Johnson Challenges ‘Backstop’ as Undemocratic

The world is holding its breath as it watches the final 60 days of Britain under Boris Johnson completing its frenzy of self-harm by leaving the European Union. At least that is the majority view in the democratic world even if the occupant of the White House applauds the event.

Theresa May had made an honest attempt to conclude an interim agreement with the EU that reconciled Brexit with the logic of a free market and the integrity of the United Kingdom. The “backstop” preventing a hard border between the two parts of Ireland served both goals by maintaining its openness and thereby preserved peace in the divided island. But the House of Commons rejected the agreement and, though her successor Boris Johnson professes to want a Brexit with a deal, the letter he addressed to the EU in August was rightly perceived inside the EU as not going in that direction. He submitted reasons why he rejected the “backstop”. First, he considered it antidemocratic, because the UK may not be able to exit from the customs union (a weak argument considering that any commitment concluded in a free manner is perfectly democratic). Moreover, he argues, the Northern Irish would have no say in influencing the regulations that the EU would extend to Northern Ireland (which is actually the same position Norway accepted to share the advantages of a common market). Second, he asserts that the “backstop” defeats a central goal of the leave campaign: regulatory divergence from the EU, whereas May accepted regulatory participation of the UK as a logically necessary part of free trade with the EU.

Third, Johnson argues that the “backstop” inherently undermines the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, while the May government and the EU shared the view that keeping the border open would avoid rekindling the bloody conflicts of the past. Moreover, the Dublin government is perfectly aware and the leave campaign has conveniently suppressed, that the Good Friday Agreement makes it possible that a majority in the North can call for a referendum to unify the island the result of which must be accepted by all. A revival of the conflict may well unleash such an eventuality and hence undermine the integrity of the UK, possibly furthered by a secession of Scotland that wants to stay in the EU.

The President of the European Council rejected the request to re-examine the “backstop”.  because it “is an insurance to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland unless and until an alternative is found.” Since Johnson did not propose any concrete alternative, neither the EU as an institution nor the French and German government heads deviated from their previous position.

President Trump’s open support of Brexit and the illusory concept of a “Global Britain” - inter alia by having the Secretary of State pledge to sign “pen in hand” a free trade agreement as soon as Britain breaks with the EU - is unlikely to be effective since it requires ratification by both chambers of Congress. Democratic Party leaders have stated that they will oppose any agreement that re-establishes customs checks at the inner-Irish border and many Republicans, aware of the American-Irish vote, are likely to follow.

Some may perceive benefits in the “purgative chaos of a no-deal” (The Economist), while others see Brexit as a demonstration of how the lies and illusory promises of populism can produce a national disaster and thereby a wholesome lesson to the world.  The EU has no choice but to stand behind its Irish member in its effort to maintain peace on the island and to stick to its core principle of free trade.