May’s Brexit…

Where does that apostrophe go? Where is ejh when I need him? Anyhow, in some ways it’s refreshing to hear, straight from the horse’s mouth as it were, an outline of what Brexit means. That it has taken near enough nine months is less refreshing, the chaos on confusion in the interim period far from refreshing. But at least that which was unclear or at least not clear enough is now clearer. GW noted the following in comments:

So I think it’s now clearer after May’s speech.
The border that runs through Ireland will be a customs border and an immigration border.
This has enormous impact on both parts of Ireland.
There are three possibilities that I can see.
a) The maintenance of the border restrictions are outsourced to the RoI with free movement between the two juristictions.
b) NI is made an exceptional case within the ‘UK’, with free movement between the two parts of the island and borders policed by the UK in NI Airports and Ferryports.
c) A hard border is set up again with police, immigration and customs controls.
The position for EU citizens (including Irish nationals) living in the UK is less clear but it’s certain their rights to work and stay there will be reduced.
And England is on collision course with Scotland on the relationship with EU.

I’ll return to the Irish situation, but one thing is for sure, Britain is out of the single market – hardly a surprise. They’re not going the EEA/EFTA route. There probably won’t be a bespoke arrangement. The best that can be hoped for are bilateral deals – her ‘comprehensive and bold free trade agreement’. Sounds a bit bockety, we’ll see how that works out. I’m always dubious about May’s propensity to add in words like ‘bold’ etc as if she’s channeling a 1950s English children’s book. I’m no less dubious today.

The customs union? As the Guardian notes, here she was less clear.

But she also said: “I do want a customs agreement with the EU” and for Britain to have tariff-free access to EU markets. That could mean a completely new customs union agreement, or partial membership, or retaining some aspects – how this would happen in practice can be decided.

I’ll bet this will be up for grabs.

Immigration. There are so many strands to this. She said that …

….while wanting to continue to atrract “the brightest and best to study and work in Britain”, she said, “we will get control over number of people coming to Britain form the EU”.

Lovely.

Of course, as GW notes, there’s a specific Irish twist to this. We’ll see how that pans out. As the Guardian says there’s nothing about the EU citizens in the UK or vice versa.

But on Ireland, notable in the Guardian overview was a complete lack of attention to Ireland (bar a fleeting reference to NI elections). We just don’t register. Her comments though, as quoted in the IT will not necessary instil confidence:

Outlining the UK’s plans for leaving the EU, Ms May said the UK government would “make it a priority to deliver a practical solution” as quickly as possible to the question of the land Border with the Irish State.
“Nobody wants to return to the borders of the past,” said the prime minister on Tuesday .
“The family ties and bonds of affection that unite our two countries mean that there will always be a special relationship between us.” She added that maintaining the common travel area with the Republic would be “an important part of the talks”

Sure, no one wants a return. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. How can she square non participation in the single market with an open border with the RoI? I don’t know, do you?

Michael Portillo opined in advance of the speech that Ireland would be treated like a single entity in relation to Britain – with controls outside of it. How does he know? Is he a credible person to make that assertion?

And still the relentless drumbeat of British exceptionalism and British entitlement:

…she also warned the EU 27 firmly against heeding “voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path”, saying that would be “an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.”
She also stressed that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”, hinting that Britain might be willing to leave the EU with no trade deal in place, and revert to trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms.
And she repeated Hammond’s threat, saying that if Britain does not get access to the single market while at the same time being free to strike trade deals across the world, it would “be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model”.

But this is barmy. As someone btl noted it takes two to make a trade agreement, it just can’t be settled on Britain’s terms. Yet everything she said was predicated precisely on that view.

So what has changed? Not much. She has made noises about participation in some EU programmes and even paying for access – where necessary. But I wonder how that works in practice. Just simple logistics suggest that such participation will be low key and kept quiet about.

Ed notes in comments that:

Chances of Scottish independence just went up alright. The polls since the referendum haven’t been showing a solid majority for breaking with London, a lot of Scots seem reluctant to make that leap into the dark, but if it’s made crystal-clear to them that staying in the UK means being dragged down into the mire with Trump and Netanyahu as your only international allies, I could see the vote hardening up pretty fast.

Brexit will occur. That is almost entirely certain. It will involve massive rupture. Its economic consequences are incalculable but the consensus appears to be that they will be largely, if not indeed overwhelmingly, negative for British workers and citizens. It throws up borders, both actual and figurative, between states and between people – indeed those last have, as noted on this site across months now and underscored by the direct personal experience of contributors in the UK, been rising higher and higher. It may trigger the break up of the UK itself as political entity. It has marginalised a left that was beginning in the UK to reassert itself once more. It promises nothing but problems for this island. This is their great ‘opportunity’. This is their ‘vision’.