I got a note from someone who I have known for a long time yesterday. He was writing in response to my suggestion, also made yesterday, that the political crisis that we face as a result of Brexit is gargantuan. Since I am bound to reply, I will share my thoughts here, simply anonymising the identity of the commentator in this occassion. This is what he wrote:
Dear Richard
I'm not sure I agree with you on Brexit.
I think Theresa May is making a better fist of Brexit than any other politician serving this realm could do. She is hated by the Press, who go around like a wolf pack, all thinking the same stuff, as usual, about the westminster reality, if reality it is. I'm fed up with the slavering anti-ness of her deriders. They're beginning to look a bit unBritish and just a bit foolish.
There is no worry about the Irish border in any thoughtful mind: the Norwegians and the Swedes showed the way many years back. Its not that difficult.
When we are out of the EU we will be as beholden to their Courts as to any other countries with whom we have cross citizen residency issues. ie, our Courts will decide here and theirs in their lands. They know that, our legal lot know that.
Of course the EU wants as much money as it can screw out of us - that's as plain as a pikestaff. They will dikker until the last second and beyond - that is how they have behaved for years when doing deals. If our lot keep the cost recognizably lower than their greed desires, they will be seen in the UK mind as having done a decent job.
Getting tax paid in country on business done and profits earned in country is far far far more important, and group think that it must be done is not quite there yet, though it is really growing and could get there.
Yours
I would add, the person in question is no fool. He's had a long career, and been a director of quite large companies. His experience would normally demand that I should take his comments seriously.
I regret, that much as I would like to I cannot, in all conscience, do that n this occassion. I cannot recognise a great deal of reality in what he has said to me.
First, and as a minor aside, I resent the accusation of being called unBritish and just a bit foolish for thinking that breaking our trading relationships with just about all nations on earth without any known obvious alternative (given that almost no-one uses WTO rules, for what must be good reason) is a matter of inconsequence. Apart from the fact that I have never felt very British, because the term excludes any consideration of Ireland and is therefore inappropriate in my opinion, to worry about a clearly foreseeable outcome which is very obviously unattractive because of its implications for large parts of the UK economy appears wise, and not foolish. It was not a good opening shot.
To then suggest Theresa May is doing better than anyone else might do is interesting. Three comments follow. First, clearly this is not true, because it's not the media that is telling me she's making the most almighty mess of this; straightforward observation lets me reach that conclusion. Second, I think there may be others able to do this much better, but that they would not wish to do so simply because the action is so unwise. Third, if the observation is true then it says that the quality of those politicians committed to Brexit (and there are few enough of them, maybe for good reason) is so low that the question has to instead be asked why that is the case.
As for the Irish border issue, I found this comment very hard to take seriously. The comparison with Norway and Sweden is naive. First, they never had an EU / EU border and so there never was such a border to unwind, as there will be now in Ireland. Second, in that case all they had to work out was how to adapt national borders to a non-EU / EU border, which is very much easier than actually erecting a border when there has, in effect, been none. And, third, to ignore the political history of this border is very British, and deeply foolish. The suggestion made shows a remarkable lack of understanding of any of the issues involved, in my opinion, and I have not even got near the technical ones.
The comment on the rule of law is equally naive. It presumes that there are no cross border issues to resolve. To hold true the comment made would require everything to happen to discrete people who only ever exist in one place without consequence in another. But of course that is not true. We exist in more than one place and the relationships between legal systems matter the moment we cross borders. And that extends to business across borders, of course, where it is invariably the case that contracts (unsurprisingly) specify a law that must apply to resolve disputes or different decisions on one issue might arise in different countries without a mechanism to resolve the resulting conflicts. Again, unsurprisingly, that extends to a myriad of issues for governments where, very obviously, there have to be mechanisms to resolve disputes and local courts are not always considered the appropriate place to do this. Our 'legal lot' most certainly do not know what my correspondent claims. I think they know the exact opposite.
Regarding money my corespondent is right. The EU want money. I agree with him; they do, and lots of it. But then, so would I if I was the EU. If I was them and I had seen the UK commit to a spending plan from which they seek to withdraw I too would want the commitment made honoured. That would be because if this was a commercial matter then the UK would quite clearly be in breach of contract by trying to withdraw and not pay now. And so it will be politically as well if it does not pay. I have never had much time for those for whom their word is not their bond. And the UK is going back on its word here. Quite rightly the EU member states are livid. And that's why we have no hope of a soft landing with them in the case of a hard Brexit. I'm wholly on their side because I know, if in their shoes, that's how I would feel. But in that case the definition offered of a good deal for the UK is that we've got away with welching on our neighbours who will resent us for a generation or more as a result. If that's a good outcome, heaven help us.
As for tax, I suppose I have just one question, which is what's that got to do with it? I think tax is important. But getting tax paid is inconsequential if the tax base has disappeared. And, in any case, the Brexiteers appear to be the most ardent enthusiasts for tax havens and the exemption of large companies and the wealthy from tax that there are in the UK, so Brexit offers no hope on that front in any event.
So why have I bothered replying? Because if this profoundly hollow set of arguments is the best that someone of usually sound mind can come up with to disagree with me on regarding this issue then I am, if anything, even more worried than I was beforehand. Brexiteers aren't just driving us to hell in a handcart, they're excusing themselves from the requirement for sound reasoning when doing so. And that is very depressing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
David Davis’ announcement yesterday about parliament being ‘allowed’ a vote on the eventual terms of Brexit that he manages to come up with, was described in passing by someone as a concession.
Some concession. It sounds rather more akin to an ultimatum. Along the lines of: “You will be allowed to vote for the shambles which is the best I can do or you can have No deal.”
Allied to Theresa May’s intent to make the leaving date a legally binding I can’t help wondering how we can get these reckless fools out of office PDQ.
Why is TM wasting her time writing the leave date into legislation? One of my pet peeves is the waste of parliamentary time (when we have none to waste) on attempting to tie the hands of future parliaments. We had the fixed parliament act, some suggestion of passing a law to say the government couldn’t put up tax (can’t remember if it made it to or not), and now this.
A lot of brexiters will state things like “MPs can’t have a chance to reverse brexit” – what utter nonsense. MPs are ultimately the decision makers and you cannot bind future parliaments to decisions made now.
If there is a majority against any particular law (e.g. fixed term parliaments) then pass new legislation on a simple majority to get rid of it.
If parliament doesn’t like what the executive is doing (e.g. committing to leaving the EU without a deal) then pass a motion of no-confidence and trigger an election to get a new executive in place. Of course here you have the interaction with tribal survival instincts and the voters, but to suggest that MPs have/can have no say is ridiculous.
All the remain-leaning MPs need to embolden them is a sign that public opinion has switched decisively against brexit. This could happen more quickly than currently seems possible.
This from that media bastion of the ‘looney left’ media, the Financial Times this morning:
“Britain is drifting towards disaster on Brexit – without a viable diplomatic, economic or political strategy to make a success of the venture.
The central problem is that the British government is stuck between an implacable EU and an unrealistic Conservative party. The EU will not offer anything like the deal that Britain’s Brexiters still dream of. But Theresa May’s Conservative colleagues are still unprepared to accept this unpleasant reality.”
The rest of it is hiding behind a paywall I have insufficient desire or surplus funds to breach.
That was the whole gist of it
A perk of being an academic is that my university supplies me with the FT
I guess that makes you a ‘swamp critter’.
Feet of clay, Richard.
Andy
it is always worth trying a search engine as the FT may assume you are a new customer. I got the article by searching “Britain is drifting towards disaster on Brexit.” Very little to disagree with. The analysis looks very sound.
Hi Richard,
I think the problem with Brexit/remain is (like a lot of other things) that a lot of people make up their minds based on emotion and then search for “facts” to support the decision that they have already made. I agonized about my vote in the referendum, having seen direct evidence of the impact that unskilled migration has had on some of my relatives. Ultimately I voted remain. I might like to think that this was on the basis of the economic argument, but probably had more to do with a feeling about belonging to the European club, having friends in France etc. I strongly believe that one of the reasons the referendum went the way it did was that no compelling narrative or emotional case was made for staying in. Both campaigns were shambolic and full of lies, but the leave side had an emotional appeal – however flawed (and in some aspects unpleasant).
I note your observation about the term “British” and it reminded me that I had expressed my identification as British in another comment on another post. I suppose I could stretch a point to say that since the British Isles is a geographic term for the UK and Eire that is all OK. I am also aware that people from other parts of the UK might feel negative about the term British, given the frequent mistaken interchange of English and British – would be interested to hear any views. Ultimately I cannot think of any other tidy way of expressing belonging to this group of countries – surely not United Kingdomish 🙂
[…] is no point pretending, as some do, that this is any indication of competence: it is […]
I find this post deeply troubling. The level of naivety is deeply troubling for someone who has worked at a high level. I agree with pretty much everything you have said but have also commented on Simon Wren-Lewis blog “What ignoring Ireland tells you about our governing elite” https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/what-ignoring-ireland-tells-you-about.html
I should say Simon often take a day or two to approve comments. Richard is a paragon in that regard.
I try….
This whole business of being ‘un-British’ by opposing Brexit really bugs me. What, tangibly, does being British add to the argument? It is, prima facie, wishful thinking and nothing more. Believing with all one’s heart that Britain can do it alone will make not one jot of difference to the outcome (indeed, I would argue that it’s likely to cause one’s judgment to be clouded.)
The question around the legal matters shows, in my opinion, the most fundamental lack of understanding of the whole Brexit argument: sovereignty is the currency with which you buy trade deals. The idea that we will take back control is utter fanciful hogwash: we will, in all likelihood, be subject to the legal rulings of several different judiciaries, over which we enjoy far less influence than we do currently with the ECJ.
Not least the USA
Just a quick note to say thank you for printing a letter from someone with a different point of view to you on your blog. I find it interesting to see your analysis of their view.
BTW The Norway – Sweden border might have been mentioned as they were for about 100years one country (United Kingdom of Norway and Sweden) so maybe the suggestion is when that ceased in 1905 the borders had to go back up. Otherwise I’ve no idea why that border was picked.
I considered that point as I know a bit of Scandinavian history
But I couldn’t see 1905 as a precedent any more than 1922 was
This issue is wholly 2019
The Norway / Sweden border is not that drastic as Norway is a member of the Single Market with EEA (applying all directives making products produced im Norway comply with Single Marketvrules, incl. services), but Norway is not in the customs union.
In practice, this means that while most goods that originate in Norway can still be traded tariff-free to the rest of the European single market, products coming through Norway into the single market are subject to further checks (I imagine electronic customs and spot checks).
There is no physical border, and has really never been, there is also the Nordic Council that governed some trade issues, free movement of people prior to Sweden and Finland joining the EU in 1995, borders were open before then as they are now. It would be inimaginable for Nordics to break their historical, cultural, economic unity over a hard border, Nordics cooperate in the EU / IMF/WB, UN, COP on climate, you name it, as a block small countries are stronger, now baltics are joining the block at WB/IMF and some issues in the EU. There is always a solution even if Norwegian people voted ‘no’ in 1972, and 1994 again (on same margin btw as UK leave 52/48)
There are some customs checks on the border between Norway and Sweden, check for products originating outside Norway. There are minor scandals from time to time, probably around less taxed agricultural goods (where customs union tariff is higher than Norwegian tariff).
Hard brexiteers wanting to leave the Single Market will mean goods would no longer have similar product and safety standards, thus a much harder UK / Rep Ireland border than current Sweden / Finland border with Norway. Complete madness and unthinkable in Nordic context to donthat to your colleagues.
Thanks Matti
I appreciate a Finn’s perspective!
I suggest we need to look at Mrs May’s achievements from a different perspective. Only a complete idiot could have turned the brexit process into such an utter shambles accidentally. She is not a complete idiot so making this shambles must have been deliberate.
She knows that leaving the EU will to more harm to the UK’s long term future than anything any government has done in her lifetime. She knows that she cannot kill off brexit without sparking something close to a revolution by the xenophobes and the rentier media barons that control their minds. She therefore has to cause brexit to self-destruct. Not an easy task but she seems to be doing a great job so far. She’s still got 16 months to ensure that the whole thing is such a disaster that with popular acclaim she can withdraw the UK’s Article 50 notification. She can then retire in the knowledge that (a) she will go down in history as the UK’s worst ever PM and (b) she has done the country a great service.
If anyone out there is asking whether, from a legal perspective, an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn, you’re asking the wrong question. You should be asking whether the EU really has the desire to expel a Member State that does not want to leave.
It’s a nice hypothesis
I wish I thought it had any element of truth to it
I’m with you there, Richard. But I can’t see any evidence in her past that would indicate Mrs May has that much political nous.
It would be nice to be wrong.
Maybe your correspondent had been reading Saturday’s FT article by David Goodhart. Thankfully, there is not much to worry about for “The basic health of the political system is not in doubt.” All Mrs M needs to do is “promote someone intellectually nimble and young to make [her] case across the media. Whoever it is should raise spirits by focusing on the Brexit dividends: what kind of policies we want, now that we are free to shape them independently, on immigration, farming, tax, innovation, industrial and regional policy and so on.”
Phew, for a minute, having read the above comments, I thought we were in trouble.
I knew Goodhart in the 90s when he thought himself left of centre
He is little better than Toby Young now
Just in regard to the money. This has probably been done ad infinitum elsewhere.
The amount being talked about is £60bn give or take a bit, spread over a number of years presumably. Plus of course, much of it is actually spent in the UK. And much of it would be a required contribution whether we are in the EU or not if we are to continue to trade. Is this actually a significant amount of money?
If they ‘screw’ us out of a billion a year or we ‘take back’ a couple of billion a year.
Is it anything other than a political football for stupidity?
Right now the EU is moving away from democracy. It cannot be stated less boldly than that.
And you have every reason to be worried if our politicians don’t object to that, now.
We are moving away from democracy
Brexit evidences that
See Henry VIII powers
How was Brexit undemocratic? We had a non-binding ‘referendum’ (glorified survey really, in the end). Parliament then passed an Act (voted 81% in favour) to trigger the Article 50 notice, as it could have always done, at any time.
Followed up by an election in which 80% of the electorate voted for a party that promised to deliver Brexit.
Surely you agree wholeheartedly with my comment?
No, I don’t
You ignored my comment
The comparison with the Norway/Sweden border is completely flawed. It is not an example of an EU/non-EU border. Yes, Sweden is in the EU, but Norway is in the EEA and both are in Schengen, something the UK has never accepted. The Brexit proposal is not similar to EEA or EFTA, and does not even accept a customs union.
Indeed & Norway accepts most EU legislation – but without having any say what so ever. That said, they have an infinitely better fisheries system than the EU – to the point where many Scottish fishermen perfer to land in Bergen.
Nothing surprises me about your correspondent.
Since I can remember, our media / politicians have done nothing but paint the EU as an adversary to Britain and its interests. Apparently pro-Euro market Thatcher asked for some money back from our contribution which no doubt fanned the flames of euro-dissent.
It always seems like some British PM in dispute with the EU over something or other.
This and our inbuilt ‘superiority’ to Europe based on the fact that the UK was not invaded in WWII (thanks to a mixture of the Channel, a Russia obsessed Hitler and an effective air force). We were lucky really because had the Germans not turned East, we would have been next. And many in our establishment it turns out would have welcomed the Nazi’s with open arms too.
I was at the dentist recently and was subjected to a rather distorted piece of Euro-history from a young man talking to his girlfriend which went something like:- the re-armament of West Germany by the West (Europe of course) had caused Germany to become more stronger than the UK and it would have been better if Germany had been kept down to the level it had been as it had been after its defeat in WWII. In other words Germany’s pivotal strength in the EU now would never have materialised and the UK would have been top dog!
This rhubarb totally ignored some interesting facts like the fact that the Germans would have been the first to face an attack from Russia so it made sense to arm them; or how about the fact that the first gun on the Leopard 1 tank I understand was actually the same piece that had been fitted to the Chieftain tank and initially made in the UK which had provided jobs, wages and licensing fees for British workers? As I understand it, the fire control system on the Leopard 1 was better than that of the Chieftain and the German Tank Corp out performed us in gunnery competitions as a result (and you thought it was just penalty shoot outs!).
The young man’s ignorance also ignored the viscous effects of the Thatcher’s first administration when a lot of manufacturing capacity here went to the wall because of hard line monetarism when compared to the way in which a more decentralised regional governance works in Germany and can act as a bulwark against such badly conceived centralised policy. I had to bite my lip to be honest which was hard as I’d had my tooth numbed by anaesthetic and couldn’t feel said lip properly.
I will say this though: the EU and its institutions have not done much to help. I think we all acknowledge a creeping neo-liberalism is present and some of its most prominent and powerful representatives seem to be the alumni of certain powerful private financial institutions which is just not on in my view. It is certainly worth reading Wolfgang Streecks’ observations about Europe since the 2008 crash.
So yes – I want us to stay in Europe and if we come out I want us to go back in. But I would also like the UK take on and challenge some of the neo-lib tinged bullshit that the EU has been operating with too.
The UK needs to address its total adherence to neo -liberlaism itself before it can take on the EU. The sooner the better I might add.
Yes AliB – that is correct. The neo-lib influence is as a result of each member state’s neo-liberalism because their sovereignty makes up the Treaty.
The ECB however – which is one of the more opaque EU institutions – is to me at least me infected with neo-lib orthodoxy more than others.
PSR –
” …. a creeping neo-liberalism is present ….”.
Creeping? It crept a long time ago! It’s at the very heart of EU monetary policy and the cause of the EU’s social devastation. The only sensible reason for leaving would have been in order to distance ourselves as far as possible from its tentacles, should we have had a progressive government.
John D
I say ‘creeping’ because if you really do understand neo-liberalism then you know it not to be static.
Do you think the neo-libs have finished their work in the EU then John D? Are you saying it’s over?
The neo-libs are like their fellow ideologists – the Nazis or Soviet Communists – they always want more OK? What they have is never enough. This is a war of ideas and they will want to keep gaining ground and win totally.
There are many tenets of the social chapter for example I believe the neo-libs in the EU still want to rip up. The neo-lib nirvana in the EU will march on until we have a trade system that will reflect how the US – that bastion of libertarianism /neo-liberalism – wants to do trade with its over valued dollar and its insistence that you trade with it by converting your currency to dollars first. It’s a system bent on helping the already powerful companies gain yet more power in the market and there is no social side to it whatsoever.
Yesterday I speculated on the outcome of a sudden General Election now; and asked whether you would guarantee that this incompetent, dysfunctional, squirm-inducing embarrassment of a discredited Conservative government would actually even lose such a hypothetical enterprise. You crisply replied “No”. You can now see why I asked. Terrifying, isn’t it?
It is in times of crisis and division that the deeper, latent or suppressed opinions, judgements and prejudices of people are often unexpectedly released or vented; hitherto they may not even have been consciously maintained. Human beings are not rational, and the significance of conscious choice (endlessly analysed in so many academic disciplines, think-tanks and corporate institutions) is over-rated in most spheres of human activity. Often, as observers, we are suddenly surprised and even shocked by the opinions expressed, or to discover the passion with which they may be held.
We are currently finding out something uncomfortable, but critical about our whole culture, our ‘ethos’, that we did not know, or did not wish to know, or find it hard to believe. Believe it. It is not new. Nothing is ever, quite what it seems.
How do we address it? Now that is the really important …. … and difficult bit. Don’t look to me!
Dear Mr. Murphy,
I thank you for this oasis of sound reasoning. The place I come back every morning to gather strength, before facing mayhem.
Best Regards,
Javier
Thank you
The most amazing thing about this post is that you’ve actually post a detailed and well reasoned disagreement with you!! Of course – you then attack it with diatribe as you usually do. Oh well. I pity your poor students if the bias you keep on this website is also kept in your classroom. Professor. Cough cough.
Three things
a) I am under no duty to provide balance. I am not the BBC
b) well reasoned argument from any source is welcome here: there isn’t a lot on the right
c) I would hope my students can make up their own minds. Every one of their lecturers brings their own biases to a lecture. That is inevitable
The problem is you do not apparently understand that. Perhaps you should learn reasoned argument
Education is not brainwashing and programming, Richard.
You are quite right about this and you don’t need me to tell you so. But I’d like you to know how refreshing it is to hear someone stand-up for the principles of education, against the all too frequent tide of mere training.
The drawing-out rather than the cramming-in.