The solemn warner is one Herman Van Rompuy, a former President of the EC, famous for being mocked by N Farage when he became appointed as a nonentity no-one had ever heard of (although he was once Prime Minister of Belgium)
the threat of a no-deal Brexit was a new “operation fear” tactic being used by the government. But he said it would not work with the EU and warned that such an outcome would end up creating new pressures over Scottish independence...He added: “We could end up with a situation in which the EU27 becomes more united and a United Kingdom less united. This talk about a ‘no deal’ is the kind of nationalist rhetoric that belongs to another era.”
Pausing for a moment, as we must, and resisting debating the likelihood that the UK public will not give a toss for what Van Rumpoy thinks, the whole argument depends on a very convenient kind of 'nationalist rhetoric' where Scottish nationalism is OK but not British nationalism, or, to reverse it, one alliance of nation states is bad (UK) but another wholly good (EU).
Now Van Rompuy is not the originator of this strange argument of course. The Scot Nats are already there and indeed we have heard it endlessly from them. The latest polls add to the confusion:
Scotland voted for the UK staying in the EU by 62% to 38% and Sturgeon has pledged to outline her thinking on independence in October. But polling experts say there has been little sign of an increase in support for independence as a result of Brexit.
Sturgeon is a politician of high principle who has said she will not demand another referendum until she is sure of winning it, of course, and she might have shot her bolt, at least with voters in the rest of the UK, with all the threats of Scotsnattery in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. The stakes might be rather higher for a new independent Scotland after Brexit -- they would probably have to join the Eurozone, for example.
Van Rumpoy has another argument:
a no-deal Brexit might lead to another election in Britain. “If there is no House of Commons support for no deal, then you are very close to new elections,” he said. “If you have new elections, then article 50 [the legal process for Britain’s EU exit] will have to be postponed, because it will not be clear that you will have a government – or a government with a programme.”
The EC decides whether the UK has a government with a programme? Even if we all rally around the Chequers agreement, though:
Theresa May’s hopes of Britain in effect remaining in a single market for goods but not services might not be accepted by the EU. “It is rather difficult to make a distinction between goods and services. We are living in a new economy where there is a mix of goods and services for the same kinds of products. Saying that we will have a customs union, or even going further with a single market for goods, and completely separate it from a single market in services – this is what [chief EU negotiator Michel] Barnier called unworkable.”
So what remains for Observer readers? No-deal is out, Chequers is out. Only a Remain verdict in a new referendum will please the Belgian. No doubt a delay in exiting will play to the Remainer hopes. I imagine there will also be some who will take the opposite view that this shows bullying and interference by the EC or at least by its recent President, and become more impatient.
No comments:
Post a Comment