Sovereignty must be a red line in the trade talks

The UK’s tough stance in the Brexit talks is welcome. But we’ve been here before.

Paddy Hannam

Topics Brexit Politics UK

Trade talks with the EU began officially this week. Emboldened by a huge election victory, the government is taking a far tougher line on Brexit than it did before the December election. The government published its negotiating mandate last Thursday. On the same day, Michael Gove, now charged with delivering Brexit, told parliament that the UK will refuse to give away any sovereign powers in return for a trade deal. He even threatened that Britain could walk away from the table if a deal had not taken basic form by June 2020.

This is good news, especially for those of us Brexiteers who had reservations about Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement. This is the strongest statement yet that the government intends to enact Brexit in full, rather than sell it out in exchange for any slight perceived economic gain.

But we must be careful not to celebrate too soon. In a sense, we have heard this all before. Theresa May’s defiant language – ‘No Deal is better than a bad deal’, and ‘I’m going to be a bloody difficult woman’ – initially encouraged those of us hankering after a full Brexit. In the end, of course, things ended up rather differently.

But there is one obvious and crucial difference between Johnson’s position and May’s – his large parliamentary majority. And this gives us reason to be optimistic.

One of the main weaknesses of May’s negotiation strategy was the fact that nobody in the EU, or even in the government, really believed that the UK would ever attempt a No Deal exit. This was partly a failure of government self-confidence – May and many of her ministers had bought into the idea that No Deal would be catastrophic. But more than anything, it was a result of the fact that the government had lost its majority to a resurgent Labour Party. Despite the fact that Labour promised its voters it would respect the Leave vote, it did not take long for Labour to be consumed by anti-Brexit mania. The possibility that the government would walk away from negotiations was totally neutralised, and negotiators in Brussels took advantage.

In stark contrast, the current government is far more secure. Remoaner forces have been defeated and discredited. Brexiteers, as well as those Remain voters who accepted Brexit, are in the political ascendancy. Just look at the cabinet: all four great offices of state are now held by Leavers.

There remain reasons to be vigilant, however. Though the government has floated the possibility of trading on WTO terms, this could easily be read as playing to the gallery. The government’s official guidelines, in fact, say that the basis of trade in that scenario would be the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement. This is the same treaty which, to take one example, blocks the UK from intervening in its own economy with state-aid measures. And though it is reassuring that the government says this looser trade relationship could resemble that between Australia and the EU, the overall position is somewhat vague. There is enough wriggle room for the government to justify a number of concessions as consistent with its stated aims.

Overall, the government’s tough talk is to be welcomed. Sovereignty must not be sold off in return for frictionless trade. This must be an essential red line in the negotiations. Reclaiming sovereignty was one of the fundamental motivations of the Brexit vote. If the government were to allow British policies to be decided in Brussels even after leaving the EU, the whole Brexit project would be fundamentally undermined.

This is why it is so important to hear Boris Johnson saying he will now seek to amend some of the Political Declaration, which the government signed up to in December 2019 alongside the Withdrawal Agreement. Johnson says he wants to remove any clauses which compromise British sovereignty.

There is no reason not to pursue a full Brexit. But we must ensure that the government stays true to its word.

Paddy Hannam is a writer. Follow him on Twitter: @paddyhannam

Picture by: Getty.

spiked needs your support

Defending liberty isn’t easy – especially in times of crisis, when freedom is so often traded away in search of security. But amid the coronavirus pandemic we at spiked have continued to speak up for our principles, calling for more scrutiny of the authoritarian measures being wielded over us and more debate on the best way forward. To continue to do that, we need your help. spiked is free and it always will be, because we want as many people to read us as possible. But to keep spiked free we rely on the generosity of our readers, particularly those who can give regularly. Even £5 per month can make a huge difference to us. We know it’s hard out there for many of you, now more than ever. But if you support what we do here and you can afford to contribute, to make sure we can continue to produce our free and fearless journalism for anyone who wants to read it, please do consider making a donation today.

Thank you! And stay safe.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.



4th March 2020 at 11:54 am

The trouble is the number of firms and services that you might have assumed were ‘British’-as they retain their original name which have been sold (and re-sold) off to other countries. There is little of Britain left to be sovereign about. I think the Germans and French are much more protectionist -especially of their core industries. What actually do we have left to trade with and as Europe bought very little British produce anyway its us (the consumers) who should try to seek out the best of our own produce which would give us financial leverage against countries such as Spain who rely on selling us fresh produce and holidays etc for their economies. At the moment it looks like Boris has been chosen as PM only because he is a good actor or better than Mrs May anyway.


4th March 2020 at 8:52 am

Britain’s difficulties with the EU originate with the Common Fisheries Policy. It was introduced by the six because they saw the chance to grab the fishing grounds of the accession states (including Greenland’s, then under Danish sovereignty). The wretched man Heath would have happily signed any transfer of sovereign rights to get us in. I’ve been told by somebody who ought to know that when it was pointed out to him that membership of the Common Market would devastate Britain’s fishing communities he airily replied ‘well, they don’t matter’, or words to that effect. The Norwegians had more sense. Whenever their circumstances are ridiculed as taking their regulations by fax from Brussels it should be remembered that what they choked on was the CFP, and they refused to sell out their fishing communities.

I like to believe that Boris Johnson and those about him know that the vote was about sovereignty and self-government. May certainly didn’t. She repeatedly said that it was about immigration and did all she could to keep us in. Any failure to recognise that will give the Remoaners an excuse to maintain their miserable bleating.

Ven Oods

4th March 2020 at 3:17 pm

Grocer Heath (as he was styled by Private Eye) was a full-on Europhile and would have sacrificed anything (except his yacht) to be part of the creeping malaise that became the EU.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.