On Brexit. From "Remania", with sadness

I am a Romanian citizen living in Romania. This means that I am used to live in a country where the authorities are, at least from time to time, caught completely unprepared by foreseeable events. Moreover, here, in my corner of the world, we have the habit of looking up at the old and well-established democracies from the Western Europe as examples of efficiency, accountability and good administration. From this perspective, for me, witnessing UK’s struggles in the eve of Brexit is simply unbelievable.

In this period, when the UK is preparing to leave, the EU rotating presidency is held by my own country, designated in a joke that circulated on the internet shortly after the 2016 UK Referendum as “Remania”.

This is not only an interesting coincidence, but also an excellent context for me to see the events in a special perspective.

I had the opportunity to play a small part in the difficult process leading to my own country’s accession to the European Union. I experienced firsthand the hardships of aligning the Romanian legislation (from the competition policy area, in my case) to the EU rules and to effectively apply those rules to companies which were used to operate in a completely different environment.

Moreover, as a consumer, I felt directly, more than once, the downside of the efforts to synchronize the intricate mechanisms of a struggling and largely state-controlled economy to the rhythm of the EU single market, where well-established private companies were already mastering the game, playing at a whole different level.

Seen through the lenses of the wisdom got from strolling the difficult path toward the EU membership, Brexit has been, from the beginning, a very interesting experiment for me.

The UK authorities claim that the entire body of national legislation necessary to replace the EU law has been already adopted and only minor adjustments are needed (for example, to adjust the date of the actual Brexit). As I am not familiar with the UK legal system, I would take the UK Government’s word on this. Still, I have strong doubts that the UK authorities managed to untangle correctly, within such a short period of time, all the EU law rights and obligations, that have been intertwined in the UK legal system in more than 45 years of EU membership.

In case of Romania, the legal process of EU Accession took almost 14 years, between the signature of the EU Association Agreement, in 1993, and the Accession Date (1 January 2007), while the economic integration is still far from being completed.

Aligning the national law to the body of EU Law (the so-called "acquis communautaire") was a difficult exercise for Romania but for us things were easier because at least we knew where we were heading.

UK had only two years to do the reverse path and to prepare extensive changes of their legal, economic and social systems, without having any idea about the type of relation they would have with the EU and with each of the 27 remaining member states.

I am simply terrified by speeches in which terms like “custom union”, “free trade area”, “EFTA” or “EEA-type agreement” or “WTO conditions” are thrown around like these were ready-made “goods” on a supermarket shelf waiting for the UK Government to pick them up. Especially the serenity with which the prospect of UK trading with the EU and the rest of the world under the WTO terms is mentioned is puzzling me.

Judging by the superficiality of their discourse on this matter, I could bet that none of those who are so confident about the safety net provided by the WTO rules have ever visited the WTO website. If doing so, they would have noticed that the WTO rules are complex and not particularly suitable for today’s international trade dynamics, especially in case of a developed economy, largely based on services, as the UK’s. Moreover, to avoid the high tariffs applicable under the WTO rules, UK will have to negotiate and sign bilateral/multilateral trade agreements in order to replicate the more favorable trading conditions it currently benefits from as an EU member state.

Needless to mention that, unlike what some politicians claim, UK will not be able to cut its own separate trade deals with its main trading partners from the EU, such as Germany, France or Italy, since the EU member states are not allowed to conclude by themselves trade agreements with third-party countries. Under the EU Law, trade agreements are negotiated and concluded by the European Union institutions. So, among other problems, after the Brexit, UK Government runs the risk of meeting again Mr. Michel Barnier, the current chief EU negotiator, who, as a former European Commissioner in charge with the EU Internal Market, seems like the perfect candidate for leading the post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK.

These days, I am reading in deep shock about the security measures taken by the UK authorities in the event the “no-deal” Brexit happens. Mobilizing the army to be on stand-by in the very day when, according to the version sold to the UK electorate by the Brexit campaigners, the country should celebrate regaining its full sovereignty, is surreal. News about hospitals stocking up on medicines and about supermarket chains announcing that they are piling up water, prosecco and even toilet paper seems like the script of a Hollywood movie. If this was something to joke about, I would say that all we can do is wait for the famous movie character John McClane to show up and save the day.

Brexit was designated by some commentators with the term “divorce”. The analogy is sad but, in my view, quite accurate. Just as in a real-life divorce, the former partners ended up hating each other, forgetting the good things they have shared for tens of years. The saddest of all is that they have completely forgotten in the process about their most valuable common “possessions”: their children. In case of Brexit, the number of children is in the order of tens of millions of UK and EU citizens, whose lives will be inevitably affected, directly and severely, by Brexit.

Brexit 2016 referendum was driven by catchy and populist slogans, like: “taking our money/jobs back”, “regaining full control over our economy”, “reinstating the full sovereignty of our Parliament”! As a side comment, seeing Prime-minister May shouting and scolding the UK Parliament for exercising its (currently limited by the EU) sovereign rights when rejecting her Brexit motions is not exactly a good sign of the future relations with an even stronger Parliament.

Sadly enough, in the eve of the referendum, nobody cared to explain the real impact of Brexit. Following the debates, I noticed that the UK politicians are speaking all the time about people. Not a single day passes without hearing them invoking “the will of the people”, “the interests of their constituents”, “the UK citizens” and the outmost need of protecting their rights. Which rights? Here is where, in my view, the real drama of Brexit begins.

Obviously, I am a big fan of the European Union. This does not mean that I do not see the bad parts of this construction (like, for example, the European Commission’s cherry-picking approach when selecting the cases in which it challenges the national governments’ measures that infringe rights granted by the EU law to citizens and enterprises). However, all things considered, being part of the EU is a good thing, especially in the current global economic and political climate.  

As someone who experienced at adult age the transition from “before” to “after” the EU membership, I see clearly the benefits of living in an EU country. In big and in small things, in my professional but, most importantly, in my day to day life. For example, I will always remember a day from January 2007, only several days after Romania’s Accession to the EU. That day, instead of spending several hours at the customs-post office, as I always had to do whenever my friend from Germany decided to send me a gift, I only had to open the door when the post-man ringed: “Madame, you have a parcel from Germany. Please, sign here!”. That was the first moment when I experienced directly and in a very concrete manner the benefits of the EU single market! No more customs-checks! A minor detail but with a huge impact in my routine for that day.

This is just one example of the small things that the UK citizens will lose. Unfortunately, Brexit will bring also some dramatic changes in people’s lives, much more serious than having to waste a few hours waiting in line to have a parcel customs-cleared. Recent events show that only now, in the eleventh hour, the full effects of Brexit seem to be acknowledged by more and more people. This is where the Brexit’s opponents campaign failed terribly and, in my view, the main reason that led to the referendum’s results. They failed to communicate in a manner easy to understand by the people what Brexit would really mean for each of them.

A two-day visit to London in April last year gave me the occasion to realize that regular citizens were completely oblivious (or misinformed) about what was to happen after Brexit. For example, of the two taxi-drivers I met during my stay, the first one, a Maltese citizen living in UK for many years, was firmly convinced that on Brexit day he will be granted automatically the UK citizenship while the second, half-German, was equally convinced that upon Brexit he will become (also automatically!) a German citizen. Both were certain that the UK Government would take care of their particular cases and that they did not have to do anything in this respect. I friendly advised them to contact immediately the authorities and clarify their status. A brief “thank you” e-mail received from the Maltese guy several months ago surprised me and made me feel incredibly proud. It is sad that a random foreigner who happened to jump into his car one day did more for him than those who were payed to do so.

I doubt that in the coming days, the UK Government will take the only sensible option that is “on the table” at this point and move to the revocation of the UK Government’s Article 50 Letter of 29 March 2017 (and not of the Article 50 itself, as - again! - the flawed communication seem to imply).

If the Brexit had been a flight, this would have been the moment when the message “Brace for impact!” was heard in the cabin. In this context, instead of drawing conclusions, I would like to continue to play my role of a good citizen and recommend a set of Preparedness information notices regarding the effects of a “no-deal” Brexit, recently published by the European Commission (available here).

For those who plan to travel to/from the UK in the immediate future, the notices on Travelling, on Passenger Rights and on Driving Licenses are particularly relevant.

For the enterprises that are involved in any form of cross-border transactions with UK entities but did not have the time and resources to prepare contingency plans, there is also important information, out of which that included in the notices on Customs matters, VAT and Ongoing movement of goods may be critical.

Since blaming the UK Parliament for the Brexit problems is an option already reserved by the UK Government, staying informed, seeking specialized legal advice and contacting the relevant authorities to obtain clarity on concrete matters seem like the only reasonable alternatives left for the rest of us. 

Let’s brace for impact and hope we will land safely!