Most experts who
follow the Brexit negotiations think the Withdrawal Agreement (WA)
will sketch in pretty loose terms what the final relationship between
the UK and EU will be, although some EU politicians have indicated
a reluctance to do this..A vague WA has been called
a ‘Blind Brexit’ (ht Chris
Grey). While a blind Brexit might help in May’s
efforts to achieve an agreement and (maybe) to get parliamentary
approval for it, it remains a very undemocratic way forward [1]. Here
is why.
Suppose there are
only two types of Brexit possible: a No “not
the end of the world” Deal or BINO (staying in the
single market and customs union). All the polls suggest No Deal is
not the will of the people, and its support is in any case dependent
on a false view of its economic consequences. Equally it is difficult
to understand why anyone would support BINO compared to EU
membership, as the only major difference is that we no longer get a
say on how the rules we have to obey are changed.
A result of keeping
the WA vague about the final relationship is that this binary choice
is not apparent to many voters. In particular the UK government is
still peddling various halfway houses that the EU is very unlikely to
agree to, but we will not know for sure that they will be rejected
until after the WA. If we did know it before the WA the number of
people who had changed their mind would be greater than it is now,
which in turn might embolden parliament to call the whole thing off.
Thus we will leave
under false pretenses, of exactly the kind that led to the narrow
vote to Leave in the first place. When it does become clear that
there are only these two choices, it will be too late to change our
mind without new costs. Re-entry into the EU might require becoming
part of the Eurozone for example. So we will could end up with BINO
plus face saving details forever, and pretty well everyone (including
No Deal advocates) will agree we are worse off than we were before.
A similar problem
happens if parliament does not approve the WA and we end up with a
second referendum. The logic of a second referendum is clear. In the
first in 2016 the promises made about what leaving would mean were
various and many were untrue. Now we know what leaving does involve
it makes sense to ask the people once again. Except in any referendum
held after the WA fails to be approved, we will not know what the
final deal will be, and that will give May the chance to spin her
deal in any way that gets votes. Rather than a referendum on a final
deal, it will in fact be a second referendum with unicorns only
slightly less outlandish than in the first referendum.
This is what I mean
by a very undemocratic procedure. The fault lies first with David
Cameron, who should never have agreed to a referendum where the type
of Brexit was unspecified. It then lies with May, who initially
prefered Brexit fantasy to reality and despite Chequers still panders
to the Brexiters. Above all it is the fault of the Brexiters, who by
going back on an agreement made in December wasted precious time so
they had more chance of getting No Deal.
The EU cannot really
be blamed for going along with a vague WA. They are quite happy with
BINO, and it avoids a No Deal accident. For that reason they may feel
it makes sense
to help May. The alternative of insisting on a detailed WA on future
trade is high stakes: it could end Brexit, but could lead to No Deal.
It is not surprising that most EU politicians would take the less
risky option.
It remains the case,
nevertheless, that by allowing May to have a vague WA on trade they
are assisting in the deception of UK voters and MPs, who will be leaving the
EU without knowing what is going to take its place. I hope that is
something the EU recognises if we do leave in March 2019 and
subsequently want to return. I suspect, however, that this is a vain
hope.
[1] It is also
costly in economic terms, because it prolongs uncertainty about what
future trade relationships will be. Some of the issues I describe here may also divide those who voted Remain over whether the WA should be passed in parliament or not.
