[ad_1]
A few hours before a "make-or-break" meeting with her cabinet, British Prime Minister Theresa May still had to decide on her country's future relationship with the European Union. After many months lost, and with the time needed to reach an agreement with the EU, May must present a clear proposal and face her inevitable criticisms.
She may end up failing – but indecision makes failure almost certain
To say the least, May is in a difficult situation. She runs a weak minority government (because her call for an election last year went against her). His party is bitterly divided between those seeking an agreement as close as possible to membership in the EU and others who want what they call a clean break. The EU, to make matters worse, is opposed to any compromise that is likely to bridge this gap in a plausible way. Any proposal that it puts forward is therefore likely to ground – either because it causes a political revolt against its direction, either because the EU rejects it, or most likely both.
Whatever it does, the risk of a chaotic and uncompromising Brexit is growing. But there is no chance of resolving the stalemate before May jeopardizes her work by establishing a plan.
Up to now, the EU's position was clear: the UK can reach an agreement like that of Norway's single EU market for goods and services, but which would also require Britain to accept the free movement of persons, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and whatever new laws and regulations the EU deems appropriate. say in the operation of the union. This option would also exclude new trade agreements with other countries.
Alternatively, the UK can negotiate a free trade agreement like the one the EU has with Canada. It would be better than no agreement at all, but not as good for UK producers (especially services) as joining the single market. Nothing less than a simple market membership has the additional disadvantage of requiring a new customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or between the United States and the United States. Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom
. leave the EU. It is conceivable that this choice can still be reversed, but not without great political upheaval. For the moment, it takes a plan – any plan – to avoid a cliff exit next March.
According to indications, May will propose a complicated intermediate course between Norway and Canada. The EU is likely to resist this, and it will not be popular with much of its party. A better approach would be a Norwegian-style arrangement that would remain in place as long as it would take to negotiate an improved version of the Canada-EU free trade agreement – or, preferably, would have doubts and doubts. would like to join the union.
Critics of Norway's approach are right in saying that it does not satisfy anyone. It's constitutionally flawed because it involves obligations without representation – a fatal flaw for any long-term solution. It also implies permanent uncertainty, precisely because it leaves open the question of what comes next. But it avoids the edge of the cliff, minimizes short-term disruption and removes the delay that makes calculation sound and negotiation quiet almost impossible. The guarantee of these benefits should be the immediate priority.
If May proposed that, she could expect the Brexit supporters to cry treason. But it is a risk that she should arm herself to cope with. It must come up with a plan to disrupt the country as little as possible, ask for voter support and face up to its opponents – or stay away and let someone else do it [19659002] -Editors: Clive Crook, Mary Duenwald
To contact the editor-in-chief responsible for Bloomberg's editorials View: David Shipley at
[email protected]
Source link
