Pedalling frantically towards the cliff edge?

It may be because I am, at heart, someone who believes that you can affect real change only by building coalitions of interest, that I find myself increased perplexed by what this country has become in the past two years.

Winning a referendum by a relatively small proportion was hardly a staggering endorsement for leaving the European Union, but I did expect there to follow an inkling of the strategy that might lead us to a stable outcome. I was to be disappointed it seemed.

I then assumed that those tasked with guiding the country through the negotiations with the European Union would understand the issues, plus the implications of a range of choices. And, when negotiating with an institution that is extremely rule-bound, understanding what their red lines were likely to be. Again, I was to be disappointed, as minister after minister demonstrated an apparent absence of any knowledge of how the modern, interdependent world operates, where production lines cross and recross national borders, and where standards are increasingly set by multinational groupings or institutions.

It was all rather depressing.

I reassured myself with the thought that, regardless of any lack of knowledge or understanding, no government would be insane enough to drive the country off of a cliff by leaving the European Union without a pretty conclusive deal. After all, when 80% of your exports are financial or other services, and you’ve made your way in the world by encouraging international investment to your country as a gateway to the wider European market, wilfully cutting yourself off seems like the height of madness.

And I still don’t believe that the government intend to do that. The problem is that, as is so often the case in British politics, they seem to think that the European Union has;

1. More to lose than we do, and;
2. The ability to be almost infinitely flexible in pursuit of a deal.

The first argument has been pretty conclusively trashed - yes, the amount of trade at risk is weighted in cash terms in our favour, but in terms of relative proportions of each economy, we are much worse off.

But the second argument is undermined by the very different approaches to politics, which brings us back to the rules-based nature of the European Union. Yes, the European Union is often involved on last-minute bargaining amongst itself. The catch is, there is a status quo to revert to if a deal can’t be cut. That’s not true here, especially as any deal must be at least acceptable enough to all. That limits the European Union’s room for manoeuvre - there are a whole slew of things that simply aren’t negotiable.

Our negotiators seem to disregard that, which appears to demonstrate a terrifying naivety. Not only that, but our view of politics as a game is positively toxic in an environment where, if a government says it intends to do something, then there is a working assumption on the other side of the table that it will do exactly that, and that it understands and accepts the consequences.

The European Union will shake its head sadly, and walk away, having been given little alternative by a group of people will think that their opponents will blink first.

And then we’ll find out whether or not the whole “Global Britain” thing is credible or just fantasy. I hope, for our sake, they have a plan for that phase which doesn’t just evaporate in the face of reality...