilateral trade agreements wouldn’t be as beneficial for the UK as hardline Brexiteers think.

“The hardliners want the UK to have the ability to negotiate its own bilateral trade agreements around the world, because they believe they can get better benefits that way than if they do so within the EU,” said Crowley. “But trade agreements with third country markets will be a mess for the UK. Most third country market partners don’t want to make trade deals with the UK until they know what’s going to happen with the EU.”

One of the reasons that May’s government has not been able to strike a deal is because not only does the Conservative Party and the Labour Party disagree on how to proceed, but there are also factions within each party.

"The only option Theresa May feels she has now is to reach across the aisle to the Labour Party, and if that means a softer Brexit, so be it."

Stephen Booth

“Theresa May has tried and failed to pass the withdrawal agreement with her own party and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP, of Northern Ireland), which the Conservatives rely on to stay in power,” Booth said. “The DUP wants a harder Brexit, and the main issue with them is the Irish backstop. The only option May feels she has now is to reach across the aisle to the Labour Party, and if that means a softer Brexit, so be it.”

However, it is clear that the Labour Party is also split on this issue, between MPs who would accept a softer Brexit with a permanent customs union or single market membership, and a significant number of MPs who will only support an agreement on the basis that it goes to a second referendum with an option of “Remain” being on the ballot.

“[Labour leader] Jeremy Corbyn faces a tough decision now on whether he allows ‘leave’ to go through, or owns ‘remain,’” said Booth. “It’s unclear what he may decide. If he decides on the soft Brexit route, what impact will that have on his Labor Party?”

The debate about whether or not the UK should leave the EU at all is still very much alive.

One option considered undesirable by all sides is that Parliament is unable to make any deal, resulting in a long, 6-month extension in which no decisions are made. Booth said such an outcome “would be damaging for our politics and increase economic uncertainty which is already having some effect. That’s a risk I certainly would not discount.”

Booth said the debate about whether or not the UK should leave the EU at all is still very much alive. While Parliament has taken the option of leaving without an agreement off the table by strongly voting against that in one of its recent indicative votes, it also rejected holding a confirmatory referendum about whether to actually leave. In fact, the series of indicative votes that Parliament held in recent weeks resulted in no real conclusion.

While the UK wanted a short extension so they could avoid participating in the EU parliamentary elections at the end of May, the EU extended the deadline to October 31, which means the UK does have to take part in the elections unless they ratify the withdrawal agreement in the next month.

Booth predicted that the UK would ask for another extension beyond April 12, and that the EU would agree but only to a long extension, which is what ended up happening. While the UK wanted a short extension so they could avoid participating in the EU parliamentary elections at the end of May, the EU extended the deadline to October 31, which means the UK does have to take part in the elections unless they ratify the withdrawal agreement in the next month.

“The UK government hopes that as a result of cross-party talks with the Labor Party, they can try to conclude an agreement so the UK is able to leave before the EU parliamentary elections,” said Booth. “But the UK Parliament has effectively taken control of the process. When MPs voted on different Brexit outcomes in recent weeks, the government was not involved or bound by that process. But now the government has indicated that it would be willing to oversee and preside over another round of these indicative votes and be bound by that process. That’s plan B if cross-party talks fail and the government can’t agree with Labor.”

_______________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Officer at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.