I have been wondering when to go into print again about Brexit. With the negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement in their endgame, it is hard to judge when best to contribute with my own public commentary, but I have been thinking that I might try to inject some perspective into the debate.

My urge to write was intensified when I read John Vassallo’s analysis in his piece in The Sunday Times of Malta, which I’m afraid did not shed much light. I don’t wish to start a public spat in the media, especially given that I am a visitor to Malta, but I was perplexed by an article which – among other things – glibly equated the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea with the constitutional history and evolution of the United Kingdom and which blithely dismissed Brexit with no more than a colonialist good-riddance.

The reality, of course, is rather different. 

The Brexit debate is currently a bit noisy, but what’s really happening? Well, it should be no surprise that we are where we are, at the business end of negotiations to unravel the legal arrangements we have been constructing with our European partners for more than 40 years and to create a new, forward-looking partnership with Europe.

Everyone knew that the negotiations would go to the wire. So, welcome to the wire.

With virtually the whole of the Withdrawal Agreement in place, we are naturally now dealing with the difficult political and constitutional issues surrounding the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. No one, on either side of the negotiating table, wishes to do anything to disrupt the Good Friday Agreement and to put the peace of the island of Ireland at risk.

Neither do they want a hard border. And no British Prime Minister could agree to an arrangement which undermined the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.

That’s why the talking goes on and the efforts to reach a deal are proceeding underneath the public brouhaha.  

The Withdrawal Agreement will, apart from addressing the Irish aspect and the financial settlement, set out the arrangements needed to protect the rights and lifestyle choices of EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in EU member states. For the thousands of Brits who live in Malta and even more Maltese who live in the UK, this is a vitally important element for the way forward after we leave. It has always been at the top of our list. 

We still have a road to travel, probably a bumpy one, but the British government’s direction of travel remains clear

Alongside the Withdrawal Agreement, we are heading towards a framework for our future partnership with the EU, covering both our economic relationship and our security partnership. The UK government has been very clear from the start of this process, that while we will be outside the institutions of the EU, including the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (and not part of the four freedoms), we will pursue as close a relationship with the EU as we can get.

This is in the interests of the citizens and businesses of both the UK and the EU. This is why the British government published its White Paper before the summer, setting out a comprehensive set of arrangements to put this in place (and which are the subject of in-depth discussions in Brussels).

They include a Common Rule Book for goods and agricultural products and an innovative mechanism to achieve frictionless trade at the borders.  

Of course, we are not there yet. We still have a road to travel, probably a bumpy one, but the British government’s direction of travel remains clear. It doesn’t involve a second referendum and it doesn’t involve crashing out with no deal. It is in no one’s interests for the UK to leave the EU with no deal. The British government is doing the responsible thing to prepare for such an eventuality (as are, I should add, the Maltese government), but that’s not where we want to be at the end of March next year.

Instead, we are aiming for an arrangement which: delivers the result of our referendum; preserves the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom; preserves the capacity of the EU to make its own laws; preserves the EU’s four freedoms for its members; and establishes a new and uniquely close relationship between the UK and the EU. There’s much more too, but these are the headlines. 

Which brings me to the UK and Malta.

I am well aware from my discussions with the government, MPs, business people and many others, that there remains here a great sense of regret that the UK is leaving the EU.

I understand this and I recognise the sentiment from a nation used to agreeing with the UK on most issues which pass across the EU table. Not sitting next to each other in the EU meeting rooms will change the dynamic.

Of course it will, but it also presents us with an opportunity. It’s not enough to say that we’ll simply go back to the days before 2004 when we were at the EU table and Malta was not, except in reverse. We need, instead, to recognise that the world has changed around us since Malta joined the EU and that we each face a new set of shared challenges, including on: migration through North Africa; international organised crime; illicit financial flows; modern slavery; and a range of important foreign policy issues. We have each other’s citizens visiting or living in our countries; we have close economic ties; and we have a unique and long shared history.  

These are all reasons why we need to move to a higher level of bilateral relationship after we leave the EU, one in which we get closer to each other on the big issues we face. Our two governments are already talking about this, but we need to crack on and get Brexit done.

Stuart Gill is the British High Commissioner to Malta.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece