Brexit Row – How Soft the Landing?

Most of what riled those who supported Brexit was the open and free movement of people throughout a borderless Europe, exacerbated by an additional Schengen vote that further emphasized unrestricted movement. It was a reaction against migrants moving up and out of a very violent Middle East and white workers from Eastern Europe (especially Poland) entering the UK in search of jobs. Others railed at the litany of laws emanating from the European Commission and lower administrative bodies that seemed to usurp Britain’s rule over itself.

Whatever the reason, a referendum on June 23, 2016 pushed the UK to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union and announce its withdrawal from the EU, effective March 29, 2019. A deer-in-the-headlights Britain stood stunned at the result. Nobody knew what leaving the EU would really mean. The UK owed billions in unpaid contributions to the EU. Britain had stopped rule-making on economic issues, since these were now directed out of Brussels, even though the UK was a powerful voting member. Without EU rules, there was about to be a massive British void without laws or regulations. Parliament began to struggle on how to move over regulations that would soon disappear into the British legal system. Which rules? Which laws? Who was to decide?

Companies that relied on UK-residency to satisfy European licensing requirements (particularly relevant in the financial world) or to receive the benefits of being a UK manufacturer began to open new offices and plants in other European cities, vacating vast office space holdings in and around London. Europeans who has relocated to Britain, and Brits who had relocated to continental Europe realized that their residency status would no longer be automatically affirmed. Confusion reigned supreme.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May presides over the very Conservative Party that led the charge to support Brexit. As time as progressed, May seems to have reached the conclusion that a hard Brexit, a true and full British separation from the EU, would result in an economically perilous path with unknown consequences. Economists have predicted that such a go-it-alone Trumpian strategy would effectively kill UK growth rates for the near and middle term.

But the right-wing faction of the Conservative Party looks at a continuation of the economic bridge between the UK and Europe as precisely what they wanted to end. Britain would still find its economic issues mired in the EU financial and legal system, even if such a coordinated effort would create far less displacement than a clean and radical break. By early July the internal schism within the Conservatives, moderate soft-Brexit supporters versus right-wing hard-Brexit advocates, came to a head.

“Prime Minister Theresa May’s government was plunged into disarray Monday [July 9^th] with the resignation of her flamboyant foreign secretary, Boris Johnson [pictured above before the June 2016 referendum], who quit in protest of May’s plans for a so-called soft Brexit, which would maintain close trade ties with Europe… Such a scenario, Johnson wrote in his resignation letter, could result in Britain being relegated to ‘the status of a colony’ of the European Union… The rebellion within her Conservative Party illustrated May’s dire political weakness less than nine months before the split is to take effect in March.

“Johnson’s departure came less than 24 hours after that of another key Cabinet member, David Davis, who was tasked with overseeing Brexit… May says it is crucial to avoid a ‘hard’ Brexit — a departure from the EU without a deal in place. Such a scenario could wreak havoc on Britain’s financial sector and the wider economy… ‘This is the Brexit that is in our national interest,’ she told a raucous session of Parliament shortly after Johnson’s departure was announced by Downing Street.

“Under the prime minister’s plan, to which her Cabinet had agreed last week, Britain would keep close trade ties to the EU and remain subject to some of its regulatory mechanisms. That prospect set off a wave of anger from those who considered Brexit a ringing declaration of independence from the bureaucracy in Brussels… British news reports speculated that the ambitious Johnson might be readying a challenge to May for the leadership of the party, potentially setting himself up to become prime minister.

“Backers of Brexit say May’s plan would hobble Britain’s ability to make trade deals of its own and leave it subject to the very EU regulations it sought to leave behind in the referendum vote two years ago… Under the timetable, Britain is to formally leave the bloc on March 29, 2019. But the negotiations have bogged down repeatedly as the clock has been running down.

“May’s party could stage a no-confidence vote if 48 Conservative lawmakers ask for one. That could become more likely if she loses the backing of more senior ministers… Before leaving May’s government, Johnson had likened her Brexit proposal to excrement, using a more vulgar term.

“But the prime minister may be playing hardball as well. Johnson was still crafting a resignation statement when May’s office announced he was leaving… The political blowup [came] just three days before a visit by Trump, who is highly unpopular in Britain.” Los Angeles Times, July 10^th.

Oddly, Theresa May’s greatest arguments are enhanced by that anti-Trump sentiment that is rampant all over Europe, especially in the UK. Trump’s isolationism and confrontational style have seriously alienated many of the same Brits who once believed in him. While split within the Conservative Party will result in a battle royal, as only the Brits can mount, the more May links Johnson and his ilk to Donald Trump, the stronger the likelihood of a soft landing for Brexit.

I’m Peter Dekom, and will a backlash against hard-Brexit populism prevail in the UK… and will there be a parallel movement in the United States?