Paul Taylor, Associate Editor at POLITICO, writes the Europe At Large column.
PARIS — Europeans may be delighted at the ouster of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but there’s little reason to believe relations between London and Brussels will improve once their nemesis leaves Downing Street — except perhaps in tone.
Borexit will not change the ruthless logic of the UK’s exit from the European Union. Relations remain distant, all too often contentious and often strained because of the political dynamics in Westminster and Belfast.
Long-term alienation is Johnson’s enduring legacy.
Although opinion polls show that a large number of British voters recognize that Brexit has left them worse off, the sad fact is that there is no political advantage for either of the country’s two major parties in pushing for closer ties with Brussels.
The ruling Conservatives are now overwhelmingly opposed to the EU. Even the surviving Tory ministers who voted to remain bowed to the consensus. The issue also bitterly divided the opposition Labor Party, costing them workers’ votes in traditional northern strongholds, which is why its leader Keir Starmer pledged last week that a Labor government would not seek to rejoin the EU or its single customs union if it did next general election, due by 2024.
None of the major parties can afford to tell voters they were wrong or deluded and that leaving the bloc was a costly mistake. Only the Liberal Democrats, who are in third place, and the governing Scottish National Party in Scotland are still calling for Brexit to be reversed.
For better or for worse, Johnson pulled through Brexit. Aside from a hard core of unreconciled Remain activists, voters are thoroughly fed up with the issue and just want to move on.
With that in mind, it’s important to remember that Johnson was forced to resign because his repeated dishonesty in sordid domestic scandals and messy government behavior left the one-time vote-winner an electoral burden. He wasn’t dumped for his biggest lie – claiming that Britain would be better off if they left the EU. Instead, his hard Brexit has hurt the economy, shrunk trade, reduced foreign investment and diminished Britain’s international influence.
Now the many candidates hoping to succeed Johnson are vying to take a tougher stance than the rest to defy the euro monster, backing legislation to change the EU-Northern Ireland trade relations protocol, which Johnson signs and then has revoked, to unilaterally revoke. They will all claim to be in the best position to “unlock the benefits of Brexit”.
Whatever their private thoughts, the hands of the contenders are tied, however, as the hardline anti-EU research group European Research Group holds the swing voting in the Conservative Parliamentary Party, and grassroots Tory members who will choose the next leader , once MPs have narrowed the field of candidates down to two, are far more anti-European than the broader electorate.
In addition, the Democratic Unionist Party, which represents Northern Ireland’s hard-line Protestant Unionist minority, will continue to cripple the province’s power-sharing government and exert disproportionate influence over Westminster’s Conservatives.
When Johnson negotiated a meager trade and cooperation deal with the EU in 2020, he dismissed all proposals for institutional cooperation on foreign, security and defense policies, agreeing only to maintain essential police and judicial cooperation.
Downing Street believed it could handle European security issues through NATO, seek “E3” cooperation with Germany and France – of which there has been conspicuously little – and develop a web of privileged military and political ties with small groups of partners in central Europe and the US could tie Nordic and Baltic countries while ignoring EU.
But that only gets you so far. The bloc remains the focal point for political, economic, climate and energy policies in Europe – and Britain no longer has a voice.
After excluding itself from Europe’s central table, Johnson’s ‘Global Britain’ has sought new commercial and political ties around the world while turning its back on its largest trading partner and closest neighbour. And it’s unclear if that approach has resulted in significantly better relations or economic benefits with the United States, Japan, India, Australia, or Canada.
Some in Brussels and London are now hoping that relations could at least become more constructive and less toxic once Johnson, who began his populist career as an EU-bashing journalist, leaves. Trust in Paris, Berlin, Rome and Brussels is at an all-time low and it can only get better, they say.
Don’t count on it. The temptation to take a stand against the EU on the stage and the tabloids could prove as irresistible to any Tory successor as it was to Johnson.
In the days following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there had been timid signs that London and Brussels were developing pragmatic ways of coordinating sanctions policies, the expulsion of Russian diplomats and political responses to the war. Ad hoc working groups of senior officials and diplomats began to meet, and UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss spoke regularly with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell.
Unfortunately, even these promising stirrings went nowhere. Instead, Johnson and his ministers used every opportunity to bully, stage and embarrass the EU, whether it was oil and gas sanctions or arms sales to Kyiv.
Johnson’s government seemingly could never decide what the UK should be once it bid farewell to Europe – a tax-friendly microstate of Singapore on the Thames or a spending “one nation” investing in massive infrastructure projects and public services to poorer areas “to level up”.
Normally, Johnson thought he could do both – have his cake and eat it, as he famously claimed.
This dilemma may or may not be resolved in the Conservative leadership campaign, which has already begun as a contest over who would cut taxes more. The only thing that is certain, however, is that nobody will advocate moving towards closer economic integration with the EU.
This ship has sailed a long time.
–
