UK parliamentary proceedings yesterday produced yet another night of
high drama with MPs delivering a bloody nose to Boris Johnson who has learned a
harsh lesson in the Realpolitik of Brexit. However, it only succeeded in
raising as many questions as answers. Will there be a general election? If so,
what would it resolve? Will the UK really leave the EU on 31 October, and if
so, with or without a deal? What is the future of the Conservative Party
following the expulsion of 21 MPs? All of these are interesting questions and
will undoubtedly be looked at the weeks and months to come.
But what perhaps concerns me most of all is the increasingly
short-term nature of the way the UK has handled the Brexit problem. Although we
went through many nights of high drama under Theresa May’s premiership, her
main objective was to buy the UK some time in order to minimise the economic
risks. Johnson’s government has shown no interest in such a strategy. He is
focused purely on the politics of delivering Brexit without a second thought
for what will follow. Dragging the UK out of the EU at any price will have
economic consequences which will be reflected at the ballot box. That said, I
am not sure that Remain supporters have given much thought to the future
either. Their objective is simply to prevent a no-deal Brexit, which is
laudable, but what happens thereafter? They presumably cannot ignore the
referendum result forever. And what happens if the 21 Tory MPs expelled from
the party are replaced with fellow-travellers who ultimately allow Johnson’s
government to pursue its goal of a clean Brexit?
One of the key lessons we have learned over the past three
years is that the British political system is incapable of dealing with the
Brexit question. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that the Conservatives have “owned” Brexit means (a) failure to deliver
reflects badly on them and (b) the divide between parties, which was already
considerable, has widened further which makes cross-party cooperation
difficult. Watching politicians from both sides of the political divide
engaging in the adversarial process which passes for debate, it is evident that
oratorical skills and points scoring are more highly valued than rational
consideration. Only this afternoon, Chancellor Sajid Javid’s speech delivering
the government’s spending review was twice brought to a halt by the Speaker who
admonished the Chancellor for being overtly partisan in what was supposed to be
a dry speech about public spending. I do not recall that happening during any
parliamentary speech by any Chancellor.
The theatrical nature of parliament further encourages
adversarial behaviour. As the blogger Chris Dillow highlighted in a post recently,
presenting politics as theatre is dangerous because it allows journalists to
focus on style rather than substance. As a number of other commentators have
pointed out, this focus on style over substance has produced an environment in
which the media seems less interested in the facts of the matter than whether
it generates an engaging debate. In a fascinating article on pro-Brexit bias at
the BBC,
Chris Grey argues that the BBC has inadvertently stoked the partiality of the
debate by giving equal air time to both sides.
As Grey put it, “the overwhelming balance of opinion amongst
economists, including those employed by the Government, is very clear: Brexit
will be economically damaging and the main debate is the extent of the damage.
Yet ‘balance’ suggests that the pro-Brexit minority of economists be given
equal billing with the anti-Brexit majority.” The consequence of this is
that people believed that the economic merits of leaving were as strong as
those of remain. Worse still, “almost all
of the factual arguments made by the Leave campaign were untrue (£350M a week
for NHS, Turkey is joining the EU etc.), but ‘balance’ required the BBC to
treat them as being as valid as the opposing arguments.”
Imagine a debate between pro- and anti-climate change
supporters. The pro lobby is backed up by a scientific body of evidence
compiled by highly qualified people who do not say that human activity is
causing climate change but that it is highly probable. The antis do not have
anything like the same degree of scientific credibility but shout louder.
Should their arguments receive the same prominence? Most rational people would
argue not since it is better to believe the experts and be proved wrong than
listen to the deniers if they are wrong. But with Brexit it seems we are quite
content to ignore the economics.
A number of factors have thus come together
to create a climate in which it is no longer possible to have a rational debate
about Brexit: Political miscalculation; an adversarial political system and
misguided media attempts to ensure an unbiased debate are but three factors. So
poisoned has the political climate become that amongst the 21 Tory MPs stripped
of their party membership after their vote against the government’s Brexit
policy are two former Chancellors of the Exchequer (Ken Clarke and Philip
Hammond). But the greatest irony is that the grandson of Winston Churchill,
Boris Johnson’s great political hero, is another of the victims. In his speech to parliament this afternoon,
Sir Nicholas Soames sarcastically thanked the prime minister, whose “serial disloyalty has been such an inspiration
to so many of us.” He ended by saying that “it is my most fervent hope that this House will rediscover the spirit
of compromise, humility and understanding that will enable us to push ahead
with vital work in the interests of the whole country.”
He speaks for many of us, lamenting the inability to engage
in rational political discourse on matters of national importance. By
continuing to reduce the space for evidence based policy, we run the risk of
making bad political and economic decisions. As Soames’ grandfather said in
1938, “The stations of uncensored
expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time
for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to
consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time
remains.”
