26th October 2021
If the United Kingdom government is to get anywhere with its post-Brexit policy – ‘to make progress’ is a loaded phrase – then it needs to consider appointing a new head negotiator.
This proposition seems to be true on any sensible view – for the current situation is not good even for those who want Brexit to work in practice.
When the current negotiator – David Frost – was appointed as a minister this blog was supportive.
There was merit – it seemed to me – in the person responsible for the conduct of Brexit negotiations being formally responsible to parliament, even if it is to the house of lords.
There also seemed to be merit in the person being appointed having detailed knowledge of the two Brexit agreements, the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement.
And Frost’s background as a diplomat in the European Union meant he should have an understanding of the various tactical and strategic means of securing the United Kingdom’s objectives.
But.
That positive view was misconceived.
The core – inescapable – problem is that Frost is now reduced to dumping on the negotiated text he himself was responsible for negotiating.
It may be (conceivably) in the United Kingdom’s interests to vary or otherwise address what was agreed – for circumstances can change, and what was agreed may not have been fully understood.
But when that is the situation, the reversal cannot credibly be handled by the very person who not only negotiated but also commended what was agreed.
And the lack of credibility goes further: as there will be the suspicion that what is being loudly said now is not in the United Kingdom’s interest, but in the interest of the negotiator covering his back for having negotiated something that they now regret.
Put simply: if the United Kingdom’s current position has any merit then it needs a fresh negotiator, who has no political capital sunk in the previously agreed texts.
*
And this freshness is needed more generally.
It may be that the United Kingdom will not achieve a great deal in post-Brexit negotiations until and unless we not only have a new post-Brexit negotiator but we also have a new generation of politicians in positions of power (and of opposition).
For, like the political equivalent of a historical reenactment society, we seem destined to keep on fighting the battles of 2016.
There needs to be a wider move away from justifying (and criticising) Brexit in principle, from the politics of defence (and attack), to dealing with Brexit as it is and is likely to remain for at least five-to-ten years, if not longer.
For this to happen will mean that both Brexiters and Remainers/Rejoiners have to move on from the rigid, absolutist partisanship of the last five years.
This seems unlikely to happen.
But just as we need a new post-Brexit negotiator, we need a new way of approaching post-Brexit more generally.
Else we will keep getting the post-Brexit negotiators that our political culture perhaps deserves.
******
This blog needs your help to continue – each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Good post, tactfully put. Perhaps though, one may need also to consider that Mr. Frost’s particular approach to negotiations is deliberate – perhaps Mr. Johnson sees it as a useful distraction which will play well with his core voters. Politicians the world over pick battles abroad when they feel vulnerable domestically. In that (admittedly cynical) context, the good sense of your pragmatic suggestion may well struggle to make itself heard …
It must surely make sense for all parties to step back and honestly take stock of the economic and social damage versus those benefits resulting from Brexit.
Within the next 5 years we should get a very good and clear picture as to the real effect of Brexit on the UK nation from which we can proceed accordingly assuming we can keep the nation together until then.
In the meantime we must think seriously about changing from FPTP to PR and with making MPs and others (MSM) accountable for their words and actions.
Many people are thinking seriously about how to engineer a switch to PR. The UK Conservative party is dead against it, but UK Labour party members are now solidly in favour. At next year’s LP conference there may be enough trade union bloc votes to get it through. But the only way to get a constitutionally reforming government at Westminster is for the present opposition parties to co-operate at a general election – something that is against the Labour ethos and rules. But it seems to be happening now in Hungary. I suppose that this will only happen in the UK when its government has reached Orbán levels of authoritarianism. A couple of years away?
Brexit is an essentially emotional project.
Apart from ending freedom of movement, its practical benefits (in the eyes of its supporters) are ex post justifications, undeliverable, too small to make a diference or did not require Brexit.
So, for as long as half the country wants Brexit, the UK’s policy has to be to trumpet trivia (return of the crown mark on beer glasses) and to pick fights with the EU to remind its supporters that we have left so that they can enjoy the feeling of being outside the EU.
A more friendly UK/EU policy will have to await generational change.
Well, in such cases there is always abenefir to local politicians who are losing power in the broader communitiy. Observe Polish politicians. Observe the silence of Catholic church which is, otherwise, very vocal on basic political issues.
Respects,
andrej klemencic, Slovenia
Frost’s view of negotiating seems to be the simplistic, hard-nosed one of “my job is to bully and brow-beat YOU until you concede everything I THINK I want … and because I’m aggressive, loud and deaf to argument I’ll win”.
If Frost wanted to get a “one off” good deal buying a car in a slack market from a salesman needing the sales commission this approach would work well. In any other circumstances, it doesn’t.
Frost will be screwed whenever the power imbalance is against him; the negotiations complex and detailed; and maintaining a relationship is vital to protect wider interests. Frost only remains in his position because he works for a boss with as extreme weaknesses and lack of insight.
I agree – we’re stuck in the Brexit and other horrible messes afflicting us until there’s a sea change in both the largest political parties. Political transformations that huge can’t be achieved in less than 10 years though.
Can we survive the next 10 years economically and socially? I’m not sure we can. I also worry terribly about the type of politics which may emerge after our society has broken into bits.
I think that there is a more fundamental queston at heart here. Before we “remainers” can get on board and try to plug the leaks in the totally unseaworthy HMS Brexit, the fact that none of the promises that were made for the craft have been met – under EU law, we had the right to return shoddy goods that did not live up to the promises made for them. Indeed HMG shows not the slightest intention to honour the “pledges” which were made to win the 2016 referendum.
The latest “Led by Donkeys” piece raises some very valid questions about the relationship between suppliers on the (Tory) VIP list and figures in power for the procurement of pandemic supplies – it would strain credulity to imagine that “Brexit” didn’t provide an even bigger bunfest for the well-connected. Both show that (sections of) HMG is not interested in the public good; so why should “remainers” help the klepistocracy? The UK must be at the heart of Europe – any other venture is a cul de sac.
to be fair to Lord Frost, does anybody know the “the United Kingdom’s objectives” about Brexit ??? Beside all those 3 Word slogans
Frost is perfect in the job Johnson has given him. He appeals to all the base instincts.
The writer is looking for a better outcome and I share his concerns.
But this is not what the PM has in mind. If someone was available to treat it seriously I’m sure she/he could be found though with difficulty. Only Gove perhaps but he has his plate full.
Until Johnson is out of the picture or he does a 180 degree turn, it will be Frost.
Eden didn’t survive Suez
Thatcher didn’t survive the poll tax.
It will take a new PM too change course.
On historical reenactment, I think that there is a danger of an either/or false dichotomy. There is no reason why we cannot do both and perhaps it’s preferable that we do. To cease arguing about Brexit itself, is to take it off the agenda. Once that happens, the options become limited and we circumscribe the realm of the possible with the boundaries of the likely.
But that doesn’t preclude taking action to improve the situation as it is and arguing for immediate and practical mitigation. This is my personal example. With a house in Greece I was badly affected by Brexit. I was part-time between the two countries. I campaigned and marched against Brexit, but that didn’t stop me securing my residual rights under the Withdrawal Agreement. I now have permanent Greek residency, a Greek driving license, and am sorting out my tax arrangements. I did both, and made the best out of a terrible job.
You do not have to reconcile yourself to Brexit in order to mitigate its worst consequences. Without an analysis of Brexit’s inherent contradictions, it will be difficult to find remedies. And we need to keep reminding people that palliatives are not a cure.
PS Arguing about Brexit in Greece is pointless, there’s no disagreement. The Greeks think that we have lost our collective minds.
I do think the bigger isn’t so much the negotiator but the strategy, or rather the lack thereof.
The UK has is a untenable position of a deal that is simultaneously too close and too distant.
It’s too distant in that it has managed to severely disrupt UK exports to the EU particularly in services while probably increasing imports in the longer term.
Meanwhile it is too close to the EU in that it contains provisions that would prevent a full free trade agreement with the USA (among others) such as the requirement to ban lots of US products.
Either the UK needs to properly break away from Europe or get closer. It’s hard to see the present half-and-half approach working in the long term.
The TCA governs your relations with the EU.
Treat it like an office manual. It is your reference point for the future.
It creates multiple committees so there will be plenty of jobs to fill.
You have left the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Having voted with my feet and left the UK many years before Brexit I believe the following consequences apply to your actions:
1. For five years at least you will have reduced living standards and below average economic growth.
2. This may in extremis lead to you starting a war either economic or military but will in any event simply amplify point one.
3. In the medium term you could recalibrate your economy to offset lost EU trade by increased trade with the rest of the world. You lack of indigenous manpower makes any success difficult though without revisiting your attitudes to foreigners.
4. You could apply to join the EU again but there is no great appetite to welcome you back . This would be a long term project probably spanning at least two generations.
We cannot advance until we come together. We cannot come together until the dust settles. It cannot settle until the Brexit zealots admit they had no plan and sold empty promises just to get power (unlikely) or until they are thrown out. By then we will have changed, the EU will have changed. Geography has us close to Europe, so we need an adult relationship with the EU. That cannot be while our so-called government hides their lack of coherent Brexit plan by constantly abusing the EU (“them”). Such a state of affairs cannot endure and no good can come of it. Sooner or later there will be a carambolage. Those who read these posts know it and can feel the worry gnawing our guts. The government which follows will have a chance to rebuild and if stateswomen or men can be found, only then can we suggest a better way forward for what remains of the UK & the EU. In the meantime, we must lie out in the rain & winter is coming.
“In the meantime, we must lie out in the rain & winter is coming”.
You’ve encapsulated my own sense of dread perfectly. Thank you.
Probably no advance is possible while Remainers and Brexiters hurl barbs at each other. It’s done and endlessly revisiting the past isn’t going to achieve anything
I think if his position had been, “this is what we have learned about the way the Protocol has run, and these are some ideas about how to address the issues we have found”, then his position would have been tenable. For example, additional governance to resolve disputes that have arisen at the Joint Committee appears to be needed. That doesn’t need to threaten the ECJ’s status as the interpreter of EU Law.
However, his position is that goods that do not meet EU standards should be allowed to flow to NI. That is a fundamental change to the spirit of the Protocol. I think it is much harder for him to be arguing for an entirely different type of agreement, as you say, than if it was fine tuning.
Good point. But it was already thus from within the EU. The S-CG must now show that their way is better, ergo the Jacobins are back in full zeal, commanding all powerful and… fragile.
The problem is that Brexit was a bad idea and was obviously so from the start. While it is certainly possible to make the best of it, doing so needs people who are knowledgeable, smart, and diligent. However those very qualities make it extremely unlikely they supported Brexit, so we need someone who opposed Brexit to make a success of it. Getting such a person into a position of sufficient power is obviously extremely difficult, given that the Brexiteers are currently in charge.