13th
March 2017 - For immediate release
UK GOVERNMENT SHOULD
CHANGE COURSE
IN BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS TO BUILD
A NEW, CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EU
IN BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS TO BUILD
A NEW, CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EU
A new policy
paper released today by the Conservative Group for Europe (CGE), the main
campaign group for Conservative pro-Europeans, argues that the risks are high
that the outcome of the exit negotiations will cause significant damage to the
political and economic interests of both Britain and the EU, blighting
relations for a generation. The CGE brings together over 30 Parliamentarians as
members, with Ken Clarke MP as President and Neil Carmichael MP as Chairman.
The full
paper is available here
In the
Group’s first policy paper in a planned series during the Article 50 period,
author and CGE Vice Chairman Edward Bickham sets out the risks from a bad or
chaotic Brexit, saying that the British Government is in serious danger of ‘asking
for the wrong things, in the wrong way and on the wrong timescale’.
Bickham: “With
the Article 50 process starting, the Government should change direction to
deliver a better Brexit that unifies the country and maximises the economic and
political interests of both the UK and the EU. That will involve
disappointing the Brexit zealots. The negotiations will be difficult, but the
UK government faces a choice – either pursue a Brexit with a strong UK-EU
institutional relationship that could be a win-win, or settle for a deal that destroys prosperity and influence.”
The paper’s main
points include:
· The Government has adopted an
intimidatory stance towards critics, claiming that the Referendum has given it
a mandate. It is not defying the ‘will of the people’ to believe that the
Government is pursuing an unnecessarily extreme form of Brexit – there is no
mandate for “rupture”. Its White Paper adopts
a divisive ‘winner takes all’ approach, which threatens to perpetuate divisions
and risks further alienating the
Conservative Party’s natural supporters in business.
· The Prime Minister has expressed a desire
for “a new strategic partnership between Britain and the EU”, but has provided
no clues about how this would be organised.
The Government’s determination to rule out preserving any aspects of the
current relationship – such as membership of Euratom - seems driven by hostility towards the EU in particular and
supranational institutions in general rather than a pragmatic pursuit of the
national interest.
· It is in Britain’s interest to
preserve a uniquely close relationship with the EU through a new institutional
relationship rather than ad hoc arrangements, with the fullest possible
participation in the Single Market, continuing co-operation in areas like the
environment, science and research, higher education and aviation, and the
preservation of uniquely close working arrangements on security, crime and
foreign policy. The volatile nature of
the new US Administration and the aggressive behavior of Russia make this a bad
time to reduce the ability of European countries to work closely together on
foreign and security policy.
· Negotiating a new ‘institutional
relationship’ could build on ideas around ‘variable geometry’. Potential approaches worth exploring include
an Association Agreement; the Continental Partnership idea championed by the
think tank Bruegel; or the creation of a bespoke Britain-EU Partnership
Council.
· It is wrong to assume that it is
impossible for Britain to retain Single Market membership whilst limiting
freedom of movement. If negotiations are conducted in a constructive spirit, a
grand bargain might yet be achieved. If Britain were, for example, willing to
trade some influence over Single Market rules, then it might be possible to
secure restrictions over freedom of movement such as an emergency brake,
greater constraints on access to benefits
and requiring job or study offers before people move to Britain.
· It is unwise for Britain’s negotiating
strategy to be driven by an ideological hostility to the European Court of Justice. It has been a good arbiter of Single Market
rules and doesn’t deserve to be accorded ‘bogey man’ status. Any UK-EU Free
Trade Agreement would involve accepting rulings by a supranational arbitrating
authority.
· Any EU Free Trade Agreement will fall
far short of replicating the benefits of the Single Market, especially in
services. Independent estimates warn that FTAs with new countries are unlikely
to make a big impact in softening the impact of loss of Single Market
membership. So if an exit from the Single Market becomes inevitable, the
Government should negotiate a significant transitional period, during which
Britain should retain its place in the European Economic Area (EEA). The UK would
suffer more than the EU from a ‘train-crash’ Brexit.
· The EU 27 also have a significant
interest in a positive outcome. They should
ask themselves whether an institutional, rather than ad hoc, relationship with Britain may facilitate a continuing alignment
in areas like foreign policy. Similarly,
they should consider whether helping Britain to meet its problems regarding
migration may be a price worth paying for maintaining the current scope of the
Single Market. Do they want, even
unwittingly, to abet the nationalist elements in the UK by imposing a ‘hard’
Brexit which maximises the schism between Britain and the EU?
· Some European politicians suggest that
the costs of a ‘hard’ Brexit will be too high and that British opinion will
ultimately demand that the country rescind its decision. They are almost
certainly wrong. The more likely scenario would see the EU used as a scapegoat
for Britain’s ills; so for the EU 27 to plan on the basis of a British change
of heart would be a serious miscalculation.
CGE
Chairman Neil Carmichael MP commented: “This
publication is a powerful contribution to the necessary debate following the
referendum decision as the period of negotiation
under Article 50 begins. Securing the best possible deal for the UK is
essential for peace, security and prosperity but the ultimate outcome must also
enjoy widespread support in order to enable leavers and remainers to come
together in the national interest. It should be studied with these objectives in
mind.”
Bickham added:
“Many statements from British Ministers
have lacked empathy with our partners and failed to create the mutual
confidence essential for successful negotiations. Many Continental leaders see
the British approach as transactional, nationalistic and hostile to the EU.
“The
Prime Minister has been disingenuous in simultaneously urging that the country
should come together, whilst setting out negotiating objectives that polarise
opinion. The Government is mistaken in
its rigidity towards the ECJ, and its current approach is likely to cause
serious economic dislocation and damage to employment, living standards and
public services.
“The greatest weakness of the Government’s approach
is that it is piecemeal. Like the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz it lacks a heart.
There is no vision for the new relationship: how it would work and how we would
hope to have influence over the policies of our closest neighbours.
“Britain’s interests, values, security and
prosperity are so inextricably linked with the countries of the EU that these
must be managed in a structured way. Negotiating a new ‘institutional’
relationship will require goodwill and a longer-term strategic sense from both
sides. Otherwise the real danger is that
the negotiations will be hijacked by nationalist elements and that relations
will be poisoned for a generation.”
Contact:
Edward Bickham: +44 (0)20 8563 1614 and +44 (0) 7760 197381
edward@ebickham.co.uk
Andrew Marshall: +44 (0) 7808 579563
andrew.marshall27@btopenworld.com
The Conservative Group for Europe
Every
Conservative Prime Minister, from Macmillan to Cameron, has recognised the
importance of strong and committed British participation in European political
and economic institutions. The
Conservative Group for Europe was founded almost fifty years ago initially to
campaign for British membership of the European Economic Community and
thereafter for Britain to play a leading role in the European Union. Although
we believe that the 2016 Referendum was a flawed process, Britain is now
embarking on a course to leave the EU. The role of the CGE in these new
circumstances is to campaign to preserve the fullest practicable political and
economic co-operation between Britain and the EU in pursuit of our shared
interests, prosperity and security.