Brexit had been falsely presented in 2016 as either economically positive or at worst economically neutral. Recent events show that today the government is confronted with a conundrum – it wishes to avoid the economic catastrophe of a “no-deal” Brexit while insisting publicly that a “no-deal” Brexit is perfectly manageable. In fact, all evidence proves that the UK will never be ready for Brexit, warns Brendan Donnelly (Federal Trust).
The National Audit Office released last week a report on preparations for the end of the transition period after Brexit. The report was critical of the government for the inadequacy of these preparations and, in particular, for its failure to foresee and respond to the predictable administrative consequences of Brexit. These individual criticisms are no doubt justified, but they should not obscure the larger political and psychological factors which always made it inconceivable that the government would approach its preparations for Brexit in a methodical and coherent fashion.
Increasingly since 2016, the British government has come to be dominated by those who fought and won the Leave campaign of that year. This personal history dominates their approach to government. They regard themselves as having triumphed in 2016 precisely because they ignored and ridiculed the advice of economic and political experts. It was not to be expected that in government they would be any more sympathetic to the warnings of these experts about the need for action to mitigate the negative economic and trading consequences of Brexit. Such warnings were, therefore, long met with indifference or outright hostility by the government and its advisers. It was furthermore a defining characteristic of the Leave campaign in 2016 that the proponents of Brexit advocated a range of different, often contradictory, future relationships with the EU. Without this heterogeneity, no winning Leave coalition could ever have been constructed. For several years after 2016, it was an abiding delusion of the UK government and its advisers that a “cherry-picking” future relationship with the EU could be installed which would be equally pleasing to all the components of the Leaver coalition. Such wishful thinking was another recurrent enemy of coherent planning to mitigate the practical consequences of Brexit.
Why was there no plan?
Once it had become clear in early 2017 that Theresa May’s government, under pressure from its most radical Eurosceptic wing, had decided that Brexit involved British withdrawal from the Customs Union and the Single Market, a major and concerted effort should, however, have been put in place realistically to review and discuss with business the inevitable and largely foreseeable disruptive consequences of this decision; and to take the precautionary measures about the absence of which the NAO is now complaining. No such concerted effort was undertaken. There were powerful political and psychological reasons why it was not undertaken.
Principal among these reasons was the reluctance of those who won the 2016 referendum on promises of the “self-same” benefits after Brexit, of “having our cake and eating it” and “the easiest trade deal in history” to recognise publicly that their promises had no basis in reality. To have initiated in good time the necessary wide-ranging programmes to deal with the negative economic consequences of Brexit would have been an implicit concession of the arguments underpinning the Remain case, which had focussed almost exclusively on the economic disbenefits of the UK’s leaving the European Union. It could never be in the political interests of the Leave campaigners dominating the British government to advertise by obtrusive preparations the wide-ranging bureaucratic formalities Brexit would bring. It was infinitely more attractive for these campaigners to indulge themselves and their followers in over-optimistic projections about the willingness of the EU to conclude a uniquely favourable trade agreement with the UK, which would supposedly render these formalities unnecessary.
Wishing makes it so
This understandable, if the cynical political calculation was reinforced until recently among some Conservative Ministers and advisers by the curious idea that making preparations for the negative consequences of Brexit was in some way a betrayal of the optimism and enthusiasm that should underpin the project. On this analysis, the conviction and self-assurance with which UK Ministers and officials should approach the Brexit discussions might be undermined if the UK government was too conspicuously preparing for the damaging consequences of Brexit, while M. Barnier and his team might be correspondingly encouraged. There is no evidence that this tactic has made any difference to the course of the UK/EU negotiations over the past four years. But the belief that it is possible by simple acts of will and resolution to rise above uncongenial reality is an important building-block of much pro-Brexit psychology. In its most extreme form, this is supposedly the British spirit which won the Battle of Britain in 1940 (and perhaps even the Eton Wall Game more recently.)
Now Brexit has happened
Since the UK formally left the EU in January of this year, a certain change has been noticeable in governmental rhetoric about the end of the transition period. Given the announced prospect of vast lorry-parks in Kent, given the growing complaints of an uncertain future from regulated sectors such as the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, and given continuing economic and political uncertainty in Northern Ireland, it has been impossible for the government to continue entirely ignoring the unattractive realities of Brexit. But even now, the government find it impossible to describe accurately the process which is unfolding. Ministers and officials employ a weaselly vocabulary of “challenges” and “opportunities” to describe what are in fact time-consuming and expensive new non-tariff trade barriers. Even more egregiously, the recruitment of thousands more customs officials as a result of Brexit is presented by a government supposedly enthusiastic to cut bureaucracy as enhanced “investment” in the customs sector. Nor is the government’s credibility on this issue enhanced by the many uninspiring Cabinet and middle-ranking Ministers it deploys to make its implausible case. Brexit has winnowed out much talent from the Conservative Parliamentary Party. The pool of ministerial talent is shallower in this government as a result.
The government continues to be confronted with two interrelated dilemmas. It wishes to avoid, if possible, the economic catastrophe of a “no-deal” Brexit while insisting publicly that a “no-deal” Brexit is perfectly manageable. At the same time, it wishes to persuade business to make the painful and necessary preparations for the end of the transition period, while presenting these changes to business as minor and benevolent. These dilemmas are intrinsic to a Brexit that was falsely presented in 2016 as either economically positive or at worst economically neutral. The consequences of these misrepresentations have haunted successive Conservative governments for the past four years and have now reached their bitter culmination. Much of the past four years has been spent either postponing or denying the necessity of painful decisions. Neither of these options is any more available to the government.
Watch this space
It may well be that Boris Johnson is still unsure whether he wishes to accept a “no-deal” Brexit, or whether he will be prepared to make the necessary concessions to secure a minimal “deal” with the EU. One consideration however which is firmly lodged in his mind is the desire, if a “no-deal” Brexit occurs, to blame the EU for its unpalatable consequences. A definite beneficial consequence of a “no-deal” Brexit from the Prime Minister’s point of view will be his ability to blame the EU for all the negative consequences of Brexit. If Brexit takes place based on a “deal” between the UK and the EU, it will be much more difficult for the British government to avoid its share of Brexit blame game. A “no-deal” Brexit will also be easier for a much diminished Prime Minister to sell politically to his radicalised Conservative Party.
The above calculations, in which the national interest figures only marginally, are likely to inform the Prime Minister’s final decision as between a “deal” and “no deal.” This self-absorbed weighing of necessarily unpalatable options will be an entirely fitting conclusion to the tawdry Brexit process. “Minister, if you must do this damned silly thing, don’t do it in this damned silly way,” was the celebrated advice of Sir Humphrey Appleby. Opinion polls suggest that more and more British voters are coming to realise that Brexit was always a damned silly idea. They will soon be coming to realise that it has been carried out and was always going to be carried out in a damned silly way as well.
This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of LSE Brexit, nor of the London School of Economics. You can watch a video podcast by Brendan on this topic here. Image by ChiralJon, licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0.
I can find no word in this excoriating analysis with which I disagree. Two points –
1. Is there any hope that an element in the current mayhem going on in No.10 is an impending decision by Johnson to make the necessary moves to close a deal?
2. There is no such thing as “no deal” . The debacle Brendan describes would have to be accompanied by desperate efforts imploring the EU to cobble together a series of arrangements in specific areas attempting to ward off utter disaster.
Thanks for comments and questions. I respond below.
1. I find it very difficult ever to predict what the consequences of chaos will be. This upheaval might however make it more difficult for Johnson to defy much of his Party in making the necessary concessions to the EU.
2. Arrangements on aviation and other sectors after “no overall deal Brexit” would not really be “deals” but more in the way of unilateral EU decisions, taken only in the EU’s interest.
Thank you for this persuasive analysis – if only everybody could express their ideas so clearly.
Sigh. Number 8,546 (approx) in a series entitled, “We got it right and you lot got it all wrong”.
Has Mr. Donnelly come up with practical suggestions of how to put things right? Nope. Is he prepared to lift a finger to help? It seems not. It’s hard not to think that he and his ilk would rather see people suffer, than help to make Brexit a success. All they want to do is sit and carp on the sidelines, so (they hope) they can have the exquisite pleasure of being proved right.
Last night, I was watching the “World at War” episode on the fall of France. It occurred to me how much the ultra-Remainers have in common with the defeatists in the French Army and politics. In some of the more extreme cases, they actually _wanted_ the Germans to win. In the same vein, the ultra-Remainers seem to want the EU to make Britain suffer for leaving. It’s a disturbing and depressing thought.
The most interesting thing is not the blindness of HMG but the blindness of business as a whole, including some authorities like FCA.
Since the referendum, it was totally obvious that No-deal carries many consequences for business, way more acute than losing EHIC, phone roaming or length of border queues. The City remained collectively silent though its individual took their own measures. Farmers were silent thinking that phytosanitary controls were nonsensical. Haulers remained silent though knowing the limited number of European permits. Ports remained silent though knowing they will face a tremendous hardship…
Why the whole British remained so silent? Absurdly listening to their government uttering raw nonsense.
I think that the whole society is so full of its successes that it don’t even deem it necessary as a whole to discuss the next step. And at the same time, the individuals compounding that society were expressing their doubts or their gung-ho optimism.
That’s collective blindness on a huge scale. If explains dramatic defeats. But it remains a mistery. It is not the sole decision of HMG, it’s a collective loss.
Why should anyone be obliged to try to make a bad idea a good one? Just insisting that if only others believe enough, a set of hole-ridden wings taped awkwardly to your arms will see you soar away to sunlit uplands, won’t ever make it so.
This is precisely why any decision with such far-reaching, constitutional-level implications should have been supported by a supermajority (which also ought to have been well-informed). The fact that the the May and Johnson governments went with a sliver of a majority and ended up with the most extreme, least sustainable version of an unformed, uncosted plan, means that hardly anyone will have voted for this particular outcome.
It will therefore be a thoroughly undemocratic project, to which hardly anyone will have signed up whole-heartedly.
Simply because a vote was hijacked by a narrow group of special interests, doesn’t oblige anyone to expend an ounce of their energy making some fantasists’ dreams come true. People will privately make the best of their own situation, and that’s all that can be expected of them.
You broke it, you own it.
A Pollington: “This is precisely why any decision with such far-reaching, constitutional-level implications should have been supported by a supermajority (which also ought to have been well-informed)”. OK, so the fact is now that the UK is out of the EU and is not going to get in again except by reapplying. Do you think that any decision to rejoin should only be taken if supported in a referendum by a supermajority? Or do you not think such a decision would have “far-reaching, constitutional-level implications”?
Let me state my own opinion. If given a time-machine, I would campaign in 2013 to have the referendum run differently. I don’t think the super-majority idea is a good one because I don’t think it is fair for 45% of the population to keep the other 55% in the EU against their will. Rather, my proposal is that such momentous decisions to change the status quo should be carried out with up to two referenda. If the result of the first referendum is more than 50% to preserve the status quo, or more than 60% to change it, this decision should be final. Otherwise, with a 50-60% vote to change the status quo, there should be a second referendum in 12 months time. The result of this referendum should then be final, however narrow it is.
But I don’t think the 2016 referendum can be changed retrospectively. It was made clear to the electorate beforehand that this referendum would be decisive, by all major parties except the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists I think (only the SNP voted against the bill to hold the referendum) and this promise should be kept.
I think a future major referendum, such as one to reapply to join the EU, or Scottish independence, should be held using the framework I have suggested. Or at least, I can’t think of a better one.
This a good and accurate piece. David McKee’s criticisms are baseless, not least because the writer is not in government. The best response is simply to hold another referendum or cancel the whole farcical process. To be a Remainer is to be internationalist, collaborative and democratic. The fact that the UK will be isolated, laughed at, marginalised and left just with dreams of its past is not the fault of the Remainers. The damage has been entirely self-inflicted. Any forward looking, well informed person is now leaving the UK in significant numbers.
By the way what does ‘Ultra’ add to being pro-European and a Remainer. Just another nasty, baseless ‘label’, probably invented by that Mr Cummings.
I also agree entirely with the author.
By 2017, with no plan coming from the Brexiteers, and Remainer Theresa May having to cobble one together, it was blindingly obvious to me that the article was and still is completely accurate.
I have long believed Brexit is also “not do-able” — Northern Ireland; the growing global nature of regulation and law and the need to expand it e.g. global tax for global companies, international law for climate change; international mobility of jobs and refugees; security etc
So there clearly are no “practical suggestions to put the situation right” . That’s why Mr Donnelly hasn’t suggested any. I suggest we remain in the EU, but that might not appeal to everyone.
How are the Government going to avoid interruptions to the food supply chain in the first week of January? Defer things to July, as Gove suggested last June? Maybe that’s what the nonsense at No 10 is really about.
It’s nice to see the comment about putting it right. An important admission that Brexit is wrong. Sigh number xxx entitled “tired old war analogies” Vive la resistance!
David McKee says that those of us who campaigned against brexit are not willing to lift a finger to help. Leaving aside the significance of someone who seems still to think that brexit will be a success admitting that help is now needed let me say how Brendan Donnelly and the rest of us have tried and tried to help –
1. Tried to convince people that the developing realities of the negotiations were so different from the claims made by the Vote Leave campaign as to justify checking whether the electorate still wished to proceed with the enormous upheaval that brexit would entail.
2. Argued that if brexit was to proceed the objective of negotiations should be to retain as much as possible of the clearly beneficial co-operative arrangements that existed between the UK and the EU countries. In other words retaining membership of the single market and the customs union. This was rejected from the outset of negotiations by the then May government and by the Johnson government.
Would Mr McKee like to specify the further items of help he thinks we might have given?
Mr. Loretto raises a good point. What else could the Remainers have done?
There are two key things they could have done. The first was to get behind the UK team, and make it clear to Brussels that it was facing a united country. Instead, they were treated to TV images of people waving ‘stop Brexit’ placards. They could not have made the country more disunited if they had tried.
The second was to put pressure on Brussels to accept a fair deal. Instead (and this is very striking), no Remainer uttered so much as a breath of criticism at the EU’s strategy and tactics – even when they were as self-defeating as giving the Irish a blank cheque, which Varadkar and Coveney used to run riot.
Why should ‘Remainers’ help with this mess. From the moment the referendum results were announced, Remainers were ignored and vilified…it was all about the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit and the ‘will of the people’. We were told ‘You lost, get over it’.
We would have reluctantly accepted a softer Brexit had we retained certain rights, yet our freedom of movement has been yanked away from us. The government proudly proclaimed it has ended freedom of movement, yet it still exists for 450 million people…no our freedom of movement has ended because the government catered to the xenophobic.
No, as a ‘Remainer’ and now a ‘Rejoiner’…this is entirely your mess…so drink it in, take responsibility and own it. Why on Earth would I lift a finger to have my rights eroded? Brexiters may want to self-harm, I’m not in the slightest bit interested in participating.
You won, get over it.
Why would we get behind a team that had no plan and was advocating madness?
What does David McKee want those of who wanted to remain in the EU to do to make Brexit a success that the Brexitists can’t do on their own? If he wants us to change our minds and present a united front can he say what the Brexitists have done to persuade us that leaving is such a good idea; don’t forget that the EU already know that half the country didn’t want to leave the EU anyway. The EU are offering a fair deal, a fair deal in their eyes, why would they offer anything different?
Who defines what is a “fair” deal. There is no way simply because the UK say “respecting our red lines” and the EU say respecting theirs – and they do not coincide. That in fact is the content of the present negotiations.
Remainers could never get behind a”fair deal” because that is yet to be defined. Of course, remainers could have behaved differently and probably more intelligently in a perfect world, but so could Brexiters e.g. by trying to explain the merits of their case instead of just demonising remainers as in “citizens of nowhere”
But that is also in an ideal world.
What is certainly true is that neither Remainers nor the EU are responsible for any economic downsides to Brexit for the UK. The EU has its law and treaty-based system to defend and the UK wishes entirely to decouple from that. End of ….start of unknown new relationship, or maybe none?
Dear David McKee,
The Almighty and Pure UK left the Dark, Vicious and Shambolic EU last 31 January.
After commiting to a full “No Deal”, my counsel to all of you Brexiteers is as follows: own it, stop whining and be content with your newfound status: being a blissful Third World country outside the EU.
If not, wait some impoverishing years or decades, and then reaply…
I’m sure that Michel Barnier and all his team in Brussels will be delighted to open negociations for the UK reaccession to the EU.
Of course, at that future moment probably Ireland will be a reunited island-state and Scotland will be independent.
Greetings,
Fernando Ferreira
With Biden Präsident elect and Johnson not stepping down, Brexit Britain’s faith seems to be sealed: UK will be brocken up and England is bound for a Suisse carreer.
The last three occasions when the European Power map was so much in motion were the years 1940, 1914 and 1815.
The suggestion that Remainers should have got behind the UK team is absurd. Are we a democracy in which people are entitled to their views, or not? Leave used populist agitation to win by creating division. With a divided country, responsible democrats would have attempted to find a solution that everyone could live with, but instead the most extreme proponents of Brexit took over the process, and the Conservative Party.
The idea that Brussels was not being “fair” is nonsense. It has been perfectly consistent, and its aim has been to ensure that it and its single market cannot be undermined. If it had agreed to the unreasonable demands coming from the British side, the result might have been its destruction.
Come on, chaps, it will all be OK. After all, we have a catchy 3-word slogan by our side:
CHECK. CHANGE. GO.
With this in our armory, what can go wrong?
(I thoroughly agree with the author and like the way he pulled together and explained the sorry mess the UK is in.)
The EU insistense that the UK follow EU rules is the prevention of progress. What other country would seek to leave a club and contin ue to obey club rules? Our future is precarious but no more so than that of other European states.under the thumb of the EU.
.
UK still wants to have to the club. So it has to follow some rules set by the club.
If it doesn’t want follow any rule, solution is easy break all links and assume.
You want to sell me your products without respecting the rules of my market. Your choice but I’m totally free to reject any of your products.
Why on Earth should we comply with all of UK red lines when you want to access our markets. I have no problem with your red lines as I deduced it would be too expensive to serve your market. I’ve still access to 440 millions, just lost 15 millions consumers. Important but not a death knell for us.
You reject all EU rules. I may understand your position but why should I accept your conditions to let you have access to my market?
You want your fish, please keep it.
Ian Ogden says the remaining 27 EU states are ‘under the thumb’ of the EU. This is another pathetic misunderstanding. The 27 states are the EU. They share decision-making, share resources to an extent and collaborate with each other.They have, to the annoyance of our government and supine media, held firmly together during the negotiations. They were ‘supposed’ fall apart, argue between themselves, probably on ‘north south lines’!
One otherer general point. I appeart to be the first woman to comment. Please let us not repeat the disaster of the 2016 referendum by presenting the benefits of EU membership as largely trade and the presenters of pro EU sentiment being ( often older) men.
@David McKee
You are clutching to straws if you think the EU’s negotiating position would have changed an inkling had remainers not aired their disgust and disbelief at the lies, deception and grandstanding of the Leave campaign.
The EU position was reiterated by junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt, Merkel, Macron, Rutte, Bettel and countless others. It was conveyed before the referendum and published in writing after it. To think a few more flag-waving brexiters outside Whitehall would have changed that is deluded
Why can’t brexiters compromise, be realistic, and accept Norway? It would keep all the benefits but deliver on political separation, and on the “political union” they fear so much.
Brexiters unreasonably insist on leaving the CU and the SM although the opposite was promised. Economically, this is the imposition of barriers to trade and immense red tape and cost. This can never be made a “success” economically. You can cheer about sovereignty and borders but that doesn’t fill the fridge.
Asking remainers to support Brexit and blame them if they can’t is unfair and bigoted. Democracy relies upon people bringing about change by airing and debating different views. Brexiters have claimed that right for 40 years when they campaigned against the EU, right up to Brexit. Remainers have the same rights.
Brexiters have to say what they want. They have to compromise and decide how much economy they are willing to sacrifice for their ideology. Will it be Norway or North Korea?
You simply can’t cut off your own leg and then blame your friend that he has no idea how to make it a “success”.
Stop the blame game. Decide what Brexit means. Read the above article once more, carefully. It’s all in there.
To David McKee – as a keen remainer, I can say that there was no effort to compromise on a 52/48 vote. The country was obviously not united, but a ‘you lost, get over it’ attitude only reinforced the division. There has been nothing done to bring remainers on board at all and now we are where we are……
The idea that ‘remainers’ could have pressured Brussels is a joke. The EU 27 have their interests and defend them, like Ireland This ‘fair deal’ nonsense is absurd – how about a fair deal for the 16m who wanted to stay? I think we would have been happy to leave the political EU, but not the economic EU – the EEA/EFTA option like Norway, Switzerland etc.
The Brexiters have always been deluded about realpolitik and the UK’s actual position in the world (hence the endless WW2 – I wish they’d read some actual history!).
David Mckee fails to recognise the misplaced euphoria of the Brexiteer camp and the sustained hostility directed by them at the Remainer forces. This hostility was often seen in the “Remoaner” label given by the winners of the EU Referendum to the losers – a form of triumphalism in British politics unlike any other that this writer remembers.
I am aware of the many essays, articles, books, etc., (having personally read quite a number of them) written by Remainers in continuing opposition – as they are entitled – to Brexit, only to be to be mocked for doing so. It is a bridge too far to expect those opposing Brexit to “get behind the UK team (of Brexiteers), when doing so would bring about the consequences of the UK’s exit from the EU that are not becoming evident. Labour do not, all of a sudden, support Conservative after losing an election, or vice versa. That is not the nature of politics or the human situation.
It is par for the course that views such as those being put forward by Donald McKee now surface – almost suggesting that Brexit has now become the fault of the Remainers! On the contrary, the present state of the Brexit negotiations, or lack of them, as well as the contemporary state of British governance, lies squarely at the feet of an inept government and the continuing closure of the Brexiteer mind. Are Remainers now to excuse the Brexiteer position because it is now faced with the consequences of its own radical, ill-conceived and jerry-built platform.
The Brexiteers have sown the wind. Indeed and unfortunately, the British people are on the verge of reaping the ravaging results of the ensuing whirlwind!
Is there a subscription fund around for a monument to the late Tony Benn in Parliament Square? I suggest not a statue, but a stone tablet bearing his five questions to people in authority. There are many versions of these online, but one is here “https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tony-benn-and-five-essential-questions-democracy/ “.
The most important question is “How do we get rid of you?”. As I understand it, Brendan Donnelly’s preferred answer to this question when addressed to the authority of the EU institutions over the UK is “You can’t”. This is for me simply intolerable.
There were many things wrong with the 2016 referendum. If I had been entitled to vote (I have lived too long outside the UK to be able to) I think I would have voted for Remain. But democracy is more important than economics, so the result of the referendum must be implemented. It will always be possible for the UK to reapply for membership if it finds it doesn’t like life outside.
Meanwhile, since it seems to have become virtually a dogma among many Remainers that the UK’s geographical position makes it inevitable that it needs to be part of the EU to be prosperous, I wonder if any of them could explain whether they think Canada should apply to be part of the USA, or if not, what is different about the geographical relationship of Canada to the USA and the UK to the EU? I must admit to not have spoken to Canadians on this subject, but my understanding is that almost all of them are happy to keep things the way they are. Wikipedia has a handy article on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_movements_of_Canada
“The last three occasions when the European Power map was so much in motion were the years 1940, 1914 and 1815” I remember quite a lot of fairly important stuff going on in 1989 …
“But democracy is more important than economics, so the result of the referendum must be implemented.” But institutions and laws matter too. Institutionally and legally the referendum was consultative and such a tiny majority for a such momentous decision should have advised not to bring about such as a fundamental change in the British material constitution as to leave the EU. In most written constitutions constitutional changes do not require a simple majority (much lower at any rate in the last referendum than that of the previous referendum for staying in the EU). It was irresponsible for Cameron to leave the helm of the government as if the result of the referendum under such tricky circumstances were to be legally and politically binding in any case without further discussion.
As to the negotiating strategy of the EU the plain level requirements do not make much sense. Theoretically speaking a government could favour through subsidies the development of infant industries. In practice subsidies are rather for dying industries, under the pressure of organized interests and pressure groups, and are contrary to the public interest (such as, apparently, in the case of steel, not only in the UK). A commitment to avoid subsidizing firms or industries would be first of all in the interest of Britain. As to European trade, subsidies alter the nature of comparative advantage rather the fact that comparative advantage would be in any case the basis of trade. Moreover if a government would like to plan in favour of the development of a specific branch of industry or a specific territory it could always do it, rather than through ad hoc subsidies, through general instruments, less prone to political corruption, such as infrastructure or research policies, which would in any case be required as part of its political and administrative action.
As to labour policies the various countries of the European Union and beyond have different legislations that lead to different trade-offs between labour protection and long-term unemployment (in general the greater the first the greater the second). The Eu should leave the Uk to decide on its own on the trade-off, in the same way as the different countries of the EU are in practice doing..
As to the requirement that the Court of Justice of the European Union should be the arbiter of the execution of a treaty between the EU and the UK this seems to be unfair to me, as the ECJEU is an institution of one of the contracting parties only.
So much verbiage, so much idiocy, so little sense of reality.
“The most important question is “How do we get rid of you?”. As I understand it, Brendan Donnelly’s preferred answer to this question when addressed to the authority of the EU institutions over the UK is “You can’t”.”
However, it seems that we just have. Well, surprise, surprise! Looks like Brendan Donnelly was completely wrong.
And: “Canada should apply to be part of the USA” etc. etc. What a stupid comparison. Canada is in fact, for all intents and purposes, part of the USA – follows its lead in foreign relations, is closely tied economically and to an extent, culturally, supports Israel, opposes China and Russia, etc. etc.. There is absolutely no need for Canada to join the USA any more than it already does, as they are practically indistinguishable. In fact as it is Canada is a convenient foil as being (wholly notionally) ‘independent’.
You might as well ask, ‘Why would Canada want to be further apart from the US?’ Similarly, why would the UK want to be further apart from the EU – its largest trading partner by a long, long way? We had much more autonomy in the EU than Canada does now vis a vis the US.
Please try to engage your brain before commenting further.
Ow! A lot of comments have got through moderation at once and I don’t have time to reply to them all at length. Please forgive me for brevity.
@Adrian Chilosi. “Institutionally and legally the referendum was consultative and such a tiny majority for a such momentous decision should have advised not to bring about such as a fundamental change in the British material constitution as to leave the EU” However that’s the way the referendum was set up. We were told over and over again that before the referendum that the result would be implemented. Personally I think it would have been better if it had been agreed before the referendum that a small majority for Leave would have required a second confirmatory referendum later, but you can’t change the rules retrospectively.
@Jams: “However, it seems that we just have. Well, surprise, surprise! Looks like Brendan Donnelly was completely wrong.” If a UK citizen had asked in 2014 how s/he could get rid of the power of EU institutions the answer would have been simple. A. Vote in a General Election for a party, such as the Conservative Party, committed to a membership referendum. B. Vote Leave in that referendum. Now we have had a referendum where Leave won, GE 2017, where most of the votes went to parties committed to leaving the EU, and GE 2019, where a party committed to leaving the EU won the majority of seats because the other parties were unable to unite behind a single Remain platform. If this is not enough to get rid of the power of EU institutions, what on earth is?
“Canada is in fact, for all intents and purposes, part of the USA” Er really? In many respects which to me at least would be important (death penalty, health policy, guns, and many others) Canada is independent of the USA. But leaving that aside, would you mind answering the question and saying whether you think Canada should apply to become formally part of the United States or not? On your showing I assume the answer is “Yes”, since if Canada is a “rule taker” it would at least make sense for it to help set those rules. In that case I don’t think you’ll find many Canadians to agree with you.
@Clerverdick: “Firstly, the EU is not a person so the question doesn’t apply here at all. Had you asked how to get rid of A JC Junker or UvdL or your former UKIP MEP’s the answer would be simple: “Don’t vote for them (again). Or don’t vote for a PM who would support them”” It is irrelevant to the question whether the former East Germany or the Soviet Union were democracies that individual leaders such as Kruschev or Ulbricht could be got rid of within the system. The Communist Party in both cases retained power.
“Secondly, the EU never had “authority” over you or the UK” The EU can make laws governing my life. (I live in Germany by the way). The interpretation of those laws is in the end determined by an EU institution, the Court of Justice. If this is not “authority”, what is?
Hi Alias, you said I didn’t answer your question. Well, I did, but I’ll try again. Your question was posted as follows:
““The EU can make laws governing my life. (I live in Germany by the way). The interpretation of those laws is in the end determined by an EU institution, the Court of Justice. If this is not “authority”, what is?”
The answer is, that there is no “The EU” imposing anything.
The rules, laws and standards are discussed and agreed between the 27 member states, represented by their respective heads of state. These heads of state need the consent of their national parliament to agree anything.
Once it has been agreed, the officials in Bruxelles and in the institutions are mandated to follow up on the implementation.
In fact, the UK had voted for 96% of those rules pre-Brexit. So the UK imposed those rules upon itself.
But of course that doesn’t fit the brexiter’s narrative of the evil EU superstate.
Hope this clarified my comment and answered your question.
Just compare the EU to a club, you sit in the annual committee, you agree the house rules, and you vote on them. LEt’S say you voted for 96% of all the rules the club implements. Would you then afterwards claim that the club enforces rules upon you undemocratically.
The EU certainly isn’t perfect, and there are plenty of things to improve. But IMHO, the way the UK imposed Brexit with a bunch of lies, a tiny majority, many of those who are most severely affected by it disenfranchised, and in a process whre England entirely overrules the will of the other nations, and misinterpreting the “will of the people” after the vote, all of this is much more “undemocratic” than anything the EU27 ever did. The result of it is history.
@Felix: “But of course that doesn’t fit the brexiter’s narrative of the evil EU superstate.” Nowhere on this blog have I described the EU as being an evil superstate.
“Just compare the EU to a club, you sit in the annual committee, you agree the house rules, and you vote on them. LEt’S say you voted for 96% of all the rules the club implements. Would you then afterwards claim that the club enforces rules upon you undemocratically.” For this analogy to work, you need to treat each member state within the EU as being a single indivisible member, which of course they aren’t. For example, members of the EU are signed up in perpetuity to the Treaty of Lisbon until they can all agree to amend it. In the UK’s case, while the UK belonged to the EU, that meant being committed by the ratification driven through without a referendum by the Labour Government in defiance of its own manifesto promise. I’m happy to go along with the club analogy but in this case it is as if a defining part of the club rules was irrevocably set by a committee member acting in defiance of instructions from the people they represented, who find themselves powerless to change that.
“But IMHO, the way the UK imposed Brexit with a bunch of lies”
Welcome to democracy. There has probably never been a political campaign without lies on both sides, certainly not Remain in 2016. Remember the punishment budget? Remember Cameron’s promise to stay on as PM and invoke Article 50 the next day?
“a tiny majority” A tiny majority of 52% is still bigger than a large minority of 48%.
“many of those who are most severely affected by it disenfranchised”
I was among those. But even if all expats had been able to vote, as well as all UK citizens aged 16 or 17, I don’t think you would nearly have had the numbers to change the result of the referendum.
“and in a process whre England entirely overrules the will of the other nations” England and Wales voted Leave, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain. I can’t accept that any single nation should be allowed to veto major developments in the UK. That would in this case have meant making the vote of every Scot worth about ten times as much as the vote of everyone in England, which I think would be quite inacceptable.
“and misinterpreting the “will of the people” after the vote” To be quite honest, the people do not have a single “will”. But the fundamental reason Remain has lost and Leave has won, not once, not once, but three times, in the referendum, and the two general elections since then, is basically that Leavers cared enough about Leave to combine to push it through, while Remainers didn’t care that much about Remain. (So that, for example, in the last election, Remainers were not able to combine sufficiently to vote tactically to bring about a second referendum, many Lib Dems for example preferring not to vote Labour even in Tory-Labour marginals because they didn’t like Jeremy Corbyn.) Remainers may not like that, but depth of feeling should count, a strong Leaver should in a democratic system have more weight than a weak Remainer, and I think system of FPTP in the UK, for all its weaknesses, does and did achieve that.
@Alias
The question “How do we get rid of you?” To people in authority, is it?
Firstly, the EU is not a person so the question doesn’t apply here at all. Had you asked how to get rid of A JC Junker or UvdL or your former UKIP MEP’s the answer would be simple: “Don’t vote for them (again). Or don’t vote for a PM who would support them”
Secondly, the EU never had “authority” over you or the UK. The UK had simply pooled some of its sovereignty to gain influence over the policies that governed it’s 27 neighbours. That pooled sovereignty can be withdrawn totally, at once, as we can now see with Brexit. So there is no authority and there never was, in the sense that something could be imposed on you against your will.
Thirdly, Canada has a comprehensive trade deal with the US, and some of their industries are highly integrated, so e.g. car manufacturing. Both sides are benefiting, and neither side can “do as they like” because they’ve agreed rules. Of course Canada could tell the US that they are a bunch of Nazi dictators and that they will cancel the FTA so the US Dollar will collapse and California will leave the US and join Canada and this is why the US have to accept Canada changing the rules as they see fit and the US could do nothing about it. But they don’t do that, because it would be utterly stupid, highly damaging, and they would become an international laughing stock.
@Clerverdick: “Thirdly, Canada has a comprehensive trade deal with the US … ” Sorry, I didn’t notice this before. Is there any reason why the UK should not in the long term succeed in agreeing a similarly comprehensive trade deal with the EU? Assuming that they can, do you think it would be preferable for the UK to seek readmission to the EU? If you do, would you also think that Canada should seek admission to the USA, if not why not?
Of course a NAFTA-style “comprehensive trade deal” with the EU would still per default create a hard border in Northern Ireland. That doesn’t actually affect the substance of my comparison, because there are doubtless many border communities along the Canadian border who are similarly inconvenienced to the border communities in NI. But in the UK-EU case there is the solution of the withdrawal agreement, namely to leave NI for customs purposes within the EU, but allow at periodic intervals the people of Northern Ireland the option of exitting this arrangement via their assemby.
@Alias
The UK is out and it is up to the UK with whom to make a comprehensive trade deal.
The pudding lies in the term “comprehensive” – the more comprehensive the trade deal, the more sovereignty is shared. Once a trade deal has been agreed neither side can change standards or rules single-sidedly, not if the deal is free access to each others markets.
Secondly, if two sides agree a trade deal, they start from different positions in terms of standards and laws, and the aim is to converge and make trading easier. The UK starts from full alignment and wants to make trading more difficult by diverging more. And since the UK doesn’t know or doesn’t want to say where it wants to diverge, how far and where to, it is impossible for the EU to give a blank cheque for free access whatever future standards will be.
I don’t share your undertanding of “the EU” making laws. There is no “”The EU” separate from its members. It’s the member states that make and agree these laws, so it’s us. The EU is only the roof under which this happens.
These EU laws – meaning aligned laws between member states, only cover a tiny fraction of the law, and we still have our own national laws in most areas. But in some areas it just doesn’t make sense to have different laws in every country. Examples:
Food standards: A food that is unfit for consumption for a Polish person is also unfit for a French or German person. It makes perfect sense to pool the experience and knowledge and devise a standard that is fit for all Europeans. As a consequence, neither of us has to eat chlorine chicken or hormone beef. Another example: Road safety from vehicle emissions to driving hours for truck drivers. We all drive accross boders, on holidays or for business, and if a vehicle is unfit for puvblic roads, it should be so no matter which country you are in. So it makes sensed to agree a standard for all countries, and then I am as safe when abroad as I am at home. The same applies to medicines, chemicals, water, etc. Isn’t it good that if you need medical treatment on your Spanish or Greek holiday, you can be absolutely sure when in hospital that the medicines they give you and the food and water are as safe as at home?
The UK Brexiters are deluded. They seriously asked that our road safgety standards like maximum driving hours should not apply to their hauliers when driving in our territories. The arrogance is just baffling.
The side effect of these aligned standards is that business can sell and service accross borders without red tape. The UK has now decided to leave these common standards and diverge. Be welcome, have your sovereignty, nobody here has a problem with that. We think the decision is stupid, but its you who has to be happy with it, none of our business. However, if you want to import your goods and services to us, its your job to prove that they are compliant with our standards. That’s the red tape the UK has put up for itself. The UK has asked the EU to accept that the UK will certify products for fitness for the EU market – unbefuckingleavable.
Just ask yourselves one question: When you have your own standards, would you allow third countries to certify their own products for your market? What’s the point then of having your own standards if you don’t control them?
Of course we are fully aware that this works both ways. Any EU business that wants to sell stuff in the UK market will have to obey by UK rules and standards, whatever these may be. And each time you change them, they will have a problem. Good thing they don’t have to do this for 27 countries, don’t you think?
In any case, its up to the businsses to decide whether its worth it, and the answer depends on whether the UK consumers are willing to pay for the additional costs. There are already some businesses in the press who have decided it’s just not worth the hassle, and they won’t export to the UK any more. If this is just plants and horticulture for gardening, it may create some new jobs in the UK but at higher product prices. But if it’S products you can’t produce yourselves, like alll the different cheeses, olives etc it will reduce choice, and also lead to higher prices and maybe other countries from further away may fiull the gap. Mexico also has nice cheese.
Good luck, I hope it works our for you. Our focus in this is to minimise the damage your Brexit is inflicting on us.
Felix, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, though not all. But neither you nor anyone else on this thread has addressed the question I asked, namely if geographical realities mean that it is a Bad Thing for the UK not to be part of the EU, why don’t the same geographical realities mean that it is a Bad Thing for Canada not to be part of the USA?
(Credit though to Jams for claiming that Canada really is part of the USA. At least he attempted to address the question, but not in a way I find it easy to take seriously.)
Although I know it is rude and dangerous to psychoanalyse your opponents, I suspect that for most of us it isn’t actually about whether rules should be made in London or Brussels, or in Ottawa or Washington DC, but which level of government is more likely to hold views congenial to ours. I suppose we tend to support Canadian independence from the USA because their government often seems superiour (for example in health service, or not getting involved in Vietnam). Likewise I suppose many Scots Nats support independence because they don’t like the Tories while many Brexiteers support Brexit because they prefer the Tories to Angela Merkel. But none of these are geographic realities. There is no permanent reason why the EU Commission should be more left wing than the UK government.
@Alias
Dear Alias, you saying nobody answered the question yet whether georgaphical proximity means the UK should be part of the EU, and compare this with the proposal that if that applies then CAN should also be part of the US.
I would answer that your question appears to confuse political unity with a close traing relationship. What we are talking about here is the trading relationship.
CAN has a very close trading relationship with the US with a multitude of agreements. A lot of automotive manufacturing for the US market is done in CAN. It would be insane for CAN to tell the US to get stuffeds and that they henceforth would not fulfill US standards anymore, but try to undermine and undercut US manufacturers – and then expect the US to acceppt this. Of course they could kick their most important trading relationship into the bin, and hope to find a new one in AUS, but what sense would it make?
So concerning a trading relationship, and the recognition of rules and standards set by your much bigger, geographically closest trading partner, makes perfect sense.
Nobody, however, has ever proposed that geographical proximity meant you have to “go together” politically. Think it to the end, and assume every country “going together” with their closest neighbours, and you end up with the entire world lunped into one. Nobody ever proposed anything like that.
And neither do the EU27 aim for that mystic “superstate” many brexiters fear so much. All 27 EU members are sovereign states, as the very different Covid-19 reaction has shown. They are a member by their free will, but they have understood that with certain issues, they won’t get anywhere with strong allies. And the EU provides these allies and offers a process how to come to a joint position. However flawed this process may be, but going it alone just doesn’t make sense in global issues.
Felix, I think you’ll find hardly anyone to disagree with the proposition that the UK should continue to be a close trading partner with the EU and that, for example, British manufacturers can expect to have to follow EU standards if they want to sell to the EU, just like Canadian manufacturers exporting to the USA. This whole blog is about Brexit, or the exit from the political union. Canada is not isolated from the USA but it is not part of it. For example it can make its own trade deals. The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction at all north of the border.
I note that, like everyone else, you haven’t answered the question I put in the first paragraph of my last response, which of course was a repeat of my question from November 16th.
@Alias
You write: “This whole blog is about Brexit, or the exit from the political union. ”
This is the big miscomprehension of the Brexiters. They were made to believe that the EU is a political union. It is not. It is 27 sovereign states cooperating, and the EU officials are their public servants.
The British media has brainwashed the public over 40 years about a “EU superstate” and the EU “imposing” rules upon them or wanting to “gobble them up”. This is all utter nonsense.
In the EU, we harmonise certain rules and standards because it makes sense. And the public servants in the joint institutions and in Bruxelles are mandated to watch that all members obey by the rules they agreed to.
But Brexit is done now, and that’s it.
Felix: “This is the big miscomprehension of the Brexiters. They were made to believe that the EU is a political union. It is not. It is 27 sovereign states cooperating, and the EU officials are their public servants.” The EU is more than “27 states cooperating”, because, since the Treaty of Lisbon at the latest, it is possible for a qualified majority of the states to impose rules on the remainder in certain areas.
I don’t really see a difference in the type of union between the EU and the USA, or the Federal Republic of Germany. In each case the original sovereignty is deemed to lie with the constituent states, but they have ceded certain (though not all) rule-making powers to bodies such as Congress+President or the Bundestag+Bundesrat or qualified majorities among the member states. In each case, there is a court cwith supreme authority to interpret the constitutional law of the federation, which authority is supposed to have immediate effect. (I say “supposed” because in Germany you have the very real possibility of a tug-of-war between the European Court of Justice and the Bundesverfassungsgericht).
The only major difference I see is that the EU has a secession mechanism. But I don’t think see how this suffices to stop the EU being a political union.
Of course if the EU really were just 27 states cooperating, there would be nothing to stop the UK cooperating on a case-by-case business in the future. But it’s more than that. I remember a common analogy being with a golf-club. You don’t get to turn up and play whenever you feel like it, you have to enter into a union with other golfers and commit yourself to paying subscriptions, only play at times permitted, observing safety rules, and so on. You elect a committee to manage the interests of the members and pay the staff. And of course where members disagree, there are disputes, and you have a political process for sorting them out. A golf club is also a political union.
If you disagree with all that, then maybe I need to define more clearly what I mean by a political union, if it’s not already clear.
Of course the EU is a political as well as an economic union. However it is certainly not a single country and never will be. It is nonsense to suggest that there was any doubt as to the important political purpose of the historic decision to seek a depth of co-operation across Europe sufficient to make yet another destructive war unthinkable. And UK political leaders made no secret of this. Just look at this fascinating exchange in Hansard October 21 1971 – over a year before the UK joined the EEC. –
“Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that we shall have a veto on political developments. The implication of that is that we do not want political development. Many people think that possible political developments are the most important thing about the Community. Are the Government saying that they would resist and oppose political developments in Europe?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Not at all. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can possibly have interpreted that from anything that I have said. I said that the political processes in Europe would evolve, and that they would evolve by consent, because if one tried to go too fast and impose too much the Community could break up. The change will occur by evolution and by consent. ……….
there is security, with all the problems which that poses for Western Europe, whether in the context of defence or détente. All the way through our history events in the centre and west of Europe have conditioned our foreign policy. The balance of power is achieved through a European contribution, and the omens that the Western Europeans will have to carry a greater share of the responsibility for Western defence and the defence of their continent are very strong, stronger than they have been since the war……….It will take time, and it will take great patience, to work out the design, but when Germany, France, Italy and the rest sit down to talk about their problems of security, and their attitude to world problems, I use the word in the most accurate sense when I say that it is vital that we should be in their councils. During the last year I have twice been in the councils of the Ten, because they have anticipated the larger Community. Matters are talked about there which concern the defence of Europe and the defence of Britain. Matters are talked about—for example, the Middle East—which have the greatest implications for our country. It is essential that we should be in the councils when these questions are discussed, and that a decision should not be taken without us.”.
In the event, security co-operation of the sort envisaged by Douglas-Hume has even now not been developed within the EU but unquestionably a large and very worthwhile degree of political co-operation has. “Alias” presumably welcomes the fact that we are now not to be “in the councils when these questions are discussed* and that decisions are to be taken without us. I beg to differ.
““Alias” presumably welcomes the fact that we are now not to be “in the councils when these questions are discussed* ” I don’t actually. As I have made clear many times in this blog, for example in my first post to this blog on November 16th, I would probably have voted Remain in the EU 2016 referendum if given a chance. However I also think the democratic decision of the referendum must be implemented.
However I note that Denis, like everyone else, has failed to find a substantive difference between the UK’s position in relation to the EU and Canada’s position in relation to the USA which means the UK should belong to the EU (in Denis’s case by being “in the councils when these questions are discussed”) but Canada should not belong to the USA. I suppose if I go on and on about no-one answering this question, and no-one does, I may legitimately conclude there is no answer.
Alias, even as we await details of the deal evidently done you still go on with your completely erroneous representation of membership of the EU being in effect merging your country with another i.e. equivalent to the USA merging with Canada as one country. It just isn’t. It involves a sharing of some elements of sovereignty for mutual benefit. Even the deal to be announced today will involve some sharing of this sort – just much less and reinstating lots of barriers and bureaucracy which we had previously got rid of. The USA also has arrangements with Canada which both parties are free to increase or decrease as time goes on.
Denis: “Alias, even as we await details of the deal evidently done you still go on with your completely erroneous representation of membership of the EU being in effect merging your country with another i.e. equivalent to the USA merging with Canada as one country. It just isn’t. It involves a sharing of some elements of sovereignty for mutual benefit.”
Can you identify a relevant difference between hypothesised Canadian membership of the USA and UK membership of the EU?
You use the term “country” as if it is a black-and-white term, but it isn’t. In federal systems like the USA, the individual states retain considerable autonomy, much more than I think is often appreciated on this side of the Atlantic. Although I think it is probably the case that on most measures the powers of various organs of the EU is less than the power of the federal authorities within the USA, I maintain that this is a difference rather in quantity rather than quality. After all the power of the federal authorites within the USA has increased considerably since the founding, for example in the developing interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. In its early years I don’t think the USA differed very much from the EU as it is now.
I think I can quite reasonably demand, as the answer to my question “if the UK should join the EU, why shouldn’t Canada join the USA” not just the answer “the USA is a country and Canada isn’t”, but the identification of some relevant difference between the federation that is the USA and the federation that is the EU. And I don’t think you can find one.
After all, virtually all arguments we hear about why the UK should be part of the EU can be converted by search-and-replace into arguments for Canada being part of the USA. For example, Canada has a land border with the USA (one which I’m sure is much more important to the typical Canadian than the NI border to the typical UK inhabitant), the USA is one of Canada’s biggest trading partners, by not being part of the USA Canada lacks a seat at the table when the USA sets standards, and so on. Why don’t these arguments apply to Canada?
Dear Alias,
you continue to confuse EU membership of a common market with a political federation.
“After all, virtually all arguments we hear about why the UK should be part of the EU can be converted by search-and-replace into arguments for Canada being part of the USA.”
Of course you can “virualize” everything, but that’s not reality.
The reality is that Canada has no political union with the US and will never do so, just as in the EU no country has to accept political union. Have no illusions, neither France nor Germany will give up their sovereignty.
But Canada does have a very close trade relatioonship with the US, where the USA imposed very tough rules and standards upon Canada. Canada accepted for the benefit of market access. The same is going to happen to the UK.
The UK gave up its power to shape European and indirectly global rules and standards, for the sake of not having to discuss and find common ground with its neighbours.
The eremite that lives in a hut in the forest has full sovereignty, and may even feel quite powerful. But as soon as he strarts interacting with the outside world, even he has to discuss and find a consensus for all issues that cross the border where his full sovereignty ends. That’s life. Closing one’s eyes and sticking one’s head in the sand won’t make that reality go away.
I wish the UK all the best for the future, and my thoughts are with all those who didn’t want this, and who had the freedom and rights they enjoyed in 27 countries taken away from them by a majority of 1% based on abysmal lies, dark money and media deception on a scale not seen before in the UK.
And I look forward to the day when a free and independent Scotland will re-join the EU as a sovereign country. And oh boy, will I enjoy the first Scottish EU presidency. And I’m not even Scottish.
Hi Felix,
would you perhaps care to define what you mean by “a political federation” and why the fact that the USA is one and the EU isn’t (which I believe to be your assumption) is relevant to the question why the UK should belong to the EU but Canada does not have to belong to the USA?
Judging by Denis Loretto’s response on December 23 at 10:23pm I am not the only one in having difficulty understanding exactly what you mean.
Of course Canada is not joining the USA any time soon. That is however irrelevant to the question whether it would make sense for them in principle to do so, just as it is reasonable to argue that the UK should not have Brexitted even though that is now a lost cause.
I would by the way love the LSE to set up a blog on the proposal for Scottish Independence, but this is not it, though there has been a fair amount of discussion on the question here already, so please excuse me for not discussing that here.
I would also agree with you that the 2016 referendum was unsatisfactory in very many ways, as I think virtually everyone should agree, but if you think that lies, dark money and media deception were confined to one side you are in cloud-cuckoo territory. There needs to be some serious cross-party discussion and agreement on how future referenda should be run before there are any more. But again, I don’t particularly want to discuss that in this place.
Of course I can’t force you or Denis or anyone else to admit that they can’t actually identify any relevant difference between the situation of Canada vis a vis the USA and the UK vis a vis the EU. But in this case, I think the silence rather proves my point.
Dear Alias,
if you are really unaware of the differences of a republic which is the US, and the EU, then I am in the wrong discussion here. Sorry for having wasted your time, I wish you all the best, and a good 2021.
[I have a hunch that you are actually all too fully aware, and are just trying to provoke. But that’s the same difference for me.]
It is really tedious, Alias, for you to go on asking for answers to your obsessive question about Canada vis-a-vis the USA when you ignore the answers given by myself and others. The basic point is that the EU is not a single country and joining it is not equivalent to giving up your nationhood. Differ from this view if you wish but do not go on ignoring it as a valid answer to your question. This is certainly my last attempt to do so.
@Denis wrote “The basic point is that the EU is not a single country and joining it is not equivalent to giving up your nationhood.”
No, you are just adding yet another unclearly defined term to the multitude already used by you and Felix in this discussion. So up to now we’ve had “political union”, “country”, “political federal”, “republic” and now “nationhood” (I may have forgotten one or two). Instead of explaining in practical terms why any of these abstractions create a barrier to Canada joining the USA which do not apply to the UK being part of the EU, you just go on adding one abstraction after another.
There is certainly no point in continuing this debate if, instead of trying to provide clarity, you have nothing to do but replace one abstraction by another. “nationhood” is no improvement on the previous attempts. What is a nation? Are Scotland or the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Free State of Bavaria nations, if not why not? Realistically one has to say that these things are not black and white, areas can be countries or nations in one sense but not another.
Nevertheless I wish both you and Felix a happy new year and wish you all the best. Let’s hope Corona is sorted ASAP and there is nothing worse to argue about this year than Brexit.
@Denis
Thank you for answering! At least another person who understands the difference between the EU27 and the U.S.A. 🙂
I guess continuing this discusson is going nowhere. It seems to summarize what’s wrong with Brexit, people entangled in a carefully woven network of lies and deceit, and unable to see through it.
These are the same people that confuse sovereignty with power and cry “unfair!” when they don’t get what they want. It’s hopeless.
I think any discussion with a Brexit supporter should start with the supporter explaining which additional freedoms have been added to their lives which they didn’t have for the last 50 years, and which great business opportunities they now have which they didn’t as a member. Both are brexiter claims repeated like a mantra with absolutely no foundation whatrsoever. And the Pfeffler has said both in his NYE speech.
Have a happy 2021!!
@Felix
I said I was opting out of this thread but I re-emerge briefly merely to agree once more with you and to reciprocate your good wishes (much needed) for 2021.
@Felix: “At least another person who understands the difference between the EU27 and the U.S.A.” I am aware that the EU and the USA are not identical but it’s not clear to me what the relevant difference is.
“I think any discussion with a Brexit supporter should start with the supporter explaining which additional freedoms have been added to their lives which they didn’t have for the last 50 years, and which great business opportunities they now have which they didn’t as a member.” So let’s turn that around. What additional freedoms do Canadians have from not being part of the USA, and which additional great business opportunities do they have?
I agree entirely with this comment. There may also be a deeper problem for UK on the horizon.
It is fairly likely that in the early 2030’s the world may begin to run short of food -not at that point producing mass starvation everywhere but such that countries like USA, Australia, India, Brazil and China may need to self-consume their food output. This would be due to land loss and degradation, climate change causing widespread inundation and drought, and changes in food consumption patterns (more meat, the increase in average human body size).
Currently the EU countries produce nearly 3 times as much more agricultural output per head than UK. This gap is likely to widen as the relatively backwards agriculture of places like Romania is improved. Further EU produces nearly a full range of foodstuffs minus tropical products. It also has close ties with wheat exporters like Ukraine and can probably develop further ties with Russia also a major grain exporter when needed.
The EU with these additions will probably remain self sufficient in food and agricultural raw materials even when imports of the same dry up. Its own members will presumably be prioritised in the distribution of these vital supplies.
UK , already a major food and agricultural products importer and likely to become more so, will be heavily disadvantaged in this scenario if it remains completely divorced from EU arrangements. Even if food imports are available they will become much more expensive.
The mood music now seems to be upping the prospect of a deal of some sort – “95% of text agreed but still important issues outstanding” etc etc. Throughout these talks I have been reminded of my time in Northern Ireland politics. There, negotiation often consisted of one party throwing a paper on the table, saying “Let us know when you agree with that” and withdrawing. Only when both sides realised the status quo was not an option were “red lines” breached and the Good Friday Agreement finally emerged. Has this stage been reached vis a vis brexit? We shall soon know and either the celebrations or the blame game can proceed. Either way there will be no easy way forward.
@Denis Loretto
“Only when both sides realised the status quo was not an option were “red lines” breached …”
We have a different situation here though. In your sentence, the status quo will simply continue if no compromise is found. With Brexit this is not an option. The status quo ends on 31.12.2020 because the UK decided so.
No-deal has been made the default option, also because the UK decided so. I know some Brexiters may disagree and blame the EU, but it was the UK that wasted four years with elections, changes of negotiaors, constantly changing goals from cake-and-eat to Norway + and WTO to Canada +++ and now Australiahaha.
The question is now how much either side is asking the other side to give, in oder to come to a meagre deal. The UK has no motivation for any deal, because if they did the meagre deal they could get, their lies will be debunked. For the Tories it’s more attractive to let the negotiation run off the cliff and then blame the EU .
For this reason, they are asking something of the EU which the EU cannot and will not give. The UK is asking tarriff free and quota free access for goods, but without adhering to EU standards. But the UK would never agree such a thing with another country, and neither can the EU. A trade policy only works if you can control it, not if you give conotrol to a third party. Therefore the UK has to agree that any goods it exports to the EU will comply with EU standards, and this includes workers rights and animal welfare etc. It is entirely true that this works both ways, and if a EU exporter wants to deliver goods to the UK, they have to comply with the UK rules. And it is up to them if they think it’s worth the hassle – which depends on whether UK consumers are willing to pay for that hassle.
BTW: Nobody knows at the moment what the future UK rules will be. Not even the UK knows that.
Fish IMHO is a red herring. IT’s emotional in the UK, yes, but it’s tiny and widely unimportant for both sides and a compromise can be found. After all, Europeans have bought a substantial share of UK quota and own it, and 64% of the UK’s maritime area are Scotland’s anyway, and we all know what will happen with that.
@Felix Herbst Sorry, I missed your reply to me back on November 25. As you will realise I agree very much with the content of your piece. I just wanted to say that in my analogy with Irish “negotiations” I intended “staus quo” to mean the situation which would prevail in the absence of a deal – in the brexit case this is the termination of the transitional period without securing any trade deal. In other words WTO terms (ludicrously dubbed “Australian terms” by Johnson & Co). Only if both parties recognise that this would be a fatuous outcome will a deal be struck.
Boris Johnson has said that Britain will make a Titanic success of Brexit , I believe him.