In the week when the UK government kicked off a series of
speeches to offer a vision of the post-Brexit relationship it wants with the
EU, it was unfortunate that the first man up to the plate was Boris Johnson.
His speech today was a rehash of the tired, content-free clichés that have
characterised his approach to Brexit over the past two years. I found that the
easiest way to parse the speech was to download it and annotate it in Word,
which allows me to see at a glance those areas where I found disagreement. With
48 annotations in a 4,609 word speech (one every 96 words), I clearly found a
lot to disagree with. Indeed, I was reminded of the lyrics of John Lennon’s
Gimme Some Truth (showing my age): “I'm
sick and tired of hearing things from/Uptight short sided narrow minded
hypocritics/All I want is the truth, just give me some truth.”
It was full of the usual bromides about “taking back control” and “will of the people”, promising a bright
new future so long as we partake in “our
collective national job now to ensure” that Brexit will be a success. The
irony seems to be lost on Johnson that the UK’s decision to retreat from the EU
is not universally perceived as a decision to look outwards and embrace the
world. There is also an inability to accept that going through with Brexit
represents a rupture – both political and economic – and that we will not be
able to have our cake and eat it, as Johnson has never once accepted. For
example, “there is no sensible reason why
we should not be able to retire to Spain.” Apart from the fact that it is
facilitated by the freedom of movement enshrined in membership of the single
market!
Another thing that stood out was the old trope that the EU
is a supranational organisation intent on crushing the UK’s national identity.
“If we are going to accept laws, then we
need to know who is making them … and we need to be able to interrogate them in
our own language.” But we do know – it is the EU Commission in tandem with
the Council and Parliament – and the UK is right in the mix. Indeed the lingua
franca of the EU is now effectively English. “And the trouble with the EU is that for all its idealism, and for all
the good intentions of those who run the EU institutions, there is no
demos – or at least we have never felt
part of such a demos – however others in
the EU may feel.” There are two distinct issues here. Admittedly the EU’s
decision making powers are remote from many of its 500 million citizens but
whilst the EU Commission proposes legislation, it is passed into law by the
European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU voters. And whilst it may
be true that the UK has never felt part of the wider EU community, we should
bear in mind this was facilitated by the EU-bashing which was a staple part of
Johnson’s former career as a Brussels-based journalist.
The economics of Brexit are of paramount interest to me, but
Johnson managed to avoid giving any detail. Despite suggesting that “I want to show you today that Brexit need
not be … an economic threat but a considerable opportunity” he totally
failed to do so. He continued to claim that there will be a “Brexit bonus”
which will allow increased spending on the NHS. Remember Johnson claimed in
2016, and again in 2017, that up to £350million per week would be available as
part of the windfall gain. A £50bn exit bill is almost three years’ worth of Johnson-style
spending. In reality, because Johnson used gross outlays rather than a net
figure, the comparative static bonus is only £190m per week which implies that
the Brexit bill is likely to swallow up the first five years of the “Brexit
bonus.” And that is before any losses sustained as a result of the slower
growth that is likely to result from leaving the single market and customs
union.
As is common with the Leave argument, Johnson points out
that “our exports to the EU have grown by
only 10 per cent since 2010, while our sales to … to China [rose by] 60 per
cent” – which still puts them below exports to Ireland. “It seems extraordinary that the UK should
remain lashed to the minute prescriptions of a regional trade bloc comprising
only 6 per cent of humanity.” Or to put it another way, a regional trade
bloc comprising almost 50% of our exports. The Leavers completely ignore the
impact of trade gravity effects – countries of similar incomes in close
proximity tend to trade heavily with each other. This is not to say that the UK
will stop trading with the EU, of course, but leaving the single market means
it will not be able to do so on terms as favourable as today. As for the claim
that “we can simplify planning, and speed
up public procurement” this would be laughable were it not so serious
following the collapse of Carillion.
Obviously, we all know that Johnson plays fast and loose
with the facts so we should not be surprised at many of his outrageous claims.
At some point, however, he will have to be called to account. As Philip Collins
noted in The Times last week, the likes of Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg “will betray their Brexit fans” (here if you can get past the paywall).
Collins notes that the economic evidence we have seen so far suggests that the less well-off regions of England are likely to suffer most.
And the Mogg-Johnsons (as Collins dismissively calls the cadre of prominent
Brexit-supporting politicians) have demonstrated little interest in “improving the lives of the working class.”
This is a problem because although Johnson repeats the claim
that “people voted Leave ... because they
wanted to take back control,” Collins rightly points out that a key reason
was that it offered a chance for those believing themselves disenfranchised to
stick two fingers up to the “elite.” This means that if Brexit does not deliver
the improved well-being that these people were promised, and instead makes them
even worse off, the backlash against the political class could be even more severe.
None of this is new, of course, but then nothing in Johnson’s argument is new either
and it is important to push back against his rosy view of Brexit for
which he has so far offered no evidence. After two years, I am still waiting
for him to offer a credible analysis of the benefits. And the silence is
becoming deafening.
No comments:
Post a Comment