The landscape of the politics of Brexit remains a broad and highly contested terrain, ranging from those convinced it was a great and necessary triumph, to be defended at all costs, to those urging its immediate reversal, with many shades of opinion between. But, under the Labour government, what might be called the immediate practical politics of Brexit operates within a far more restricted space in which only ‘micro-issues’ are subject to political decisions. Those micro-issues and decisions matter, and are worthy of attention, but, ultimately, the question is whether this disjuncture of scale is a sustainable one.
Wes Streeting’s facts of life
The Health Secretary Wes Streeting, whether intentionally or not, recently gave a very clear exposition of the perverse position the government has adopted. He was asked why the idea, not of rejoining the EU, but even of joining the single market was undiscussable. Whilst happy to recall that he, himself, had “campaigned passionately” against Brexit (this, at least, is something which is now sayable for cabinet ministers), he argued that “the people have moved on, the country has moved on and the EU has moved on”, so that there was “no appetite” for such questions to be re-opened.
This is familiar enough stuff, but Streeting then went on to say something more surprising, which I’m not sure has been explicitly expressed by any other cabinet minister: “there’s no doubt that what we warned about in advance of the referendum in terms of the impact on economic growth has come to pass, and that’s a fact of life we have to deal with. I think the sweet spot is working as closely with the European Union where we can, but also showing the agility to work with and through other partners in other markets as well …” [1]
This is different to the kind of things Keir Starmer, in particular, has said, accurately but irrelevantly, about the fact that not all Britain’s economic problems stem from Brexit. Sometimes, that has even morphed into the implication that ‘therefore’ these problems can be solved irrespective of Brexit. By contrast, the Streeting version is that the costs of Brexit are significant but just have to be accepted and, at best, mitigations made at the margin. In effect, this elevates the ‘mustn’t grumble’ mentality, which I alluded to in my most recent post, to the level of government policy.
That still leaves open the question of what Streeting means by “working as closely as possible with the EU where we can”. I wrote in a post at the end of the summer, pointing to the government’s lack of a clear and coherent post-Brexit strategy (a lack which still remains), that the most likely reading of Labour’s approach was that it would be the “maximalist” one of seeking “the maximum closeness, cooperation and alignment with the EU short of breaking the Labour manifesto commitment to its negative red lines”. Actually, it would have been more accurate to say that this is the best that can be hoped for. For that approach has yet to be demonstrated, as illustrated by the current rejection of a Youth Mobility Scheme (YMS), despite that fact it would not violate those red lines.
Backbench pressure?
I also pointed out in that post that one important way in which this government differs from its Tory predecessor is that the backbench pressure will be towards closer ties with the EU, rather than resistant to them or, indeed, agitating for even more distant ties. That is true, but what it is turning out to mean in practice is backbench pressure for such a ‘maximalist’ approach.
Thus, writing recently in the Guardian, Stella Creasy, the MP who chairs the Labour Movement for Europe, set out just that case. It included some of the things mentioned in my post, including seeking to join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention, and embracing, even extending, the EU’s proposals for a YMS. It also supported amendments to strengthen the governments Product Regulation and Metrology Bill (discussed in another recent post), further enhancing the way it will tend to keep many UK and EU regulations aligned.
What Creasy’s article self-avowedly did not do was make the case for rejoining the EU or for abandoning the government’s red lines. Saying that is neither praise nor criticism. It is simply a fact. What it betokens is that the practical politics of Brexit under this government is therefore now entirely about the nature and extent of Brexit damage limitation. That is, there is no dramatic difference of principle between what Streeting said and what Creasy wrote: the issue is entirely one of specific ‘micro-issues’ to be addressed within the framing they share.
That framing still leaves room for some policy debates and choices. Apart from the government’s stated ambitions, such as an SPS deal with the EU, there will be constant decisions to be made, with important upcoming examples including linking UK and EU Emissions Trading Schemes and aligning UK and EU deforestation regulations. Yet, important as these things are, they are still decisions to be made within the limited parameters of what the present government regards as practical politics.
A vanishingly small space?
A year ago I reviewed a book by Peter Foster, the Financial Times journalist who has been one of the best analysts of Brexit (I apologise for these repeated links to earlier posts, but they help, I hope, to provide context and sometimes corroboration, whist avoiding excessive repetition). That book is perhaps the most detailed articulation of what ‘maximalism’ (in this context) means in terms of specific measures.
In my review, I suggested that: “one danger which a Labour government looks likely to face is that, along with Brexiter denunciations, it will also be attacked by remainers and rejoiners as being insufficient to the magnitude of the task. The positive reading of that is it will push Labour towards Foster’s more maximalist version of its presently disclosed policy. The negative reading is that, squeezed between those who say it is too much and those who say it is too little, the space for pragmatism will remain vanishingly small.”
It's arguably too early to be sure yet, but it looks as if it is the latter outcome which is emerging. In practice this would mean that, rather than post-Brexit policy being located right up against the edge of Labour’s red lines, those lines will mark the far boundary of what is possible, and policy will settle between that and the kind of ad hoc accommodations the Sunak government was forced to make despite Brexiter opposition (e.g. watering down the scrapping of retained EU law, postponing if not effectively scrapping UKCA, agreeing the Windsor Framework). That is, if the Sunak approach is defined as minimalism, and the Creasy (or Foster) approach is defined as maximalism, the Starmer government’s approach will end up being somewhere between the two.
If this is so (and, actually, even if what emerges does turn out to be the maximalist approach), it is likely to come under increasing strain as it collides with economic reality. That was illustrated by the government’s much-vaunted International Investment Summit last week. This was the context of both the Streeting interview and the Creasy article, and it also provoked commentators to ask the question which, even if the government wants to believe that ‘the country has moved on’ will not go away: what about Brexit?
Counting the costs of Brexit: latest news
It is a question given added salience by a report the same week from Stephen Hunsaker of UKICE, calculating that, since 2017, the UK may have lost £44 billion of public investment which it would otherwise have received from the European Investment Bank. Like other counterfactual estimates (i.e. what would have happened if Brexit hadn’t happened), such as those of foregone trade, this may have little cut-through with the public. It is hard for people to get agitated about the loss of something that they ‘would have had’ in an alternative history. But for policymakers such things are, or should be, highly important and, indirectly, they do actually have a political significance: even without recognizing the mechanism, voters react negatively to the effects.
There was also a reminder of ‘the costs of Brexit’ in terms of payments made under the Brexit ‘divorce settlement’. This came as the result of a parliamentary question from SNP MP Stephen Gethins about how much has been paid so far, and how much remains to be paid, to which the answers turn out to be £24 billion and £6.4 billion respectively.
Strictly speaking, these are not ‘costs of Brexit’ because they are payments for liabilities the UK had incurred as an EU member so, in that sense, would have been paid one way or another regardless of Brexit. Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be forgotten that many Brexiters insisted, amongst them Nigel Farage, that there would be no ‘divorce settlement’ to pay or, even, that the EU would owe money to the UK. Even when installed as Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson said the EU could “go whistle” for a financial settlement. Others of them fantasized that nothing should be agreed until the future terms of trade were also agreed, a fantasy which did not survive what turned out to be the non-existent ‘battle of the summer’ of 2017, although it still lingers on in Brexiter mythology as one of the many ways that Brexit ‘could have worked’.
More generally, the financial settlement was expected to be the most contentious aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement, and one of the more curious parts of the Brexit saga is the way that, having effectively been settled as part of the ‘phase 1 agreement’ in the autumn of 2017, it has scarcely figured in discussion since. By contrast, the issue of Northern Ireland, which had been dismissed by Brexiters as a triviality, proved to be far more toxic, festering on until the Windsor Framework was agreed in February 2023, aspects of which remain unimplemented even now, and is still a running sore to many, including many advocates of Brexit.
All this is worth recalling if only because we should never forget the grotesque ways in which Brexiters fooled themselves and misled others about the most basic realities of leaving the EU. More specifically, in the present context, it serves as another illustration of how, every step of the way, what Brexiters sold as a cost-free project has incurred cost after cost after cost.
A third recent reminder of this is the Reuters’ report that the Lord Mayor of the City of London estimates that Brexit has led to the loss of 40,000 jobs from Britain’s financial centre since 2016. It was a noteworthy report not least because, rather like the financial settlement, the figure for City job losses also has a special place in the iconography of the Brexit process.
Before the referendum, a widely cited report from accountants PWC estimated that the figure would be 70,000 to 100,000. This was dismissed as ‘Project Fear’ by leave campaigners, who later claimed vindication when, in 2022, another accounting giant, EY, estimated that the actual figure had been ‘only’ 7000 jobs. Of course, this was only a vindication because, by then, defence of Brexit had long since moved to claiming it had not been as bad as expected, rather than that it had had the positive benefits promised. If the latest 40,000 figure is correct then, on that logic, it could still be claimed as a vindication. Nevertheless, it would be closer to the lower end of the PWC estimate than to the EY estimate.
Foregoing jobs of this type, on this scale has significant implications. For example, economics commentator Jonty Bloom calculates that, if the figure is indeed 40,000, this represents well over £1 billion per year of foregone tax revenue (even conservatively assuming these jobs to have had an average salary for the sector, and considering only the income tax and national insurance they would have paid). Again, these are counterfactual costs but, whilst that inevitably means they are estimates, counterfactual analysis is the only way of assessing the effects of Brexit. Indeed Brexiters themselves recognize this whenever they claim (usually wrongly or misleadingly) that such-and-such a thing is a ‘benefit of Brexit’ because it wouldn’t otherwise have been possible.
Foregone jobs aside, the wider issue is that, apart from a few pro-Brexit diehards, no one seriously thinks that, overall, Brexit has been anything other than bad for the UK financial services industry. Even the pro-Brexit Telegraph reported (£) earlier this year that Brexit was the “prime suspect in the death of the stock market” and that the referendum was a decisive moment in the City’s “brutal losing streak”. Meanwhile, a review of the sector jointly produced by the City of London Corporation and the Treasury last year (i.e. under the Tory government) identified “strengthening and deepening the EU-UK business relationship” as “a top priority for the UK based financial and professional services sector.”
There’s little sign that this priority will be delivered by the new government, for all Labour’s wooing of the Square Mile. As a recent analysis by Hannah Brenton of Politico explained in some detail, the sector remains “out in the cold”, rarely featuring in the government’s statements about the ‘reset’ with the EU, and barely mentioned in discussions with the EU. Yet, as Brenton points out, financial services account for some 12% of UK GDP and contribute £100 billion in tax revenues (2022 figures). A government which has made GDP growth its central mission and which has a pressing need for tax revenues to repair highly-stressed public services can hardly afford to ignore the sector’s stated priority needs in this way.
Some other facts of life
Constant reminders of the costs of Brexit, such as these, will continue to exert pressure on the narrowness of the political space within which Labour are willing to discuss it. Next week’s budget will be an important example. At one level, it will push discussion of Brexit even further to the margins, as commentators will find many others things in it to talk about.
At another level, it will make the costs of Brexit even more relevant. Battles between the Treasury and spending departments are a basic fact of political life, and those over the forthcoming budget are no different (rather than being, as some reports suggest, the sign of a government in chaos). Nevertheless, they have an added dimension when budgetary constraints are so much tighter than they would have been as the result of a calamitous decision about national strategy.
To put it another way, Wes Streeting may think the costs of Brexit are “just a fact of life we have to deal with”, but he must know that much of the political credibility of the government, not to mention his own career, depends on the funding settlement he obtains for the NHS. The same goes for other ministers and other public services. For this reason, even if ‘the people have moved on from Brexit’ and even if counterfactual losses have no cut-through, it doesn’t follow that bearing those costs has no political consequences. It’s another fact of political life that voters expect results. [2]
From that point of view, the limited space of Labour’s Brexit politics, and the Brexit micro-issues to which it confines the government, is always going to be faced with the question of why it is so small. The ‘macro-question’ of Brexit as a national strategy will not go away. And that isn’t solely or even, ultimately, mainly because of the question of whether Brexit was a mistake. It is for similar, if now updated, strategic reasons to those which, in the 1960s and 1970s, drove the UK repeatedly to seek membership of what was then the EEC (this argument was made with great elegance by the historian Robert Saunders, in an essay marking the day that Britain left the EU). Those reasons, too, are facts of life, deriving from those of economics, geography, and the nature of international relations.
So the issue for this and future governments is the disjuncture between what is economically (and geo-politically) desirable and what is politically viable. The present government has an answer to this, and it is not entirely without merit: it is that re-opening the macro-question of Brexit would be economically damaging because of the instability which would result from the political toxicity of doing so. On this account, there is no disjuncture: it’s not economically desirable because it’s not politically viable. And it’s true that, in particular, many big businesses which have adapted themselves to being outside the single market and customs union are not keen to have that all thrown up into the air again for an indeterminate period with an uncertain outcome.
However, whilst it isn’t unreasonable for the government to take account of those concerns, they do not define the interests of Britain’s economy as a whole, nor those of its citizens. Acting as if they do is not only unhelpful to smaller businesses and to consumer choice, it institutionalizes higher costs, lower investment, and a lower tax base than would otherwise be the case. Equally, it does little to address the geo-political damage of Brexit.
This doesn’t mean, at least in my estimation, that the present government is going to pivot to joining (or rejoining) the single market, let alone the EU. It does mean, though, that an approach based on simply “living with” the costs and damages incurred by choices made by, and in the aftermath of, the 2016 referendum is inherently fragile. It is very unlikely that the politics of Brexit can forever be contained within the small space to which it is currently confined by Labour. For it is also a fact of life that attempts to fit a quart into a pint pot – to use measures that some Brexiters might appreciate – will result in a leakage, if not indeed a flood.
Notes
[1] The last words of this quote seem to suggest a continuation of the last government’s faith in post-Brexit Britain’s ‘nimbleness’ in being able to set its own regulations and make its own trade deals. There’s little reason to share it. But in one respect, at least, there has been a departure from this hubris in that all the existing advisers to the Board of Trade have been dismissed, including Daniel Hannan, one of the major architects of Brexit, and Australia’s former leader Tony Abbott, one of its few international champions.
[2] In the present context, it’s an even harsher fact of political life that some voters expect results that they have denied themselves by their vote to leave the EU, or, however they voted in the referendum, by their unwillingness to see that decision revisited. But there’s nothing new about people holding perversely contradictory views, and it’s one of the tasks of political leadership to persuade them of the need to face realities. The core of the present government’s ‘Brexit problem’ is that it believes this is not possible – and it may well be right.
The UKCA mark has only been 'postponed' and not abolished (as it should). It is now to the extent that (for instance) a bottle of supermarket saline solution, that I have bought in the past, (that until very recently only had the CE mark on it) now has both the CE and UKCA mark on it (with different numbers beside them).
ReplyDeleteIt needs to be fully abolished.
Hence I wrote "postponing if not effectively scrapping UKCA". Actually the issue is really about postponing the date by which CE ceases to be recognized in the UK, which in turn will for many/most manufacturers simply make UKCA redundant.
DeleteTotally concur Prof Grey. The CE mark 'will' remain the standard if you want to export to the EU. It will remain accepted in the UK for the forseeable future. Why bother with UKCA? The UK does not have the capacity to do all the required tests to replicate CE as UKCA anyway in specific sectors.
DeleteIt is one of the best ironies in that UK exporters will now have to get EU approvals (CE marking) done in the EU. Note that up to 15% of all CE testing/approvals were done in the UK prior to Brexit.
I recall Leadsom in particular crowing about the 'new UKCA mark' literally a few months before the 2019 UK leaving date. The Brexiters had literally no idea of the trouble this particular aspect would be, or the time and expense.
Surely this is a case of 'passive divergence' where the companies large enough (like the supermarket in question) can put the UKCA mark on without hassle (indeed a case of having adapted to being outside the single market), and we'll be lumbered with having to see the mark on products well into the future?? (Hence it needing to be officially abolished in law).
Deleteyes - it's a maddening bit of the Brexit discourse that goes something like this
ReplyDelete"people have moved on from Brexit, they have other concerns like [insert concerns that are all made worse in whole or in part by Brexit]"
Yes – it’s a maddening part of the Brexit discourse that goes something like this
ReplyDelete“People have moved on from Brexit they are concerned about [insert concerns that are all made worse in whole or in part by Brexit]
Peter Mandelson has recently described Brexit as an "economic handbrake". Since Mandelson is not one to use metaphors lightly, this prompts the obvious question of how far you can travel with the handbrake on. We are currently straining to produce any economic growth, and, inevitably, every likely tax target is laced with looming negative or unintended consequences. Unfortunately, for both left and right, there is no magic money tree or free lunch. For instance, talk of changing the fiscal rules has now seen the ten year gilt yield back up to the Truss Budget levels.
ReplyDeleteI think that Labour, due to their comparible, miserable experience in Scotland after 2014, are very, very worried that re-opening the debate around Brexit would risk the Tories and Reform using it to win over Labour voters who voted Leave, thereby splitting Labour's core vote with disastrous electoral consequences in many seats. Ironically, this is the very situation which the Tories now find themselves in, and so the conflict between them and Reform, as the Tories try desperately to win back the voters that they have lost to Reform while Reform try to prevent them from doing so, will be one of the defining features of this parliament.
ReplyDeleteAs yet, we have no new Tory leader, and so no idea what their strategy to try and win back those voters will be. Until we know who it is, and that is now up to the same Tory party members who picked Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, Labour have no idea what they will be fighting against. It is critical that they do before they can have any chance of predicting what will be hurled at them, and how they can manage it without taking dangerous, damaging hits from the Tories and their media allies.
The real problem is that Labour doesn’t stand for anything in particular. They’re the Not The Tories Party, and that’s just about it. Under Starmer’s leadership, the party is explicitly cynical about not taking any major moral or ethical stances (although they sure take a lot of other things, right Baron Alli?) which means they have no obligation to produce any particular policy, or even to pursue a particular direction. I suspect they’re doing this in hopes that by aggravating nobody with stiff demands they will be able to proclaim themselves universally anodyne in the next election. Who knows — it might work. Personally, I think the combination of Tories and whatever-Farage-is-peddling-this-week will eat Labour’s lunch just by being definite about SOMETHING, even if it’s something people may not like all that much.
DeletePLEASE PLEASE send Starmer a copy of The March of Folly by Barbara W Tuchman (Pulitzer prize winning author) . You MUST read this book and write the Brexit chapter. Starmer is delusional in that he thinks his ego will suffice. Many politicians have fallen prey to this error throughout history. Thanks for reading.
ReplyDeleteIf the new government is to be believed, then it sees its primary objective as boosting economic growth. To be fair, this is wholly consistent with attempts to revive public services and repair balance sheets. Therefore it just beggars belief that of all the levers currently under their control, they refuse to pull on the one - much closer ties with Europe - that offers so much return for so little effort. As you rightly point out, the public will eventually demand delivery of Labour's various promises so the downside of taking political heat for reopening aspects of Brexit seems to me to be far preferable to the likely alternative of losing the next election. I wonder how long it will take for them to figure this out?
ReplyDeleteYou MUST send Starmer The March of Folly by Barbara W Tuchman - repeating my comment as not sure it was published.
ReplyDeleteThanks Chris for this thoughtful blog.
ReplyDeleteA very perspicacious realisation that the comments of Wes Streeting indicate the way this government is viewing Brexit and what to do next is its actual policy!
I watched his interview when it was first broadcast and found it the sadly to be the same muddling through & hoping for the best that characterises current British policy.
One point, in your last paragraph you write:
"This doesn’t mean, at least in my estimation, that the present government is going to pivot to joining (or rejoining) the single market, let alone the EU."
I'm sure you know that rejoining the EU SM without being a member of the EU (or EEA) is not possible. There is no such animal as 'close alignment with' the SM giving seamless borderless full free trade in goods and services. The nearest model of that is the Swiss relationship and that has now been shut down by the EU.
This is why the EU terminology of the internal market is much more accurate and they use the term single market as a descriptor of the geographic single market that a trade deal with a third party allows access to under the terms of that deal.
It is of course true that SM membership is currently reserved for EEA members and thus either EU or EFTA members.
DeleteI consider it one of the greatest failures of UK governments up to Cameron (and especially his) to not negotiate eligibility for an ex-member.
Anyway, one of the primary goals of the EEA was to ease the (potential) transition of countries from EFTA to EU membership.
Essentially "joining" the shared economy before reaching the requirements or consensus to become part of the political aspects as well.
I would not be surprised if something similar will be created once the current set of candidates reach a certain state of conformity on market rules.
It would allow their governments to show to their respective electorate that progress has been made and tangible benefits have been achieved.
Which would then make it easier to get buy-in for further steps of alignment.
Now, the UK is obviously not a candidate (yet?), however, it is not impossible that eligibility criteria for this new construct could be such that they would be easy enough for the UK to achieve.
I am not saying that the UK government at that time might be willing or able to go for it but it could be an option to an EEA-like SM participation without having to be accepted into either EFTA or EU again.
@Kevin Kramer in your comment you say the following:
Delete“I consider it one of the greatest failures of UK governments up to Cameron (and especially his) to not negotiate eligibility for an ex-member.”
It amazes me that so many don’t understand the difference between a FTA between third parties and trade inside a single market (internal market).
In an internal market all members are under a single overarching law and courts. All are legally ‘domestic’. It’s this that allows seamless borderless free trade in goods and in services.
The EU internal market is unique in that unlike those of the fully federal nations of the US, Canada and Australia, the EU is a union of sovereign nations that have pooled sovereignty only in designated competencies necessary to have a single internal market. Hence EU law is overwhelmingly law related to commercial, employment and professional qualifications.
All other competencies eg tax, immigration (for third parties), criminal, foreign policy are fully retained by the members.
It’s simply not possible to have this in an FTA and even the deepest most comprehensive FTA’s such as for example the EU-Canada CETA only cover trade in goods and not services.
Want you appear to want is for Cameron to have negotiated having cake and eating it- ie all the privileges of memberships but without responsibilities.
My apologies but I do not fully understand what you are saying. It seems as if you are suggesting that the EU would go to the trouble of creating another special pathway (other than EU or EFTA membership) for joining their internal market but that the UK might not be willing to go for it. The EU has a very full agenda. Why would it take the initiative that you are suggesting and who would it be for (other than the UK)?
Delete@Epincion: what I means is that the governments up to an including Cameron's could have negotiated that ex-members of EFTA or EU could remain in EEA.
DeleteI.e. enabling the UK to leave the political union, yet remain in the market without necessarily having to become an EFTA member again.
@Anonymous 21:35: the potential new arrangement would primarily target the current set of membership candidate nations, e.g. North Macedonia.
The EEA as an intermediate step for EFTA members on their path to EU membership has worked very well, so I think it is not unreasonable to think that a similar intermediate step could be beneficial again.
@Kevin Kramer:
DeleteThe UK could have stayed in the single market / EEA while leaving the EU. There was no treaty forbidding that. Remember Hannan: "Nobody talks about leaving the single market" before the referendum? And Barnier´s "staircase" also included that option.
What removed that possibility were T. May´s red lines.
Supported by the ERG. Rees-Mogg: "EEA is vassalage". And Hannan dutifully making a u-turn too after the referendum.
A written down agreement that countries leaving the EU could stay in EEA wouldn´t have helped at all. The then British government wanted to leave everything. Pushed by the Brextremists.
@Detlef: I definitely agree that the red lines did not allow for the proposed scenario, however, they could only be drawn that way because Brexit had been awfully underdefined.
DeleteAs you said many prominent Leave supporters favoured staying in the single market and only later turned to support the hard Brexit stipulated by the red lines.
Had the governments before Brexit put some effort into establishing continued EEA membership as an pre-agreed exit path things could have run differently.
The referendum itself could already have had this as the Leave scenario instead of allowing hundreds of incompatible scenarios to be championed.
And while am pretty sure that the Brextremists would have tried to push for a harder break, they would have had a much more difficult time to argue that to be the will of the people.
Invoking Article 50 would have only triggered the exit from the EU and parliament would have had to also vote for triggering the exit from the EEA.
And I have my doubts that the Brextremists would have had enough support to push that through.
Your analysis is, as usual, spot on. You write about "the narrowness of the political space within which Labour are willing to discuss it", "it" being Brexit. I attribute this largely to the shortcomings of Starmer, personal, educational, and political. Martin Kettle wrote this morning in the Guardian about the lack of a political compass in the Labour Government. We all know this is primarily a problem that goes back to Starmer.
ReplyDeleteLord McPherson, the former head of Treasury, thought it would be 2035 before there were signs that the UK could address Brexit in a mature way. (I may not be fully accurate in my recall, but that is the gist of what I remember him saying.) I thought at the time that that was too pessimistic. I thought 2029 was more likely, when the UK had finally tired of Johnson! I was encouraged (näively) by the Labour win in 2024. I can see that McPherson is increasingly likely to have been right all along. So, the UK is faced with a largely rubbish Government for the next 5 years, with the creeping poverty of the country creating yet further mischief.
Of course, the body politic will change as older voters progressively die off and younger, predominantly pro-EU voters enrol, but it will take time. It is a great pity that the Lib Dems are led by someone as mediocre as Davey. Paddy Ashdown would surely have seen a wonderful open goal.
No use to me. I'll be 70 if I can be bothered to stay alive that long. Would gladly see all Leave voters hanged, drawn & quartered. They robbed me against my will of who I am: the only citizenship that matched my cultural, intellectual & imaginative selfhood.
DeleteAlways be cautious of assuming that younger voters will retain their loyalties as they age. For decades now we’ve been told that in essentially every English-speaking democracy old right-wingers were going to die off Any Day Now and left-leaning younger voters would replace them. Look at the actual vote counts in the UK this July, or the vote counts in the US right now, and tell me that’s happening.
DeleteHaving performed the Brexit experiment on itself, the UK is now performing the boiling frog experiment on itself. The world is watching the disaster in utter amazement.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you need to worry, let alone apologize, for adding links to earlier posts.
ReplyDeleteThey are extremely value for both regular and new readers.
A regular reader might get their memory jogged and potentially be fine with the details this results in.
A new reader can use them as starting points to explore details they might not even have aware of.
I started reading this blog at some point in 2018 and these links helped a lot to build a much stronger foundation of knowledge than just going forward from that point would have.
Thanks, Kevin. That is my hope.
DeleteStarmer needs to read The March of Folly by Barbara W Tuchman. Please send him a copy - I trust you know the book, you can write the Brexit chapter.
ReplyDeleteTwo other comments, if I may.
ReplyDeleteFirstly Prof Grey discusses aspects of Brexit here with infinite detail, mega cross-referencing and logical consideration of the outcomes. It must never be forgotten that those on the other side of the debate never evinced such thoughts, never demonstrated such detailed grasp of fact and conclusion, and, ultimately never wanted to win.
They wanted to be plucky losers. Brave true English patriots going down to glorious defeat. Independent voices crushed by the machine.
They never had a plan of what to do if they won. They still have no idea how to implement their victory and what it means at the ports and in Ireland.
So, my first conclusion is one of the fabulous futility of the great arguments put forward here by us losers, whislt the winners couldn't give a hoot and have indeed (as per the number of Brexy Tory MPs who ran away from ballot box judgement in July) almost literally 'moved on'.
Secondly, the normalisation of Brexy anti-European hostility continues to increasingly infect our public life. Just read the crazy comments about the appointment of Tuchel as England footy manager or the 'make the foreigners pay the full whack' responses to the NHS consultation to see how, hugely sadly, xenophobia has been normalised.
David L.
Too few English (I exempt the Scots and Irish) understand enough U.K. post-war history to grasp how little international room for manoeuvre the U.K. had (we couldn’t even sell the Viscount to China because the US controlled the intellectual property to the radar system!) and why the EEC was the best available answer to the UK’s economic problems.
ReplyDeleteThe blog opens with the charge that “the government’s lack of a clear and coherent post-Brexit strategy (a lack which still remains)” but then goes on to describe in impressive detail just what the government’s strategy is. Yes, it is distressingly unambitious and provides little or no scope to make a significant contribution to the government’s stated growth ambitions but, as a strategy, it is crystal clear.
ReplyDeleteIt is a political strategy that, in the minds of the Labour Party leaders, delivered a huge parliamentary majority that would have be unthinkable in the aftermath of the 2019 general election. It is not (and has no relationship with) an economic strategy.
The blog’s footnote says “it’s one of the tasks of political leadership to persuade them of the need to face realities. The core of the present government’s ‘Brexit problem’ is that it believes this is not possible – and it may well be right.”
The last five words are at the heart of the matter. While polls suggest dissatisfaction with the way Brexit has turned out, unfortunately it has yet to translate into widespread public support, or assertive backbencher agitation, for joining the single market or a customs union (not to mention the EU itself) or for even adopting the maximalist approach (up to the edge of the ‘red lines’) that you mention.
It is far from political leadership but their unambitious EU strategy is politically understandable given the Labour Party’s dramatic post-Corbyn reorganisation and desire to win back Brexit-voting former ‘red wall’ areas.
This seems a very sensible comment. Clearly the political imperative to 'keep Brexit related stuff under the radar' is strongly embedded in the current Labour Party. The problem the UK then faces is that doing so is structurally disastrous: the growth of UK economy will increasingly depend on the export of services, and those provided by SME and Micro SMEs in operating in areas associated with leading sectors of the 'knowledge economy'. Not the Red Wall. The operations of those London and SE England corporations must grow to continental scale to succeed: only the EU offers that possibility: they also require the free movement of sectors of the labour force - e,g. related to R&D and the 'university-led' economy, again in London and SE England. It is not clear that the Labour Party has thought clearly and consistently about this issue: has not worked out how to build its base in many seats in London and SE England which they have won. It will fail to achieve the levels of growth necessary to break the Reform-Hard Right and negotiate re-entry from a strong standpoint. Reminds me of Ernie Bevin's reported remark that the UK would not join the Iron &Steel agreements because the 'Durham Miners would not have it'. Brussels would not take a request for re-entry seriously unless they thought that the political leaderships of the Centre -Left and Right (i.e. the Centre-Right of the Labour Party, LiDems and the One Nation Tories) had consolidated commanding and explicit support in the most powerful economic regions of the UK.
DeleteAnother excellent post.
ReplyDeleteNote 1 gave me the first hope that the power of the Brexiters might diminish in the near term.
While ideologues such as Daniel Hannan were still in positions where they could be taken seriously as spokespersons for British policy there could be no movement toward a closer relationship with the EU.
Their dismissal is as important as the removal of swathes of Brexity MP's from parliament at the last GE.
It is all too easy to forget that the UK had both economic and social problems well before 2016 which Brexit was never going to remedy. This is Streeting’s “fact of life “ to my way of thinking .
ReplyDeleteStarmer won his Election on a Thursday but by Saturday the British Press were out attacking him. Starmer , is going to simply have to muddle through without the protection of an EU umbrella in economic and international affairs. I suspect he is fully aware of the weaknesses in his position.
We also had economic growth, inward investment and improving productivity. Now, we are economically boxed in, with no credible plan.
DeleteChris - another interesting Blog albeit that I, as a fervent leaver, don't agree with many of your statements. This I must stress doesn't invalidate my liking for the existence of the blog - it's a jolly good read and one that demands interesting observations.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that you and I can agree that Brexit is, was and always will be a process - 45 years on entanglement were never going to be undone in 2-5 years - I can easily foresee a 15-20 year period of gradual disintegration.
You make some very valid points on counterfactuals. The big elephant in the room to me being, why the UK would want to be in the be EU currently? As we found with project fear, and as I wrote to the FT in June 2024, the sky didn't and hasn't fallen in - but then the EU we formally left in 2021 is a shadow of it's former self given the vast geopolitical tensions that the EU is facing from Russia, the US and China including the US if Trump wins the presidency - worse the post Covid bung (recovery fund)/borrow/debt mutualisation of c. £850Bn has helped create financial pressure on all member states - had we remained - the the UK was on the hook for £80Bn - not ever mentioned by our remainer colleagues - I wonder why?
Again, post Covid and Ukraine war and the rush to net zero and immigration - this hasn't and can't lead to an economic and political nirvana for the EU - rather we are seeing member states have squalid arguments especially Germany , France and Italy about Ukraine, Immigration and the enormous costs of the folly to reach Net zero.
Here's the rub - Net Zero is slowing killing Germany the traditional engine of EU/EZ growth - unemployment is rising, the transition to EV cars is predictably stalling and energy costs are getting higher - oh, it's struggling to defend itself too, irrespective of the faux defence agreement we've just signed. France is effectively ungovernable in hoc to the populists.
Add a dash of the Draghi report on Industrial Strategy and low productivity and it becomes more evident from those of us who watch these things - the EU is and has become the high regulatory zenith of humanity - the gnomes of Brussels/Strasbourg are in 7th heaven - the EU is in regulatory purgatory of its own making except the US and China who are growing at pace and apart.
Taking all this together - the EU has its own problems - we have ours - why should each side burden each other with the challenges we face - it's not as though we can help the EU and they can't help us in reality, as we continue to go in different political directions - maybe Starmer and Wes Streeting, now they are in government are coming face to face with real politik.
Well, the gnomes of Brussels/Strasbourg may be in 7th heaven, so is the troll in your household, burdening even the FT now with his pearls of wisdom. Do keep us posted.
DeleteWhilst I agree with your posts, sentiments and analysis, I'm not sure now in the early stages of this governments life, opening up or discussing the problems created by brexit will achieve much.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, even if rejoining in any form is bought to the fore, the EU is going to be hesitant, as an incoming tory government would just reverse or create chaos again. Who would want that aggro? Starmer will have to prove himself in the longer term to be a decent pm to do business with first, and be likely to win a second term.
Secondly, and a possible ace up the sleeve for those 'sovereignty' idiots, is that surely joining the euro would be a condition of rejoining.
Your posts have confirmed the complexity of severing EU relations and potential negotiations, even if started again will take years to do professionally and effectively.
I think the government should be more bold, but with the upcoming budget probably being unpopular, heavily criticised and fallout rumbling for sometime, brexit problems such as you highlight, difficult to get airtime.
Pick your battles, I think, for this labour government. It's probably got a big one this week.
Keep up the good work. You have certainly highlighted how we was scammed.
Is the essence of the 'must'nt grumble policy' not that the government has acquiesced to the UK becoming a rule taker?
ReplyDelete@kevin krammer - looking back with 20/20 hindsight I suspect the TCA that was eventually agreed up was the best that a) could be offered b) that we could accept.
ReplyDeleteSure it was a bit untidy and a bit harsh on some fishermen, small food exporters and travelling musicians - but at least it prevented a cliff-edge and the legal limbo that could have existed.
That we can still trade goods and some services in a reasonably civilised manner is a good thing.
Looking back - the EU was and is a jilted lover - it's a very hard thing to get over - but now, with the plan to have sovereign autonomy - it's good that the EU can forge its own hard way in the world , unencumbered by a reluctant UK sack of potatoes. During withdrawal negotiations both Macron's government threatened to cut off the Channel islands from power and UVDL invoked and uninvoked Article 16 on drugs - both parties learned much about human behaviour - tis good we have a strong transactional relationship and that if we can emotionally learn to re-love the EU we know that in 20, maybe 30 years we can have a grown up conversation about getting closer, albeit we all know it won't we as close as we ever had before.
In this dimension - Brexit has cleared the air and benefited both parties.
Yes, once the red lines had been established the TCA was likely the best possible outcome.
DeletePart of that failure is of course down to the governments of May and Johnson, first for drafting these red lines and then for destroying the UK's credibility as a treaty partner.
However, these failures were only really possible because the governments before them had neglected to plan ahead.
Several manifestos over the years had contained promises of in/out referendums so it would have been prudent to prepare for the leave outcome.
Best possible time would have been the negotiations that lead to Article 50 being added to the EU treaties.
Or, failing that, at least at any time since then.
Being complacent and waiting for the referendum to happen was a mistake of epic proportions.
A government determined to get the best possible outcome for the country and people could potentially still have managed to secure access to the EEA but no longer from the position of strength any government before would have had.
....well, that's certainly one way of looking at things.....
DeleteApologies for being so glib, but how would one seriously begin to rebut the commentary given here?
@John Jones Interesting comment. My impression is of a Brexiter attempting to sew a purse out of a sows ear.
DeleteHowever I do agree that Brexit is 'done' and certainly England and Wales will be outside of the EU/EEA for a generation at least so the world will see what happens in terms of its economy and diplomatic relevance.
However the lesson the English will learn is that their British Nationalism ideology -the false ideology dating from the Jacobin rebellions in the early 1700's - that the UK is a unitary state when the fact is that it is a union of seven parts each with a unique constitutional status - will lead to the break up of the UK.
NI and Scotland are both distinct societies and both are furious at what happened to them. Both voted Remain and in both support for the EU has only risen since as seen in serial election results and each will take their own pathway out of the UK union - indeed NI already is on its way out as its staying in the EU CU under the NIP which reflects and reinforces its already existing (since 1920) hybrid constitutional status as being both a self governing contingent part of the UK Union and simultaneously a part of the whole and indivisible island of Ireland.
As all born in NI are citizens of both the UK and the ROI and since many privileges of the SM apply to individuals in so many ways Brexit has not affected us much we have stayed in many EU programs like Erasmus and the EHIC.
But make no mistake that post Brexit NI is now a little less 'British' and a little more Irish.
It is generally tedious to rebut the utter horlicks that Brexiters spout constantly, both then and now.
DeleteHowever let me note that Brexit has not merely been " bit harsh on some ... travelling musicians" but instead on all workers who at any time travel to the EU to work, and who no longer can. This is both because it is illegal (no work visa) and also because their professional qualifications are no longer recognised. This does not only affect the media's poster children in the music business, but anybody with a professional qualification and a need to travel to do work in person - most importantly medics, architects, engineers, pharmacists, skilled trades, etc. This is now having a knock-on effect inasmuch as training in the UK for UK qualifications is less attractive than pre-Brexit. This does not just affect the lucrative international-student markets in the universities, but also in the skilled trades. An example is that foreign nurses now seriously consider EU vs UK when choosing where to become immigrant labour, thus requiring UK to pay more and to fish in less attractive pools for the necessary workforce.
@kevin krammer - I don't disagree with much of what you've written. It's only with hindsight that we learned that the Cameron conservative government had no intention of having a fair referendum - having called it - it was apparent to the country that the government was strongly of the view to remain in the EU - hence no planning pre or post referendum.
ReplyDeleteAdded to which, I genuinely don't think the 'UK' realised what a leave vote would mean for the EU - whilst not existential it was a severe body blow that any country could repudiate the EU - it's values and it's aims/objectives. That is exactly what we did.
As a consequence the EU had to ensure a 'hard' Brexit - irrespective of what the UK wanted in order to not encourage other misfit member states to follow suit - unfortunately this led, not surprisingly, to many, on both sides, to act in 'not exactly bad faith' but certainly not in a optimal collaborative manner - maybe the UK/EU antagonism of 45 years was too much for some to bear - it's a human thing to feel jilted which the EU certainly was. With the UK press/media stuffing it down EU throats that we never loved them - worse - we still don't.
I remain bullish that the TCA - albeit a low base -is the best we could have got. The Windsor Framework will likely be a source of friction which, top be fair to both sides, was designed in from the get go. It isn't sustainable and will likley lead to full NI independence in the next 15-20 years.
My view - let's make the best of what little each side has got. But do so in good faith. It's a turbulent world out there.
UK was generously granted zero tariffs and zero quotas on all goods, not the spiteful hard Brexit that you describe.
DeleteIn fact, the UK is the only country to enjoy this privilege.
The UK negotiated with a pompous, entitled, more important than you attitude, surprising therefore that they were granted so much.
There is only one loser in the deal, and it is not the EU. The damaging effects for the UK will become clearer as time goes by and the consequences, the declining influence of the UK, the need to keep complying with EU standards without input, and the fall of living standards will become more apparant and impossible for anybody of sane mind to deny.
It all depends on your viewpoint - I don't think that in today's affairs the EU is likely to be around in the next 20 odd years and certainly not in its current form - it's likely had its zenith as member states realise that actually some of them might be better off as sovereign states (and all that entails) - Germany seems certain to be on a downward economic and political spiral - it has to look after itself first and foremost and this will cause intolerable strain within the EU and especially the eurozone.
ReplyDeleteFrance is literally a basket case - rats in a sack - the dynamic duo of France and Germany is no longer accepted nor wanted - Italy is already doing its own thing and sinking even further into debt.
Very hard to see what member states can do to fix things.
This gravy train in Brussels and Strasbourg has had a great run - probably lasted longer than most predicted.
It was good whilst it lasted - but then, nothing lasts for ever.
It's true that nothing lasts for ever: so the EU won't last for ever, but then, neither will the UK, nor, for that matter, the human race or life on Earth.
DeleteHowever, if I told somebody not just that I thought the EU wouldn't last for ever but that it was actually breaking down right now, and if they asked me what made me think that, and I said 'Because somebody posted a comment on a blog saying it was', I don't think they'd give that much credence. I think more probably they'd say to me 'That's just somebody saying they think the EU is breaking up because that's what they want to happen.'
If there were other member countries of the EU observing the example of the UK and deciding they wanted to copy it and leave the EU the same way, that would make it seem likely that the EU was actually breaking down right now, but that's exactly what isn't happening.
J-D
Astonishing ignorance about the realities in the EU but then that has characterised the entire Pro-Brexit camp.
DeleteAs I said above, Brexit is indeed done and as the economic and diplomatic consequences unfold everyone will see the real facts on the ground.
One lesson that we all learned in early childhood is that gravity is strictly enforced, no matter how much our parents warned us we still believed that we could fly until that fateful day when we discovered for ourselves that we could not.
That day is coming for Brexiters.
"that actually some of them might be better off as sovereign states"... it is impossible for anyone not blinkered by the Brexiter dream to take these ramblings seriously.
DeleteWhen have the EU members not been sovereign states?
While I could not vote in your referendum, my family could and did..... and for various reasons all voted to leave the EU.
The reasons varied from Tommy Robinson hero worship to a belief that the EU should federalize but that it never would.
The sad truth is that votes for Brexit came from all angles, and the only possible generalization that can be drawn is that ignorance was the common factor.
You really should be ashamed to have written such rubbish.
I don't usually get personal in my replies.... but please "buck up" if you are going to continue to contribute to the comments on this site.
David - it's hard to be ashamed when, after careful consideration, you/one decides on a course of action, or has a significantly different view from many on this blog site including its owner. Thank you Chris for publishing - it's your absolute right as blog owner to do so.
DeleteI've never taken my desire to leave the EU as a personal slight against remainer's (well, mostly) - your view is as valid as mine. It's just different based on values, beliefs and to an extent hopes ( sadly, I'm of the view that hope isn't and never was a strategy).
I maintain that we got and the EU offered a quaisi reasonable (albeit rudimentary) deal in the circumstances and that is the TCA - it's very basic agreed, but it can be built upon incrementally or slowly as the parties desire.
The Windsor Framework is a work in progress - we'll see how that pans out. The omens are not that good - that much was predicted.
The big challenge now, given we're 3 years in on Brexit and c. 8 years on from the referendum is what each party really wants from each other in the next few years - I can fully see that the EU wants greater mobility for it's unemployed youth - I can see that the EU want UK heft, knowhow and intelligence in security and defence - I can see that we , as in the UK, want some easements in food exports/ROO - frankly, it's small beer (no pun ) - and equivalence in professional qualifications would be nice to have on both sides, but again, this isn't rocket science or beyond the wit of agreement if both sides really wanted it.
I can see some big challenges with the EU's digital markets act and eventual UK AI regulation - as one noted European commentator wrote - Brussels plan to keep the EU states in the digital stone age will eventually become a problem.
For now - let's be transactional bedfellows each of us in our own bed.
We've each got our own battles to fight - time to move on.
Much better......
DeleteMuch better....!
DeleteYes, very much agreed with John Jones: 'better of as soverieign states' like Scotland was, like England was. The EU will remain (as it is not a soverign state), the UK will (hopefully) cease to exist in 20-30 years time.
DeleteI can fully see that the EU wants greater mobility for it's unemployed youth - I can see that the EU want UK heft, knowhow and intelligence in security and defence - I can see that we , as in the UK, want some easements in food exports/ROO - frankly, it's small beer (no pun ) ....
DeleteGood to see you once more stipulate the EU needs the UK more than the other way around. We tend to forget that on the isolated continent.
As far as the effect of Brexit on British society and economy go you tend to fly your flag of "too early to say/let's not get ahead of ourselves" .
As far as the actions both of the Brussels/Strasbourg gnomes (your trollish qualification, not mine) AND your musings on the deplorable state of Germany, France, Italy go, you present your wishful thinking about their more or less imminent demise as facts, underpinned by sometimes even one noted European commentator.
Same as it ever was with you : British exceptionalism, presenting factoids and opinioids as facts and playing down proven disastrous effects from Brexit for your fellow citizens in a light-hearted manner that comes too close to taking the piss for my liking.
You are unserious by choice.
But winding up the libs, eh?
"You are unserious by choice.
DeleteBut winding up the libs, eh?"
Regrettably I am afraid that the hard core Brexiters actually still believe the nonsense they spout. That is apart from those who knew full well it was a pack of untruths from the get-go, but still maintain the convenient fiction of belief.
The best thing the EU can do for the Rejoin contingent in the UK - which is growing (59%-41% majority would vote to rejoin the EU. A 62%-to-12% majority thinks Brexit has been a "failure", and a 60%-29% majority now says it was always going to be a "failure". ) - is to not create any special deals for the UK that are not also available to other countries on an accession or association pathway. And to provide support into the UK for the EU Rejoin movement, just as the EU does to equivalent pro-EU movements in other countries. And of course to hold the UK to account for full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement etc.
No special deals to get the tone-deaf UK politicians off the hook. And absolutely no pandering to Brexiters.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-poll-vote-rejoin-eu-brexit-new-referendum-pm-keir-starmer/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/
https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2024-09-28/rejoin-eu-polls-and-marches
John Jones sounds like yet another Leaver, presumably a baby-boomer, who is searching for ways to justify stripping younger generations of their EU rights to satisfy his own anxieties about England's declining importance in the 21st century world. It is impossible to take anything that he says seriously due to the sheer selfishness of his decision to vote Leave, thus depriving people like me of a lifetime of opportunities. I cannot forgive aging Leavers like him for that and I have no sympathy for their views on Europe. All I look forward to is their approaching irrelevance as nature takes its inevitable course with their generation over the next 10 years. Actions have consequences, and Leavers like Jones need to realize this, and what it means for their political influence over the next decade. Put simply, it will decline along with their numbers.
ReplyDeleteIn our household Leavers are not welcome. Wherever reasonably possible we cut them out of our social lives.Their behaviour, selfishness, and sheer irresponsibility makes us not want them anywhere near us. The more we see Leavers pontificating about Brexit, the less we want to encounter them anywhere where we have a choice in the matter.
DeleteAnonymous and Anonymous - time to get over it - the EU welcomes qualified people from the UK - sure, it's a bit harder to get a visa but hey, moving overseas is never easy.
DeleteGiven what's happened to the EU since 2016 - there really arn't hordes of Brits wanting to re-join what is a very different project than 2016.
The world has moved on - you guys ought to - emotional incontinence has a place for sure - but will only get you so far.
Probably most of us are over it.
DeleteI still have good relations with my family, and we never ever mention Brexit.
But.... and it is a "but" that will stay with me.... the 4 years of angst while the UK government left us in limbo, sometimes tried its best to make many peoples lives difficult, married to the tons of paperwork and "requests" to keep the life that I had previously, have left a very bitter taste.
The EU made the withdrawal agreement reasonable for existing immigrants and I will be forever grateful.
As I am (only just... since Brexit) still in the entertainment business, I am reminded daily of the extra red tape and reduced income that the vote inflicted.
Christmas is especially painful. For many years we only gave presents of food and drink. No problem for the British side for now. But on our side of the channel it is only sensible to receive Terry's chocolate oranges, as they are not sold in France but are manufactured in Strasbourg.
Anything home made is not worth the faff.
Little things... as well as the big chores obtaining work permits, police permits and many hours wasted at the EU's external borders... remind me daily of how my world has "moved on".
In a damning assessment of Britain’s departure from the European Union, Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq said 60 per cent of the economic impact of Brexit is yet to materialise.
DeleteJohn, prepare to eat your words!
Oh, and by the way, it is not a bit harder to get a visa, it is incredibly difficult, nigh impossible.
Interesting article from Politico:
ReplyDeleteHow Brexit helped Britain lose the Chagos Islands
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-britain-chagos-islands-uk-un-decolonization-us-military-base-mauritius/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=How%20Brexit%20helped%20Britain%20lose%20the%20Chagos%20Islands
Hopefully Sir John Curtice is right when he says that he wouldn't be surprised if there is a referendum in joining the EU 'before 2040'.
ReplyDelete