Press

Officials liken the [Brexit] process to accession negotiations in reverse. That is not reassuring for Britain: as Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, notes, accession talks consist more of take-it-or-leave-it offers than real negotiations. And so far the EU 27 have proved both united and hardline.

The remaining 27 members of the EU would “cautiously welcome Theresa May having a larger majority,” John Springford, policy director of research at Centre for European Reform, tells Quartz. “It means they have someone with a strong personal mandate to negotiate with and any agreement that they put together is less likely to fall apart.”

But in the event of a hard Brexit, these cracks may become crevices. Post-Brexit “security co-operation will be weakened”, says Camino Mortera-Martinez, an expert in home affairs at the Centre for European Reform. “It doesn't mean there will be more attacks, but it does mean that it will be difficult to cooperate smoothly and quickly.”

“The risk for the British if they ally themselves too closely to Trump is that they will give the impression that Britain and the US are now very much of the same mindset,” says Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform. “They will look like two nations that are prepared to back out of international treaties, [are] committed to heavy deregulation, to maintaining low tax economies and courting the current wave of populism in their nations.”

The UK has imposed a diversion of effort upon its partners at an exceptionally testing time. It has undermined the credibility of a project viewed as existential by many of its members, including its most powerful ones. Brexiters have poured ridicule and scorn on the whole venture. Now they imagine the UK can refuse the EU’s terms for an amicable divorce and yet still count upon active and enthusiastic co-operation in ensuring the smooth flow of trade. The idea of “no deal” is just ridiculous [writes John Springford and Simon Tilford of the Centre for European reform].

As the Centre for European Reform (CER) argued last week, it would also mean: UK pharmaceutical and chemical companies losing EU product approval across the continent; UK-based airlines seeing flights to EU member-states grounded; and City financial firms losing their passporting rights. The economic consequence of this kind of train-crash, no-deal Brexit – potentially far more damaging than a negotiated transition even to trading on World Trade Organisation terms – could be a fall in GDP of as much as 5.5%.

Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, said leaving Europe without a deal would leave British business and the City in a state of regulatory and legal limbo, with the immediate introduction of tariffs and customs controls.“I think it’s more likely than not there will be a deal,” he said. “I think the chaos in the financial markets would be extreme if it looked like there was not going to be a deal. It doesn’t bear thinking about.”

The Centre for European Reform thinktank believes a deal is possible but requires creativity – and a concession from the Conservatives on the European court of justice.