(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Britain’s reckless mismanagement of its exit from the European Union took a remarkable turn this week, when a cabinet minister casually told the House of Commons that the government was proposing to break international law. In the midst of an effort to forge a trade agreement with the EU that the U.K. presumably hopes will be binding on both sides, this is a strange way to proceed.
Apparently Prime Minister Boris Johnson is no longer pleased with the withdrawal agreement that secured Brexit, a treaty he negotiated and previously boasted about. The government now says there are loose ends, ambiguities and unintended consequences, mainly concerning Northern Ireland and EU rules on state subsidies. It proposes new domestic legislation to remedy these defects. Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis told parliament these changes would override aspects of the withdrawal agreement and hence break international law — but only in a “very specific and limited way.”
This is something the U.K.’s partners might want to keep in mind. In the future, when Britain signs a treaty, it expects to keep its word, so long as it’s convenient.
It tells you something that the most generous interpretation of this shambles is that Johnson’s government is only posturing, in the hope that brinkmanship will force the EU to come to terms on future trading arrangements. Or perhaps the goal is the opposite: to collapse the whole process and move forward with no agreement in place. The truth is, nobody seems to understand what Johnson’s government is trying to achieve, least of all Johnson.
Adding to the frustration is that the fundamental conflict in Britain’s Brexit ambition has been plain from the outset: The U.K. cannot hope to have an independent trade policy, frictionless exchange between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K., and seamless trade across Northern Ireland’s border with the EU. Given goodwill on both sides, an ambitious post-Brexit free-trade agreement could’ve worked around these difficulties. Yet hopes of such a deal are fast receding — and the no-deal alternative that Johnson has flirted with since becoming prime minister cannot resolve those tensions.
Johnson is much to blame for the impasse. Insisting that a no-deal Brexit would suit the U.K. perfectly well is both absurd on the merits and tactically dumb because nobody in the EU actually believes it. Some smaller fault, though, does rest with Europe’s negotiators, because they’ve tried to drive a needlessly hard bargain. On the questions that gave rise to this most recent dispute, for instance, they have aimed to make Britain accept restrictions on domestic economic policy not required of Europe’s other partners in free-trade agreements, and submit to EU law on matters better handled by joint dispute-settlement procedures. Protecting Europe’s interests does not require these infringements on U.K. sovereignty.
Before it’s too late, restoring friendly U.K.-EU relations should be the highest priority for both sides. This could’ve been a negotiation between friends, with all minds concentrated on limiting the damage from Brexit and finding potential for mutual advantage. But Britain chose to embark on this dangerous path, and Johnson now leads the way in wrecking any hope of an amicable approach. If he persists in this vein, his claims about the joys of a no-deal Brexit will be put to the test — and the country is unlikely to care for the results.
Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.