It is four years to the day since the British (or more
specifically, the English and Welsh) electorate voted in favour of leaving the
EU. I look back to the spring of 2016 with bemusement. An angry electorate,
struggling to cope with the economic fallout of the 2008 crash, was told that
Britain would enjoy a better future outside the EU. Many of them needed
something to believe in, so why not wipe the slate clean and start again? As a
marketing campaign, it was brilliant. As a true representation of the future
facing the UK outside the EU it was a pack of lies. As with all lies, it starts
to catch up you eventually. We are not quite at that point yet, but we are
getting there.
Whilst Brexit has technically happened, in the sense that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, the UK has not finalised the nature of its long-term trading relationship with the EU. This despite the fact that former Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC three years ago that reaching a Free Trade Agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest in human history.” Fox is not alone in making grandiose claims that do not stand up to scrutiny and one of the least edifying experiences of the last four years has been hearing frontline politicians, including the man who is now prime minister, lying through their teeth about the benefits of leaving the EU. Many of those who suggest that leaving the EU will not be a problem for the UK are unfit for office for one of two reasons. Either they know that what they are saying is untrue, in which case their conduct makes them unfit for office, or they truly believe it in which case their competence is in question. As the Covid-19 crisis has made plain, if governments fail to prepare we should prepare ourselves for failure.
I have argued at length why the UK’s policy on immigration is misguided, and how prior to the referendum the data were wilfully misinterpreted to generate a false narrative. I have pointed out on numerous occasions how growth will be adversely affected, particularly since the government chose to interpret the result as a vote for leaving the single market, despite being assured that “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” I have also expressed concerns about how the suspension of democratic accountability to deliver Brexit sets a worrying precedent. At root, I have never understood the logic of those who want to give up the power to write EU regulations because it somehow makes the UK stronger. At least Boris Johnson can look back at the last four years with some satisfaction, for his dissembling and willingness to subvert constitutional norms has propelled him from backbench MP to the position of prime minister. He clearly backed the right horse.
Whilst the litany of errors and government overreach is now water under the bridge, there is a price to pay. It comes in the form of erosion of trust in government. Perhaps most voters take the view that governments routinely lie anyway and that Brexit was just another in a constant stream of untruths. However, the basis of a strong democratic system is an open accountable government, which is held to account by the media. Not only has the government not been open about Brexit but cheerleaders in the press have stirred the pot still further (remember this headline?) So low has the reputation of parts of the UK media fallen that it currently stands 35th in the RSF index of press freedom, behind 19 EU countries and a miscellany of countries including South Africa. Ten years ago it could claim a place in the top 20.
Whilst my objections to Brexit have been set out on this blog in detail, I hope I have made it clear that my concerns relate primarily to the economic consequences and the lengths to which the government will go to deliver an ideologically driven policy that flies in the face of the economics. Simply put, I do not like being lied to by those whose salary I pay to represent me. I have never been a great fan of a second referendum and I can live with leaving the EU if many of the economic advantages of membership are maintained. Had the UK approached the process of leaving differently, by setting out a clear plan of what it wanted and not engaging with the EU in an antagonistic manner, the process of leaving could have been so much easier. As it is, the British government has officially ruled out any extension of the transition period beyond the end of the year, in line with its previous promises, which means that either it must form a trade deal with the EU by the autumn or leave without one, which implies relying on WTO rules.
Any agreement that is likely to be reached in the course of the next few months will be at best a “goods lite” deal. It will be far less comprehensive than membership of the single market and will not cover services. The government’s preoccupation with fishing over financial services does not sound like very credible economics. As for trading on WTO rules, it was a bad idea in 2016 and it is an even worse one today, now that Donald Trump has effectively neutered the WTO’s ability to arbitrate on trade disputes.
This brings me to my biggest current concern. Whilst it was misguided, not to mention undeliverable, a policy based on making trade deals with countries outside the EU could just about be sold as a bold step forward. But the election of Donald Trump has changed all that. The global institutional order has been badly damaged by his actions and the process of globalisation upon which Brexit was based is crumbling. The UK now finds itself caught between a nationalist US, whose policy towards China is unlikely to change whoever occupies the White House following the election, and China, which the UK no longer sees as a reliable business partner. As I warned in 2016, China will set the international trading rules to suit itself, and without the heft of the EU behind it the UK is about to set sail into the teeth of a global trade storm. All this, of course, is happening at a time when the economic impact of Covid-19 will make its presence felt.
The bottom line is that Brexit is no longer a policy fit for purpose (in my view it never was). It now represents the wrong policy at the wrong time. If the Conservative government feels compelled to deliver on the will of the people expressed four years ago, then so be it. But having consumed two prime ministers and requiring two general elections to get this far, the political costs of delivering Brexit are proving very high. In 2017, Boris Johnson wrote an article for his favourite daily newspaper arguing that “we will be able to get on and do free-trade deals, to campaign for free trade … We will be able to intensify old friendships around the world, not least with fast-growing Commonwealth economies, and to build a truly Global Britain.” He has to start delivering on his promises if Brexit is not to be seen as a self-indulgent policy which appeals to a small section of a dwindling part of the electorate - the Conservative party.
Whilst Brexit has technically happened, in the sense that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, the UK has not finalised the nature of its long-term trading relationship with the EU. This despite the fact that former Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC three years ago that reaching a Free Trade Agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest in human history.” Fox is not alone in making grandiose claims that do not stand up to scrutiny and one of the least edifying experiences of the last four years has been hearing frontline politicians, including the man who is now prime minister, lying through their teeth about the benefits of leaving the EU. Many of those who suggest that leaving the EU will not be a problem for the UK are unfit for office for one of two reasons. Either they know that what they are saying is untrue, in which case their conduct makes them unfit for office, or they truly believe it in which case their competence is in question. As the Covid-19 crisis has made plain, if governments fail to prepare we should prepare ourselves for failure.
I have argued at length why the UK’s policy on immigration is misguided, and how prior to the referendum the data were wilfully misinterpreted to generate a false narrative. I have pointed out on numerous occasions how growth will be adversely affected, particularly since the government chose to interpret the result as a vote for leaving the single market, despite being assured that “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” I have also expressed concerns about how the suspension of democratic accountability to deliver Brexit sets a worrying precedent. At root, I have never understood the logic of those who want to give up the power to write EU regulations because it somehow makes the UK stronger. At least Boris Johnson can look back at the last four years with some satisfaction, for his dissembling and willingness to subvert constitutional norms has propelled him from backbench MP to the position of prime minister. He clearly backed the right horse.
Whilst the litany of errors and government overreach is now water under the bridge, there is a price to pay. It comes in the form of erosion of trust in government. Perhaps most voters take the view that governments routinely lie anyway and that Brexit was just another in a constant stream of untruths. However, the basis of a strong democratic system is an open accountable government, which is held to account by the media. Not only has the government not been open about Brexit but cheerleaders in the press have stirred the pot still further (remember this headline?) So low has the reputation of parts of the UK media fallen that it currently stands 35th in the RSF index of press freedom, behind 19 EU countries and a miscellany of countries including South Africa. Ten years ago it could claim a place in the top 20.
Whilst my objections to Brexit have been set out on this blog in detail, I hope I have made it clear that my concerns relate primarily to the economic consequences and the lengths to which the government will go to deliver an ideologically driven policy that flies in the face of the economics. Simply put, I do not like being lied to by those whose salary I pay to represent me. I have never been a great fan of a second referendum and I can live with leaving the EU if many of the economic advantages of membership are maintained. Had the UK approached the process of leaving differently, by setting out a clear plan of what it wanted and not engaging with the EU in an antagonistic manner, the process of leaving could have been so much easier. As it is, the British government has officially ruled out any extension of the transition period beyond the end of the year, in line with its previous promises, which means that either it must form a trade deal with the EU by the autumn or leave without one, which implies relying on WTO rules.
Any agreement that is likely to be reached in the course of the next few months will be at best a “goods lite” deal. It will be far less comprehensive than membership of the single market and will not cover services. The government’s preoccupation with fishing over financial services does not sound like very credible economics. As for trading on WTO rules, it was a bad idea in 2016 and it is an even worse one today, now that Donald Trump has effectively neutered the WTO’s ability to arbitrate on trade disputes.
This brings me to my biggest current concern. Whilst it was misguided, not to mention undeliverable, a policy based on making trade deals with countries outside the EU could just about be sold as a bold step forward. But the election of Donald Trump has changed all that. The global institutional order has been badly damaged by his actions and the process of globalisation upon which Brexit was based is crumbling. The UK now finds itself caught between a nationalist US, whose policy towards China is unlikely to change whoever occupies the White House following the election, and China, which the UK no longer sees as a reliable business partner. As I warned in 2016, China will set the international trading rules to suit itself, and without the heft of the EU behind it the UK is about to set sail into the teeth of a global trade storm. All this, of course, is happening at a time when the economic impact of Covid-19 will make its presence felt.
The bottom line is that Brexit is no longer a policy fit for purpose (in my view it never was). It now represents the wrong policy at the wrong time. If the Conservative government feels compelled to deliver on the will of the people expressed four years ago, then so be it. But having consumed two prime ministers and requiring two general elections to get this far, the political costs of delivering Brexit are proving very high. In 2017, Boris Johnson wrote an article for his favourite daily newspaper arguing that “we will be able to get on and do free-trade deals, to campaign for free trade … We will be able to intensify old friendships around the world, not least with fast-growing Commonwealth economies, and to build a truly Global Britain.” He has to start delivering on his promises if Brexit is not to be seen as a self-indulgent policy which appeals to a small section of a dwindling part of the electorate - the Conservative party.
No comments:
Post a Comment