The humiliation of British Prime Minister Theresa May in Parliament has exposed British indecisiveness: the desire for independence outside of the European Union versus continued benefits from trade relations. May, who wants to leave a historical legacy, will do whatever it takes to make sure the agreement passes. The next two months will be the most critical.
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it," May said in 2016 after realizing that she would be in charge of leading the United Kingdom out of the EU despite opposition to the move, and despite the fact that such a move was unprecedented in the history of the EU. She said this after the dramatic national referendum in June of 2016, which led to the resignation of incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron and her appointment in his place. While the referendum was a fairly accurate reflection of the British mindset regarding everything having to do with the position of the EU as a drab, elitist organization, the referendum still failed to answer the question: "What do the British want?" Decisions regarding the EU have always been purely tactical.
When Britain joined the EU in the 1970s, it did so only after all other key countries had already committed. It was afraid of being left behind. Even in the 1980s, when then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher spearheaded efforts to create a shared European market to remove all trade barriers, making the EU the second-largest economy in the world, she did so because it served her own economic agenda which sought to defeat trade unions at home – not because of any utopian position of unity and harmony with the French and Germans.
It's fair to say that Britain has never wholeheartedly been part of the EU, and therefore has always been treated as a sort of second-class member. But it's worked out for the country, which has received preferential treatment, both budgetary and in terms of trade, regulation, and immigration exemptions. This VIP treatment was a price the EU was willing to pay to keep Great Britain inside.
Knowing whom to divorce
In hindsight, May's statement – "Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it" – sewed the seeds of tribulation that have taken her government from bad to worse over the past two years, the peak of which (thus far) was this week's unprecedented humiliation in the British Parliament. Beyond the rampant display of British vacillation, the decision illustrated the dissonance between May's intentions and the intentions of the EU leadership. While May wanted an exit agreement that would show the world you can stay friends with your ex, the EU did everything in its power to make it clear the breakup would be anything but smooth and easy; and set an example for anyone else who ever considers leaving.
If it were to give Britain special terms affording it the best of both worlds, a mass exit from the EU in favor of the U.K. would be unstoppable. So what went wrong, and why – after two years – did they fail to reach an agreement?
Article 50 in the EU treaty states: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." Until 2009, no such article existed, and, ironically, was drafted by a British diplomat to allay any confusion among EU members. The article was formulated almost at the same time the EU began expanding eastward, during the heyday of European integration when officials in Brussels sought to ensure an orderly separation mechanism from countries engaged in impropriety (e.g. those that violate trade laws, human rights and the like).
EU officials were so confident in their cause that they even began drafting a European constitution. At the time, no one thought Britain would actually want to blow it all up. At most, they thought Britain would once again seek benefits and a special status – just as it had from the moment it entered the EU.
The EU forgives, but it doesn't forget
But plans are one thing and reality is something else entirely. That same British diplomat who added Article 50 to the Union Treaty seemed to have ignited the imaginations of EU opponents in Britain – particularly the conservative Right in the country, which was looking to "reclaim" control of Britain's fate (though, in many cases, they have perhaps exaggerated the involvement of Brussels in British life).
May received an impossible task: Leave the EU in a manner that, on the one hand, would satisfy anyone seeking full independence, and on the other, allow Britain to keep enjoying trade benefits as members of the EU. What's more, from the EU's perspective Britain's full exit was impossible to comprehend because it meant the Good Friday Agreement, which ended the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, could not be maintained. The central condition that led to peace – double citizenship (Irish and British) for citizens of Northern Ireland – isn't possible if one of those countries isn't an EU member.
May, the daughter of an Anglican priest, approaches every issue with zealous and thorough preparation, leaving no comma out of place. She was the most suitable figure to conduct such complex, unprecedented negotiations. Indeed, she managed to reach a 600-page agreement with the EU that would not shame even the most distinguished law firm.
May decided to play it safe. She presented an agreement to her parliament that would remove Britain from EU but leave it subject to trade laws and freedom of movement laws until a comprehensive agreement could be reached on all issues. She thought it was the lesser of two evils, but seriously misjudged the parliamentary mood.
In politics, if you aren't passionate about what you're selling, you'll have a tough time making the sale. May's cold and cautious approach, which likely achieved the most reasonable agreement possible given the current climate in the EU, proved to be her handicap. Those who wanted a "soft" Brexit got an agreement that kept Britain from accessing the EU's free market; those who wanted a "hard" Brexit believe the agreement would turn Britain into a European colony, since it stipulates that Britain would remain subject to the laws of the EU until the matter of Britain's border with Ireland was resolved. While the members of the British Parliament were wrangling over May's Brexit agreement this week, across the street supporters of both Brexit camps protested. In a surreal display, May managed to get both camps, who have opposed each other with a passion, to ply for the same thing: toppling the agreement.
On March 29, the legal window provided by Article 50 for reaching an agreement will expire. Essentially, if May fails to get her agreement passed in parliament, Britain and the EU will be back to the status quo of the 1970s, meaning the laws that applied to Britain prior to joining the EU will be reinstated, including those pertaining to duties, visas, air travel and regulations.
May, however, should not be underestimated. She has already declared no intention of remaining in office after May 2022, hence she is willing to "fall on her sword" so to speak to get this agreement passed and leave behind a successful legacy. With the help of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, she just might be able to pull off the impossible and pass the agreement. Otherwise, anything is possible. Britain could be left without an agreement at all, resulting in economic and legal chaos; or Brexit could be off the table altogether.
May, who suffers from diabetes and injects herself with insulin several times a day, was asked about her battle with the illness. "I do what I need to do and move on," she said. It seems that with the Brexit agreement, too, she intends to apply the same approach.
