A no-deal Brexit is back - with a vengeance

When a government is in trouble at home it goes to war overseas. It’s called a diversionary tactic. The rally round the flag syndrome aims to boost national fervour, distract people from troubles at home, mute dissent by playing the patriotism card and give a government more time to deal with its domestic problems. 

Monday’s front pages had two contrasting headlines: “Boris Johnson to Argue that a No-Deal Brexit would be Good for Britain”. And “New Daily Covid-19 Cases Spike to 3000”. 

This follows a summer of mishaps and U-turns by a government accused of a lack of grip not just by its opponents, but also by a growing number of its own supporters. For many Tories the recent U-turn over exam markings set off alarm bells. Rumblings about Johnson’s leadership from senior Tories have been growing louder. His lustre as a winner is fading.  

So, who better to turn to for advice than Niccolo Machiavelli who said: “A battle that you win cancels all your mistakes.” It was advice well-heeded by Margaret Thatcher. 

But to win a battle you need an enemy. Margaret Thatcher had a ready-made villain in Argentina’s General Galtieri. In 1982, she faced heavy criticism from both the public and her party for her domestic policies. Her future was in serious question. The Falklands War, which led to a swift victory, saved her and cemented her reputation as the Iron Lady.  

Boris Johnson has Michel Barnier and the Brussels bureaucracy who, like General Galtieri, so the narrative goes, pose a threat to Britain’s sovereignty and self-esteem. After a summer during which the Brexit guns have been largely silent hostilities have resumed. 

It’s a useful analogy even if the two situations are poles apart: the Argentines invaded British sovereign territory; the people of the Falklands were held to ransom by a dictator who ran death squads at home; and British servicemen died to retake the islands. History will judge whether the Falklands crisis could have been solved diplomatically. But the challenge to Britain was not manufactured. It just suited Thatcher to go the whole hog. 

This crisis on the other hand does feel manufactured, or at any rate one which can be resolved without resorting to this kind of drama, which seems to be a hallmark of the Johnson/Cummings management style. 

First the story itself. This suggests that Johnson is planning to introduce legislation which will renege on key parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement negotiated nine months ago, thus setting Britain on a collision course with Brussels. 

The story was skilfully leaked to the Financial Times on Sunday evening, just in time for the opposition to catch up and splash it all over their Monday front pages. The Financial Times tends to get things right so its rivals followed up swiftly. Briefings were oven-ready for journalists clamouring to confirm (or deny) the story. It was an irresistible story deftly served up. 

The Internal Market bill governing trade within the United Kingdom, due to be published this week, sets out the terms on which the four nations can trade while avoiding the all-important hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. 

Devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are rightly concerned that trading standards across the four nations should be uniform. But some anomalies, they have concluded, may be a price worth paying if it secures free access to the single market. 

It is still not clear whether the Bill will eliminate the legal force of key sections of the withdrawal agreement or whether, as ministers insist, it’s just a tidying up exercise. And in a sense it doesn’t really matter. 

What matters is how the story is being served up – the optics, as strategists say. The Financial Times was told that the move is “clearly and consciously” intended to undermine the deal, which has the status of an international treaty and was signed by Boris Johnson last October. A declaration of hostilities in all but name. The mooted plans have left the Irish government “astonished” and Barnier “concerned”.

There is, at the heart of this, a conundrum for Johnson. To achieve a free trade deal with the EU, Britain must, perforce, cooperate and/or consult on some key issues, the most important of which is the so-called level playing field. But this is anathema to the purist Brexiter. A deal certainly won’t collapse over fish. 

At the same time, to make the best of Brexit, Britain will have to roll out a plan for supporting strategic industries, like high-tech, defence and cutting-edge pharmaceuticals. It’s a reason for conflict or an opportunity for reasoned compromise. 

It’s pointless trying to predict whether there will be a deal. Barnier is in charge of a Rolls Royce deal-making machine. But both sides are stuck. Another example of the Number 10 spin-machine at work was the splash in the Telegraph that Barnier was being sidelined by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Barnier the enemy. 

What we can say with absolute certainty is that the withdrawal agreement, signed by Boris Johnson to much fanfare, has the status of an international treaty and is legally binding. If Johnson didn’t intend to stick by it he should not have signed it in the first place. But then there might have been a different outcome in the December election. 

The government can do pretty much what it likes with a majority of 80. 

But Britain is also a lodestar for the principle that the rule of law underpins social stability, economic progress and democracy itself. People come to Britain, money comes to Britain, because we have built a reputation, over centuries, of a nation that stands by its legal obligations. 

Messing around with that for the sake of cheap political advantage or the edge in a negotiation is bad faith and even worse poker.