In the three months that have passed since the UK voted to leave the EU, the Government has been criticised on both sides of the Channel for not providing details on the timing and the process for Brexit let alone what the outcome might look like. For weeks questions have been rebuffed by ministers with the stock answer of ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and a repetition of the Government’s unwillingness to ‘provide a running commentary’. With so little information to go on, all eyes have been on the Conservative Party’s autumn conference for glimmers of the UK Government’s timetable and negotiating stance.

 

The Prime Minister wasted little time in setting out her stall to the Party faithful gathered in Birmingham. To rapturous applause she committed the Government to triggering Article 50 no later than the end of March 2017. Significantly outnumbered by Brexiters, only a few small pockets of nervous looking Conservative Party Remainers were visible on the balconies as she said that the Great Repeal Bill will feature in the next Queen’s Speech, dismantling the European Communities Act 1972 and enshrining all existing EU law into British law.

 

With the timing and domestic legislative mechanism for Brexit confirmed, the Prime Minister moved on to the broad brushstrokes of her vision for what a new deal with the EU might look like. New being the operative word. Those of us in the auditorium, and those watching the speech on TV, were challenged to shake off old ways of thinking about the EU and the UK’s relationship with it. The UK is not going to be a Norway or a Switzerland, we were told, we are not going to have a ‘hard’ or a ‘soft’ Brexit – we are going to have customized relationship with the EU.  Her promises to take full control of immigration and refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice are suggestive however of a rather ‘hard Brexit’, where ending the free movement of people would come at the cost of leaving the single market. Home Secretary Amber Rudd also suggested at the conference that businesses start publishing the number of foreign staff on their books. ‘Hard Brexit’ is what the City fears and the markets wobbled once more: the pound fell to a new low against the dollar, with investors increasingly concerned about the risks of complete severance from the EU. 

 

The tone of her speech was strident and uncompromising.  Those mounting a legal challenge to the Prime Minister using the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 were told firmly to back off and accept the result.  It was speech directed squarely at arresting any concerns from those in the Party who campaigned for Brexit that, as a Remainer (albeit a quiet Remainer), Mrs May might look to slow the process down or do a double deal. And it worked – the Brexiters were jubilant as Government ministers repeatedly reiterated that they had heard the ‘roar’ of the British public and could be trusted to deliver.  It was a masterclass in party political discipline.

 

May’s announcements were politically astute in the short term, but playing her hand so soon ahead of triggering Article 50 could potentially lead to further instability both economically and in Parliament, where her small majority will be increasingly noticeable. Could it be that the Cabinet Ministers she recently rebuked for veering off the Brexit script – which she then delivered at conference – have brought her on side?

 

The conference, however, was not just attended by members – business was out in force to try and get a sense of the lay of the land. Speaking to representatives from a number of sectors, many of whom who had also been to the Labour conference the week before and found a party still focused on internal politics, the sense was that they were happy to have the headline but were eager to get the full story of the negotiating position. 

 

Mrs May’s Government has six months to draft it and it will be vital for those organisations who will be affected by Brexit, whether directly or indirectly, to understand and feed into that process.  An opportunity to do this is being coordinated by the UK Permanent Representation to the EU in Brussels, which is encouraging businesses to provide data on the impact of Brexit in their sector by mid-November.

 

These contributions are all the more essential when the capacity of the Civil Service is stretched like at no other time in peace time and British officials – many of whom, until three months ago, were unfamiliar with even the basic principles of a customs union – will face counterparts in Brussels who have lived and breathed trade negotiations for decades.

 

The Government is also unlikely to be pressured much by the Opposition. Even on the back of Jeremy Corbyn’s decisive re-election as party leader, Labour is struggling to put its own house in order on the issue.  Prior to his Labour Party Conference speech, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell had said Brexit would be his ‘number one item’, yet his speech lacked any concrete detail on what Labour proposes for leaving the EU. While Corbyn will attempt to piece a fractured Labour Party back together this autumn, a number of unsupportive Labour MPs will be speculating on whether they will be subject to a deselection process to be replaced by Corbynite MPs.  In the longer term, this could potentially trigger a split in the party.

 

 

Meanwhile in Brussels, if August witnessed a calmer mood following the post-vote hysteria, September did not offer much more clarity. The policy-making wheels started to turn again in Brussels and Brexit remains high on the agenda, but little progress has been made thus far in delivering the political cohesion necessary to reshape the EU and effectively tackle the challenge of Brexit. The one – and only – bright side of Brexit might be a possible and much needed EU focus on security.

 

 

May’s announcement that she will trigger Article 50 by March 2017 was welcomed among EU circles as a step towards ending uncertainty. The timeline is seen as reflecting the widely held view in Brussels that Brexit must happen before the Spring 2019 European elections.

 

European leaders have also made it clear that there will be no talks before Article 50 is triggered. This gives the EU institutions and remaining 27 member states six months to get their house into order – a short timeline for the complex political processes of European decision-making, especially when the debate touches upon fundamental fault-lines between the nations and political parties. The timeline, however, is critical to spur action and put to bed the notion that the UK referendum may well end up being treated as the French and Dutch votes on the Constitution before it – largely ignored and quietly shelved.

 

The EU negotiation team is now in place. On 1 October, Michel Barnier took over from Jonathan Faull as head of the Commission’s Brexit task force, which it is reported will concentrate on three main areas: disentangling Britain from the EU budget; trade and foreign policy; and issues around the single market, including migration of workers. Barnier has announced he will start his mandate by touring EU capitals to gauge the mood and their positions. His deputy is Sabine Weyand, a senior official from DG Trade, with reportedly close connections to Chancellor Merkel.

 

In early September the European Parliament selected Guy Verhofstadt MEP as its representative in the negotiations. The EP will have to approve any deal and Verhofstadt has said it will be ready to use its veto. A former Belgian Prime Minister and the leader of the liberal ALDE group in the legislature, Verhofstadt is a strong voice for the Parliament. He is also an outspoken EU federalist and his selection can be understood as a clear sign that the Parliament will not accept any deal which weakens the EU or threatens the four freedoms.

 

This position on the four freedoms is widely shared among EU leaders. Despite – and also in reaction to – comments from some UK leaders, EU representatives and other national leaders continue to remain firm in their stance that there will and can be no access to the single market without freedom of movement. The Visegrad Four counties (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) have hinted they would veto any Brexit deal should their citizens not be guaranteed equal rights. The Swiss climb-down from plans to limit immigration from EU countries signalled consistent EU intransigence on this issue.

 

Although the widespread preference in Brussels would be for a Norway-style relationship, the messages coming from London on freedom of movement are shifting the expectations towards a “hard Brexit” – which would see the UK fall back on WTO membership before negotiating further cooperation.

 

 

While the EU message is very clear on these points, the debate around Brexit also accentuates internal division within the EU – not so much regarding positioning vis-à-vis the UK, but rather regarding reform and the future of the Union.

 

The strains between integrationist and inter-governmentalist forces resurfaced clearly in the week of the Commission President’s State of the European Union (SOTEU) address and the Bratislava Summit. Council President Donald Tusk issued his principles for the Bratislava Summit right before the SOTEU speech, while Jean Claude Juncker showed up two days later in Slovakia – barely invited – to hand out his own roadmap.

 

The weak Bratislava conclusions were rejected by Italian PM Matteo Renzi before even the ink was dry. Those supporting stronger reform see an opportunity to review the EU treaties (an exercise likely necessary in order to adapt the territorial scope of EU law and the Union’s funding after Brexit) so as to enshrine the intergovernmental agreements reached after the 2008 crisis and push reforms to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) – or even to reshape the single market to a more social vision.

 

The risk, others argue, is that countries outside the Eurozone feel side-lined from an integrationist core – leading in the longer term to disintegration of the Union.

 

In this context, trying to reach a framework accord before triggering Article 50 would likely only lead to deadlock. Even more so given the upcoming general elections in France, Germany, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Spain (again). Tensions have been fuelled by the rise of the far-right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany’s local elections as well as the Hungarian referendum on migration. Austria is set for a new presidential poll in December which could see a far-right victory.

 

Finally, if Italy says no to constitutional reforms in a referendum on 4 December, the EU risks financial turmoil that could anticipate an incredibly difficult 2017.

 

 

The approval by the European Parliament of Julian King as “the last British Commissioner” was something of a nostalgic moment – although the tough questioning on King’s position as regards Brexit did not allow the illusion of normality to take hold for long.

 

The decision to give King the portfolio of “Security Union” indicates a possible bid to strengthen defence and security cooperation in spite of possible setbacks on economic files through Brexit. This position has been echoed by London.

 

Germany and France have set out plans to step up coordination in defence policies and create a permanent EU headquarter for operations, with the Commission set to put a proposal forward in December. The UK has however long vetoed moves to increase military cooperation at the EU level (seen as competing with NATO). UK Defence Secretary Sir Fallon recently said the UK would veto the creation of an EU army. King has his job cut out for him.