An affair of honour

In her speech on 18^th January, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, argued for a “hard Brexit” promising: a UK that is strong, more-united, truly global, internationalist, multicultural, self-determined and best friend and neighbour to its European partners.

But is this a realistic outlook for the future and an honest summary of what the Brexiteers voted for? Not really.

Let´s be clear, at the beginning of 2017 - a year which brings about important elections (Netherlands, France and Germany), a prevailing terror threat, rising extremism, a new American President who wants to put “America first” and ongoing turmoil in the Middle East – Brexit is needed as much as a hole in the head.

The Prime Minister underlined that there is “no half- in, half- out” and that “no deal is better than a bad deal for Britain”. Moreover she alluded to the possibility of turning the UK into a tax heaven if the EU did not concede to the British demands.

Her long awaited speech was applauded by some for bringing more clarity about the British views on the Brexit. Others were skeptical, stating that despite its at times harsh and determined rhetoric her speech revealed the lack of a political strategy facing the withdrawal from the EU by triggering Art. 50 TEU, not to mention the ambitious timetable to leave by 2018.

Theresa May´s mixed messages are dangerous. It might not be her intensions but they could severely damage relations with Britain´s closest neighbours, harm the British economy, but also reduce a proud continent and important European Member State to insignificance and complete dependence on the big brother across the ocean.

The speech was in parts contradictory. It is at least a daring interpretation to reframe the Brexit vote as a wish of British citizens to turn Britain into a global player. Wasn´t is more about keeping strangers of all sorts out and taking back control of the country’s affairs? More free trade and more internationalism seem at least a peculiar summary of the Leave-vote and how the Prime Minister wants to reconcile this vision with the new prevailing American protectionism remains a mystery.

What is important now with regards to future EU-UK relationships is the need to create a fair and respectful atmosphere for the negotiations not turning to threats and blackmailing. Still it will be difficult for the EU-27 to meet the demands outlined by Theresa May on January 18 - leaving the single market, probably the customs union and negotiating a free-trade deal with the EU-27.

There should be no doubt about the fact that the negotiations will be long and as the EU´s Chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, stated “likely to be tough”. For the EU the Brexit is an affair of honour as there is the realistic danger that other Member States might like the idea of “cherry-picking” and starting to look for a “better deal” as well. Moreover the new US-President and nationalists all over Europe are keen on taking the Brexit as a precedent for further “-exits”. That should not happen and further “national ego trips” cannot be tolerated. On the other hand there is no interest whatsoever in humiliating the British and burning all bridges. The Supreme Court ruling of 24 January is an important reminder that Brexit cannot be executed by governments alone and that Parliaments must be involved allowing for, at least, a substantial debate on the issue.

The ideal relationship for Britain to have with the EU would involve doing as little damage as possible to the manifold political, economic and personal relations - not to forget about the fate of the Brits living, working and studying in the EU and vice versa.

Let´s hope that those in charge of negotiating the deal on the political and administrative level will keep a clear head and a sense of humor. Ironically the new US President could serve as a unifier as his new aggressive policy style and egocentric nationalism might push the EU to close the ranks and stand more united together. Bilateral experiences with the new President in Washington could also deepen the understanding on the British side that despite the historically strong bonds between the UK and the US cooperating with reliable partners on the continent and being part of a Union of like-minded states is in the end a better way out than relying on a newcomer to politics who is everything but sophisticated or reliable. Remaining part of the EU and organising a second referendum at the end of negotiations should therefore remain an option for our common future.

About the author

Since 2008, Katrin has been the director of the representation of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) in Brussels. She studied law at the University of Bielefeld where she specialized on public international and European law. Katrin is editor of the quarterly policy brief of the Brussels Office (EKD-Europa-Informationen) and represents her church in the broadcasting council of the German broadcasting station Deutschlandradio. Moreover, she is a member of the Kammer für Migration und Integration des Rates der EKD (Chamber on Migration and Integration of the EKD Council) and secretary of the Working group on EU legislation of the Conference of European Churches (CEC). She is an Alumni of the MMF program of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Her latest publication is “Mehr als ein kritisches Gegenüber Zur Rolle der evangelischen Kirche auf europäischer Ebene” in: Religion, Macht, Politik (Hrsg: Roland Herpich, Patrick R. Schnabel and Andreas Goetze, Berlin 2015) and together with Patrick Roger Schnabel an article on “Konfessionsübergreifende Ökumene” in Handbuch des Europäischen Kirchenrechts (Hrsg: von Heinrich de Wall, Hans Michael Heinig, Hans Ulrich Anke) which is supposed to be published in 2016.