15 March 2018
The Ides of March
by J R Thomas
One wonders as to the mood of the Roman aristocracy, and indeed the plebeians, as the empire rapidly shrank and the former imperial possessions fell to the Barbarian hordes. Did they shrug and say that things were all for the best, and imperialism was a pretty indefensible thing, and maybe its dismemberment was long overdue? And glug back more wine and go off to the Colosseum to watch chariot racing for the rest of the afternoon?
One suspects they just might have; there is a tendency in the human condition, when all goes wrong, to blame somebody else, say that it is all for the best, and party like there will be no tomorrow.
Today, assuming you have rushed to download your new Shaw Sheet over the breakfast wholemeal and low calorie spread, is the Ides of March. This date is notable for being that of the assassination of Julius Caesar, not the end of Roman civilisation by any means, but perhaps the point at which it began the long transition from expansion to retreat. The end of the beginning at least; if you are fatalistic, the beginning of the beginning of the end. Are we at a similar point in the European project, we might ponder on this day? Things have happened rather more quickly than in ancient Rome, but the confident days of building a new Europe seem to have come to a close, and the cracks in the Euro-empire are becoming difficult to ignore.
It is not going well for M. Juncker and the Commissioners; Germany finally has some form of working coalition once more, though how that will work is far from clear, and the long term effects of turning AfD into the official opposition may yet cause more problems than the Grand Coalition will ever solve. But as the German machine rolls forward, the Italian one is spinning and swerving helplessly in the streets; and things look far from bright in many countries of the former Eastern Bloc; Poland, Slovakia, Hungary must all be irritating Brussels. As yet may Greece, another problem deferred but liable to ignite at little notice. Then of course there is that irritating island and its lady Prime Minister, the former cloaked in fog, and the latter in opaqueness.
Mrs May’s strategy, as our revered editor pointed out last week, is to keep her cards close to her chest, always the best way to negotiate. In her case it is indeed the only way to negotiate. She needs not only to keep the EU in suspense until the last moment, she also has to keep her own party more or less pointing in the same direction if she is to have any hope of getting whatever deal may be agreed through the Commons. Or indeed, if it should transpire that there is to be no deal, to hold her government together as the mooring ropes are cut. The possibility of no deal is looking more likely than it did. Faint marks are now being chalked across the playground by both sides which may yet grow into walls too high to be breached.
Mrs May seems increasingly clear about the principles of what deal she wants – no continuing involvement of the European Court of Justice in UK matters, minimal role for the EU on immigration into the UK, no singling out of Northern Ireland for special treatment, and some cherry picking relating to trade deals. The lady seems to have had a resurgence of confidence in recent months; which came to the fore in the structure and clarity (and strength of delivery) of her Mansion House speech. The cabinet have settled to an attitude of support, especially from the leading Leavers; Mr Gove, whatever his lack of political adroitness might be, is a man of great enthusiasms and a natural reformer who can deliver and is fully on side; Boris too seems to have bought into the May strategy and anyway is enjoying being Foreign Secretary. On the other wing Phillip Hammond has been reading the runes and keeps his grumbling mostly to himself, and Mrs Rudd has the weakness of a very narrow majority in her Parliamentary seat, and also an urge to move to yet higher office if and when Mrs May moves out. The most noisy and troublesome backbenchers on the Leaving side are moderating their boat rocking as Mr Corbyn slowly ramps up his newfound European enthusiasm, whilst on the Remain side many are encountering difficulties back in their constituencies (not generally keen either to Remain, or to have a Labour government).
Things are evolving in Brussels too. Mrs Merkel may have some serious concerns about Britain leaving with no trade deal – any sort of trade war would be very bad for Germany’s enormous trading imbalance with the UK – around £25bn at the last count (indeed the EU as a whole sells £80bn more of goods and services to Britain than comes the other way). But Mr Barnier and Mr Junker and their power bloc fear that any special deals for the UK will start a precedent to be exploited maybe by Hungary, probably by Poland, and certainly by Italy, where the results of the election revealed a divided electorate, but agreed on one thing – the Italian people are no longer fans of the EU. Even Switzerland could become a problem – the Commission is attempting to renegotiate the deal that Switzerland has with the EU which covers immigration, trade, and access of Swiss financial institutions to Euro markets. The Swiss are not inclined to agree to tighter ties to EU legislation and practices; the EU is increasingly against carve-outs.
Brussels is not made up of people who are stupid. Even the most insensitive Brussels bureaucrat is coming to realise that the current approach to negotiating by the Junker/Barnier team is not helping the Remain cause; they are the best weapon British Leavers could possibly wish for. On the other hand, with some of the wheels looking increasingly loose on the Euro-chariot, it is hard to know how else to play the Brexit game. No club wants members leaving but keeping free access to the squash courts and the member’s dining room. If others get the idea that this might be a possibility, then the principle of no cherry selections becomes vital. On the other hand, the fundamental weakness of the EU is surely in its lack of flexibility. The same rules are applied to all, even when circumstances vastly differ from member to member. That is really what has got the EU and Britain into their difficulties today – and that inflexibility flows from the core aim of the founders of the European Union – to build a United States of Europe. In that dream one day Europe will be one country, a power mass to rival the other three great states of the world. The odd thing is that the more a common polity and systems are imposed, the less likely it is to happen.
Mrs May’s own views of the EU have always been a bit of a mystery; at Referendum time she was weakly for Remaining, but rumour was that the lady was for Leaving. That may only prove that the member for Marlow’s flexibility of approach is not unlike that of the vicar of neighbouring Bray; but it does suggest that Mrs May does not yet believe her career to be over. Those who regard a tendency to compromise and trim as weakness should remember this – the Vicar of Bray stayed in office for forty eight years. Those who regard steadfastness and stubbornness as strength should remember Caesar dying on the steps of the Senate, stabbed by his colleagues.
Happy Ides!
