No prizes for recognising that quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
It is said for the first time by Sherlock Holmes in “The Sign of Four” and then
repeated with small variations in a couple of the short stories. Doyle clearly
intended it to be remembered by his readers and indeed it has popped into my
mind a number of times during the seemingly endless discussions of Brexit that
have filled the airwaves for the last three years.
This morning Radio 4’s Today programme had a panel of “ordinary
people” giving their opinions on Brexit. As is normally the case with these
things there were some strongly opinionated people expressing themselves very
forcefully. I was struck by one lady in particular who was of the opinion that
the European Union was treating the UK terribly unfairly. I waited for the
presenter to remind her that almost every problem in the current situation was
entirely of the UK’s own making but I waited in vain. The red lines that
Theresa May set out on assuming the Premiership and her haste to trigger
Article 50 have led inevitably and inexorably to the situation in which we now
find ourselves. The Withdrawal Agreement text that she has agreed with Michel
Barnier, improbable as it seems, is pretty much the best possible deal that is
available once the impossibilities of her red lines have been eliminated.
So, for that lady on Today (who almost certainly will never read
this) and for anyone else who is interested, here is my take on the situation
as we await the “meaningful vote” on the Withdrawal Agreement in parliament
next week.
The European Union is a group of developed nations that have
agreed to pool certain aspects of their sovereignty in order to improve the
lives of their citizens and their standing in the world. It has an aspiration
to form an “ever closer union” which has been present since its founding treaty
and to which the United Kingdom signed up in 1972. As part of pooled
sovereignty EU states have assigned it responsibility for a large number of
aspects of modern life ranging from licencing of medicines to common standards
for food safely to aviation safety to external trade tariffs and many others.
Since 1993 its members have agreed to form an internal market in which goods,
services, capital and labour may be freely moved without tariffs or
obstructions. Interestingly the internal market rules were largely written by a
British civil servant, Arthur (later Lord) Cockfield.
UK membership of the European Union has always attracted a share
of controversy in a way that simply doesn’t happen in other member countries.
Even Greece, which suffered greatly under European rules following the flawed
introduction of the common currency, has shown no inclination to leave the
union altogether. Other countries are desperate to get in. However it must be
recognised that there has long been a body of opinion in the UK that was
uncomfortable with the idea of pooled sovereignty and aspired to stand alone in
the world, perhaps inspired by communal memories of the 1940s and Churchill’s
oratory about fighting on beaches and landing fields. This opinion was most
strongly felt in the Conservative party and it eventually led to David
Cameron’s decision to use a popular referendum to try to quell the infighting
in his own party. Millions of words have been expended on that process and I
don’t propose to add to them here. The upshot was a narrow vote to leave the EU
and the flight of David Cameron from the public arena.
At that point we had an advisory referendum result that
suggested that our sovereign parliament should take action to withdraw the
United Kingdom from the European Union. It said absolutely nothing about how
long that process should take or what arrangements should be made to replace
functions that the EU currently performs on behalf of its member states.
Enter Theresa May who was at that time probably the most
authoritarian Home Secretary in British history. She became Prime Minister as
all the victors of the referendum campaign like Johnson, Gove, Fox and Leadsom
apparently decided that the job was now firmly in the “too difficult” category.
Never one to be deterred by logic, common sense or human decency, May
immediately declared that the referendum result must be implemented in the most
draconian way possible and as fast as possible.
Meanwhile the other EU states moved to get themselves organised
for the loss of one of the big three members – the other two being France and
Germany. Every one of the other 27 states expressed regret that the UK was
going to leave but respected its right to make that decision.
As the UK had decided to leave the Union and Mrs May had decided
to eschew available options to reflect the near 50/50 split in the referendum
vote by choosing a “softer” version of Brexit it is very hard to see how the
remaining 27 members could have acted much differently to the way that they
have.
The EU exists to further the interests of its members. The UK
has decided to leave and so the starting point for future relationships is that
it will not be a member. Therefore it cannot expect to enjoy the benefits of
membership as a right. Any limited future access to the benefits of the EU must
be negotiated with the remaining members who will, and indeed must, look after
their own interests in those negotiations. So for example, if the UK wants
access to the internal market for financial services then it must be prepared
to offer something of value to the European Union. If it wants to go on selling
its marine catch free of tariffs to the EU then it will probably have to
concede some access to its waters for EU fishermen. If it wants to avoid border
checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic and indeed between Dover and
Calais it will have to agree to uniform Customs rules on both sides of the
border. This is the normal give and take of international negotiation and it is
absolutely fine. The immediate problem is that such international negotiations
typically take years to conclude and Mrs May’s impetuosity means that we have
less than four months left before we are shivering in the cold.
Hence the need for a transitional arrangement and furthermore
one that respects international law. The biggest controversy around the
transitional agreement is the need for a “backstop” agreement on the Irish
border. This need is driven by the impossible contradiction of Mrs May’s red
lines. The UK is leaving the internal market and the customs union but there
will also be no hard border in Ireland and no difference between Great Britain
and Northern Ireland. These positions are logically incompatible. They directly
contradict each other. They may each be achieved separately but they absolutely
cannot be achieved together.
So, coming back to Sherlock Holmes, if we eliminate this
impossibility then what remains – Mrs May’s deal, however improbable is all
that is left. Unless of course parliament decides to grow a pair, recognises
that the whole thing is lunacy of the highest order and goes right back to
square one. With or without a second referendum in which rather more attention
is paid to enforcing electoral law and spending rules.
