Chapter 4
The Process Problem: How Britain Lost Before Negotiations Began
Brexit is not an event but a process-one that will take years, possibly decades, to fully implement. The EU, while sometimes strategically myopic, excels at process against negotiating opponents. Britain's failure to match this procedural expertise has led to repeated defeats at the negotiating table.
It was always absurd to claim we could quickly extricate ourselves from 45 years of EU integration when we've surrendered sovereignty across vast areas of economic and security policy. Those who promised we'd have a fully-fledged EU trade deal by exit day, plus additional global deals, were selling fantasies. The breezy assertions that "no deal" posed no problems for aviation, medicines, food, and financial services were equally hollow.
What we needed was to recognize Brexit's complexity, work through tough choices honestly, and plan for a serious transition period. We should have understood that the EU would never conduct two separate negotiations-one for transition, another for the final relationship. Instead, we locked ourselves into a fixed Article 50 date before serious planning, forfeiting leverage and handing the EU immediate advantages.
Brussels expertly exploited tensions in UK politics, cementing EU27 solidarity that has held remarkably firm. The Prime Minister's party conference speech and Lancaster House speech were gifts to the EU, eliminating any possibility of the UK dividing the bloc. By April 2017, the EU's expertly crafted guidelines made the December 2017 agreement inevitable, which in turn determined the elements of the Prime Minister's deal that now cause such outrage.
Our empty "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric fooled no one in Brussels. Those who promised simplicity now push a "betrayal" narrative-a British Dolchstosslegende blaming a remainer elite for sabotaging "no deal" plans. This narrative conveniently ignores their own role in creating the current predicament.
For the next stage of negotiations, we need less self-deception, clearer understanding of EU incentives, and a less passive approach. The Withdrawal Agreement shows the EU will repeat clock and cliff-edge pressures as the next deadline approaches. In negotiations, passion matters less than stone-cold sobriety about others' interests and motivations.
Chapter 5
The Referendum's Ambiguity: Multiple Brexits, One Vote
The referendum result clearly showed a majority voted to "leave" rather than "remain," but voters weren't asked their reasons, which were diverse and often contradictory. For decades, some of Brexit's staunchest advocates made the case for leaving EU political institutions while staying in the Single Market. Many voters, especially outside metropolitan circles, simply felt "we only joined a Common Market, but it's turned into something very different without our consent."
Now, both fervent leavers and remainers, along with Downing Street, seek to delegitimize any version of Brexit they don't personally support. The Prime Minister's model prioritizes ending free movement above all else while privileging frictionless goods trade over UK services interests-a choice that delights the EU as it skews the deal in their favor given their goods surplus versus our services surplus.
We've essentially sacrificed services sector ambition to end free movement, selling the latter as a boon while diminishing the value of a UK passport. We present this as regaining sovereignty when it guarantees major market access loss in our largest export market. While border control was certainly a central referendum issue, it's dishonest to argue this is the only feasible Brexit or an economically rational one.
Think about the referendum's ambiguity this way: if you asked Americans "Do you want lower taxes?" a majority would likely say yes. But this tells you nothing about which taxes they want lowered, by how much, or what services they're willing to sacrifice in return. Similarly, the Brexit vote established a direction but not a destination. The current crisis stems from politicians claiming a mandate for their specific vision when the referendum provided no such clarity.
The EU naturally backs the Prime Minister's position-they've secured a deal greatly benefiting themselves while maintaining the integrity of their legal order. Meanwhile, British politicians continue fighting over competing visions of Brexit, each claiming to represent the "true will of the people" based on a binary vote that revealed preferences but not priorities.
Chapter 6
The Trade Contradiction: WTO Terms and the Fantasy of Better Deals
You cannot logically argue both that trading with the EU on WTO terms is perfectly acceptable while simultaneously insisting we must leave the EU to strike preferential trade deals elsewhere because WTO terms are intolerable. This fundamental contradiction lies at the heart of much Brexit thinking and reveals a critical misunderstanding of international trade dynamics.
The WTO provides basic trading rules and tariff schedules, but these represent the floor, not the ceiling, of trade relationships. If moving beyond WTO terms represents progress in liberalizing trade (as Brexiteers claim when discussing potential US or Commonwealth deals), then deliberately reverting to them from our deep existing arrangement with the EU represents regression toward less free trade. Consider the automotive sector: under WTO terms, car exports face tariffs of 10%, while under the EU single market, they face zero tariffs and simplified customs procedures.
While pursuing bilateral and plurilateral free trade deals globally is legitimate, especially given America's retreat from multilateralism, we must recognize all trade deals inevitably erode sovereignty to some degree. Binding international market-opening commitments seriously limit domestic regulatory freedom-that's precisely why free trade is valuable, as it curtails politicians' ability to erect protectionist barriers. For example, any meaningful trade deal with the US would require alignment on food standards, while deals with Asian nations typically demand concessions on immigration and services.
Our current sovereignty debate is therefore bizarre, with right-wing populists claiming to champion free trade while wanting to rig domestic markets for British producers-reminiscent of Joseph Chamberlain's protectionist campaigns that worsened post-financial crisis conditions in the 1930s. The parallels are striking: both movements promised economic independence while actually advocating for increased trade barriers and market intervention.
Post-Brexit Britain must first run hard just to stand still, as two-thirds of UK exports go to the EU or countries with EU trade deals we must replicate. Market access will inevitably worsen, with trade flow diminishment immediately after exit outweighing any incremental benefits from other deals that might materialize over decades. The Swiss experience is instructive - despite over 100 bilateral agreements, they still face more trade friction with the EU than full members.
Consider Japan's recent trade deal with the EU, which eliminated 97% of tariffs and created the world's largest free trade zone. It took seven years to negotiate and offers better terms than we're likely to secure alone. Similar deals with Canada (CETA) and South Korea demonstrate the EU's superior negotiating power. The brutal reality is that every Brexit version worsens our trade position with our largest market, while potential gains elsewhere remain speculative and distant. Analysis by the Treasury and independent economists suggests new trade deals might boost GDP by 0.2-0.7% over 15 years, compared to a potential GDP loss of 4-9% from reduced EU trade. This isn't Project Fear-it's simple trade economics backed by empirical evidence from similar trade relationships worldwide.
Chapter 7
The Services Blind Spot: Britain's Hidden Economic Vulnerability
The services trade problem has been the dog that hasn't barked yet-but it will soon, and loudly. Politicians have focused on goods trade and tariffs, finding them more graspable than the complexities of services trade barriers. They rarely understand how goods and services are often bundled together in modern economies, or how challenging it is to liberalize cross-border services trade.
Services represent over three-quarters of our economy, with many sectors where the UK is globally competitive-financial, business, legal, accountancy, consultancy, and education services. UK services exports to the EU were 90 billion annually at the referendum-equal to our next eight export markets combined. This is not a peripheral concern; it's central to our economic future.
As the Prime Minister softened her position on customs to protect manufacturing, she attempted to sell this politically by talking boldly about services regulation divergence. The reality is that UK services industries have been sacrificed to end free movement-precisely in the sectors where we enjoy a sizeable trade surplus with the EU, unlike our manufacturing deficit.
The Single Market, despite its imperfections, enables freer services trade between EU states than exists between US federal states. Outside it, cross-border services supply will diminish radically, with firms needing physical establishment in export markets. This guarantees substantial relocations from the UK with major hits to our trade balance and public finances.
Think about a London-based financial services firm that currently passports its services across the EU. Post-Brexit, they'll need to establish substantial operations within the EU, moving jobs, tax revenue, and economic activity away from Britain. Multiply this across thousands of businesses, and the economic impact becomes staggering.
The EU knows the UK will eventually pay heavily to maintain better services market access than other third countries have achieved through standard FTAs-leverage they'll deploy in negotiations on issues like fisheries, forcing abandonment of referendum promises. The Brexiteers who accused leaders of mis-selling the EU have now done their own mis-selling, and will inevitably disappoint the very communities promised a Brexit dividend.
Chapter 8
The Plus Delusion: Magical Thinking in Trade Negotiations
The proliferation of "plus" deals-Norway+, Canada+++, Super-Canada, even "No deal+"-reveals the sheer dishonesty in Brexit proposals. These pluses are inserted to acknowledge why existing templates don't work while claiming your modifications make them perfect. It's like offering someone a bicycle+ when what they really need is a car.
Former Brexit Secretaries absurdly claim the EU has already offered the very Canada+ deal they want, when what EU institutions mean by Canada+ differs completely from what Brexiteers envision. The titles match but the contents diverge entirely. One side's Canada+ includes services access and regulatory alignment; the other's focuses on sovereignty and divergence.
Boris Johnson's "plan A+" was aptly described by a Brussels source as "Chequers 3.0"-"an inverted pyramid of piffle" containing wishlist items absent from Canada's actual EU deal while failing to solve the Irish backstop problem. Similarly, Norway+ requires adding exactly what Norway lacks: a Customs Union. These are not serious proposals but political slogans masquerading as policy.
"No deal+" comes from the same people who insisted a great free trade deal would be struck before exit because continental manufacturing interests would prevail against Brussels bureaucrats. As some predicted years ago, it didn't happen that way-with Brussels actually showing more flexibility than key Member States when the crunch came. Corporate Europe backed the position that the Single Market's integrity was vastly more important than framework agreements with the UK.
The "No deal+" fantasy imagines that by walking away and withholding payment, EU capitals would rush to create mini-deals preserving trading continuity. The reality? If the deal collapses, the EU won't offer friendly side arrangements-they'll unilaterally legislate temporary measures that protect their interests while causing us asymmetric difficulties. The UK would face inevitable compliance mixed with bellicose retaliation.
This magical thinking extends to the belief that somehow, through sheer force of will or negotiating brilliance, Britain can secure all the benefits of EU membership with none of the obligations. It's a fantasy that has consistently crashed against the reality of international relations and trade economics.
Chapter 9
Transparency's Value: The Cost of Britain's Secret Diplomacy
The EU has masterfully deployed transparency throughout these negotiations, establishing a new benchmark for public communication in international dealings. Their approach included publishing detailed position papers, creating clear graphical presentations of viable options, and issuing comprehensive "no deal" notices to the private sector. Through these methods, they effectively dictated the terms of debate and shaped outcomes. The EU's communications strategy included regular press briefings, detailed technical papers, and unprecedented access to negotiating documents, allowing stakeholders across Europe to understand and prepare for various scenarios.
Meanwhile, Britain's secretive and divided government has floundered, characterized by contradictory statements from different ministers and an inability to articulate any coherent position. This opacity manifested in multiple ways: delayed impact assessments, withheld economic analyses, and conflicting messages about fundamental issues like the Irish border and customs arrangements. Cabinet divisions frequently spilled into public view through unauthorized leaks rather than structured communication.
It's particularly striking that the EU-typically caricatured as out-of-touch technocrats producing impenetrable jargon-filled prose-has so decisively won the propaganda battle against "genuine" politicians who supposedly speak "human." Brussels has learned valuable lessons through bruising experiences with trade policy transparency demands in recent decades, particularly during negotiations over TTIP and CETA. These experiences led to the development of sophisticated stakeholder engagement strategies and plain-language communication protocols.
The EU recognized that public support for trade deals requires explaining benefits comprehensibly and acknowledging costs honestly. They developed detailed sector-by-sector analyses and created accessible materials for different audience levels. This stands in stark contrast to UK politicians who seem oblivious to how free trade policies have regressed in both major US parties. Those advocating leaving on "WTO terms" appear particularly blind to how American Republicans view the WTO dispute settlement regime much as UK conservatives view the ECJ-as a supranational affront to sovereignty. This parallel reveals a deeper misunderstanding of contemporary trade politics.
No amount of advertising could have redeemed fundamentally flawed proposals, but the negotiation process needed transparency from the outset to build public understanding and support. You cannot effectively manage one of the planet's largest trade negotiations while keeping both insiders and the public in the dark about difficult choices and inevitable trade-offs. While negotiators sometimes legitimately need a "tunnel" for sensitive discussions, this government repeatedly failed to explain the real constraints and compromises required to reach any viable landing zone. This failure extended to basic education about supply chains, regulatory alignment, and the practical implications of different trading arrangements.
The result has been a negotiation conducted largely in the dark, with the British public receiving critical information in drips and drabs, often through unofficial leaks rather than proper government channels. This opacity has fueled conspiracy theories on both sides of the debate and prevented the formation of realistic expectations about what Brexit could actually deliver. When the final deal inevitably falls short of the fantasy versions promised during the campaign and negotiation process, public trust in the political process suffers further damage, creating a legacy of skepticism that may impact future international negotiations.
Chapter 10
The Honesty Imperative: Rebuilding Trust Through Truth
The Brexit debate has been poisoned by opacity, delusion-mongering and mendacity from all sides. While the Prime Minister reasonably asks opponents to be honest about intractable problems like the backstop, extremists on both sides offer fantasies: "no dealers" lying about WTO rules providing adequate safety nets, and "people's voters" ignoring the alienation a second referendum would cause among those who'd feel their views were being dismissed.
Labour's promises are equally absurd-claiming they could negotiate a completely different deal replicating all Single Market and Customs Union advantages within weeks because the EU would suddenly become more flexible. Too much political debate insults people's intelligence by suggesting every Brexit problem is unique to May's deal rather than intrinsic to leaving.
The government has fueled dishonesty for years-grudgingly acknowledging no trade deal would be struck before exit, using the euphemism "implementation period" when nothing exists to implement, and concocting bizarre customs proposals attempting to escape the Common External Tariff while retaining all Customs Union advantages.
The December 2017 Agreement made the backstop endgame inevitable. Yet we got sophistry, evasions and denials at home, while ministers appeared to backslide on commitments when seeing draft legal texts, deepening EU distrust. The apoplectic reaction to the Attorney General's obvious statement that the UK couldn't unilaterally terminate the backstop explains why the EU insisted on legally nailing it down.
Whether this deal eventually passes or a new Prime Minister attempts to reset direction, the negotiating dynamics remain largely unchanged. We need leadership honest about fundamental trade-offs between sovereignty and market access, seeking to build consensus rather than further burning through trust in the political class.
What would honesty look like? It would mean acknowledging that Brexit involves painful trade-offs rather than easy wins. It would mean explaining that sovereignty without influence may be a pyrrhic victory. It would mean admitting that trade deals take years, not months, to negotiate. Most importantly, it would mean treating the public as adults capable of understanding complex issues rather than offering simplistic slogans.
The time for political theater-for strutting and fretting with sound and fury-has ended. Our politicians must wake from their dreams and face reality. Only then can we begin the long, difficult process of rebuilding our relationship with Europe and healing the divisions within our own society.
