Boris Johnson’s hyped Brexit ‘deal’ is dead in a ditch, and it describes perfectly why Britain will Remain

If we try to follow the path of a lone chlorinated chicken around our islands, we can see why this is destined to be another footnote of history. The choice will revert, as always, to the basic, binary one – no deal or no Brexit

Sean O'Grady
Monday 14 October 2019 16:10 BST
Comments
Dispatches programme on chlorinated chicken in the US

As always, when thinking about Brexit, the best thing to do is to summon up the totemic bird of our times – the chlorinated chicken. This is the one, you may recall, that the Americans love, washed in chlorinated water at the end of its life as a substitute for high welfare standards; but which the European Union has banned.

So how would a chlorinated chicken fare under the Johnson-Varadkar proposals?

Well, it could land at Liverpool docks, say, and if it did it would be free to travel throughout “mainland” Great Britain without let or hindrance, though not, as things stand, be able to board a ferry to Dublin or Belfast, because Ireland and Northern Ireland would share EU phytosanitary standards. That, as you see, implies checks between parts of the UK, which is controversial for some in the Democratic Unionist Party and the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives (if you’ll pardon the pun).

More to the point, though, is trust. Why would the EU trust Boris Johnson, Mr Straight Banana himself? They know him too well, I guess.

The EU is rightly worried about exactly how strictly the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be policed. There are also concerns that our chlorinated chicken ends up in, say, Lancashire where it is made into other food products – pasties, chicken nuggets, twizzlers or whatever – and then exported to Ireland or the rest of the EU for that matter.

Of course you could say that this would be regulated in the same way any “third party” produce is regulated, and with “rules of origin” to determine an adequate and acceptable level and quality of “British” ingredients; but you can understand the concern that one or two chickens might fly the coop, so to speak. The horror of a Parisian shopper at discovering their coq au vin ready meal was in fact poulet chloré would be an unacceptable affront to the French way of life.

Then there are goods landing at Belfast docks – wholesome euro-friendly non-chlorinated chickens, say, from outside the EU or Great Britain, some of which will be destined for Northern Irish tummies, others for Great Britain and yet others for Ireland and, potentially, across the entire EU, either as they stand or in some processed chicken products.

There again the EU authorities are being asked to entrust HMRC, a foreign organisation with no vested interest, to collect the tariffs due to the EU, and reimburse as appropriate the importers on any overpayment of tariffs, depending on the ultimate destination of the chicken. Again, it is unusual for any nation or supra-national body to sub-contract tax collection. The danger, as the EU sees it, is of weakening the integrity and health of the single market, and opening up huge opportunities for smuggling and fraud.

Second, there is the unacknowledged truth – it is merely a matter of institutional self-interest and bias – that the EU cannot create such an attractive precedent for the UK that other EU member states might fancy a slice of that cake too.

A world where an EU member state, with a UK-style deal, can be effectively part of the EU customs union yet able to strike trade deals across the world presents obvious risks for the future of the European project. What if Hungary or Italy sought to strike free trade deals with Russia and India, just as the British plan to? What if the Swedes and Dutch also quite fancied a free trade deal with China, complementing their EU arrangements. Plus, they get rid of their EU budget subscriptions and the ECJ!

Yes they too would lose the advantages of the single market, but they might consider that a price worth paying for greater economic freedom. There might not be much left of the EU’s structural integrity after all that. The Euroscepctics have a point when they say it is not in the EU’s interests to let the UK have such an advantageous deal that everyone is allowed to keep the EU’s benefits and jettison its costs and obligations.

It’s entirely rational and sensible for the EU to behave in that way – not “selfish”, or no more selfish than the British are being.

Last, the EU is desperately concerned about having the British try to set up another economic model – Singapore-on-Thames as it’s called – a race-to-the-bottom, freewheeling, free enterprise, low-tax, small-state economy that is designed to undercut and outcompete the Europeans.

They do not want chicken and ham pies made with slave labour in unsafe factories from American chlorinated chicken heading their way, or taking world markets from their producers. Whether that particular poultry-based nightmare is realistic or not, and no one can say what standards and regulations a future UK government would choose to raise or lower, again the EU is entitled to ask questions about what kind of a trading partner they are about to sign up with.

It is what Boris Johnson explicitly wants. It is in fact the whole point of Brexit – to improve productivity and competitiveness. It is not welcome on the other side of the Channel. In the words of Michel Barnier: “He has asked us to remove the reference to a level playing field – a very important point – which we agreed with Theresa May. These are the ground rules, a foundation of rules in the area of tax, state aid, social rights, environmental rights and consumer rights.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

“And therefore, we are faced with this request for a basic free trade deal, which runs the risk of regulatory competition, even fiscal, social or environmental dumping. We will not accept this.”

All of which will basically leave the Johnson deal in roughly the same place as the Theresa May deal – a footnote of history. The choice will revert, as always, to the basic, binary one – no deal or no Brexit.

The “blame” will have been skilfully dodged by London and Dublin and left with Brussels. Which is fine, because Barnier and the EU can live with it as a price worth paying for preserving the EU. On the other hand, the UK and Ireland cannot live with a no deal Brexit, and that is why it will not happen.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in