A couple of days in the heart of Brussels may not be everyone's idea of fun. I can honestly say I enjoyed myself. This is one of two reflections, each of which focuses on the major subjects discussed whilst there. Tax is not the first issue to address in that case; Brexit is.
Of course you would expect those who have decided to work for the EU to be bemused by Brexit. They are. But many of those present at the EU organised tax conference I attended were not EU officials. There were academics, tax officials from many members states, and some who attended from businesses, NGOs and lobby groups simply because they were interested. This was not a small event. But right across the board the question was asked as to why I thought the UK had voted Brexit (about which, seemingly, everyone was bemused) and, more interestingly, whether I thought Brexit would happen.
The first question was easier to answer. It was fairly easy to explain 2016 as the peak of populism, or alternatively the moment of maximum alienation from the neoliberal economy. At a conference on tax fairness (itself a surprise, as I will discuss in the other blog) it was not hard to suggest that this alienation was real and had required expression to make the world hear. Trump and Brexit expressed that frustration in 2016. Across Europe this year the sentiment has certainly been replicated, but has also been more muted. This does not mean that the sense of isolation from the state and those with apparent power within it has disappeared. I think that is far from the case. Instead what is happening now is that an air of realism is descending where it is understood that what's existed is unacceptable but rejection is not of itself a solution and alternatives must instead by sought. Macron and Corbyn do not have a great deal in political common, but they both fulfil this role. The demand for change is very real. That is what Brexit was about.
The answer to the second question was harder. That's largely because Brexit may be a change, but as is becoming increasingly obviously, it's also the most massive self imposed blow to the UK and its political, economic and social well being in seventy years. In other words, the vote may have demanded change, but what might be delivered is a move in the wrong direction which it is apparent many who voted for Brexit are already have doubt about. I am patronising no-one when saying this. I am saying many were conned by blatant lies, a campaign that involved blatant political skullduggery and an obviously false representation as to the options the Tories intended to pursue if a vote for Brexit was secured. £350 million printed on the side of a bus was the surest indication of all this. I think opinion is changing as a result, and will continue to do so.
That said, I recognise there is a hard core dedicated to Brexit, many of whom have hard right views that I consider unpalatable, but which they think the referendum mandated and which only exit from the EU can deliver. I was candid: if we stay in I predicted ugly scenes that would be deeply disruptive and profoundly harmful to the UK. I think that it will be hard at present to ignore the referendum result, although I did not dismiss that the option of a second referendum existed if negotiations indicated a substantial change in pubic opinion.
Assuming that does not happen I suggested that the insanity of hard Brexit was hard to imagine in practice. The economic and social turmoil it would deliver - which by the time 2019 comes will be all to easy to predict - could create equally disruptive social tension from those determined to maintain some semblance of the UK's continuing membership of the international community and all that involves.
In other words, sensible heads will prevail and compromise will be found. Norway was the word on the lips of most I spoke to: I did not have to suggest it, this was where they all were. And I suspect it is where we will be. There is no doubt many of those who voted for Brexit had no intention at all of it meaning the end of single market or customs union membership, and they accepted the glibly offered assurances that this would not happen that many of the leading Brexiteers all too happily discussed in the spring and early summer of 2016. All they voted for was leaving the EU, and under a Norwegian style option that is what we will do, and even then with what may well be a reasonable period of transition. That in itself will create problems enough: anything beyond that delivers a scale of mayhem that defies comprehension, not just amongst the supposed bureaucrats (who, let me assure you, look remarkably like other human beings) but across the very wide range of political opinion also reflected at the conference.
I suggested that May's electoral fiasco clearly increased the chance of this compromise: it was the only assurance I could actually offer. Otherwise wise people are reduced to hope and prayer. It's a point we must work hard to never reach again. And only real change can ensure that is the case.
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:
[…] have already written about the tax conference I attended in Brussels over the last couple of days and discussed one of […]
The injustice and inequality that fuelled the Brexit vote built up after 44 years of EU membership. So this notion that the only solution is EU membership is dishonest and self-serving. Only those that have done well from the EU are flogging that dead horse. Most of the country, quite rightly, take the view that “he that is down, need fear no fall.”
Corbyn and McDonnell and least lauded of all Chip Whip Nick Brown have got the EU spot on. It’s you that have called it wrong time and time again. Owen Smith promised a second referendum at the very time you joined the coup and predicted that Corbyn betrayed his young voters who would troop to Owen Smith. Corbyn increased his majority! The Lib Dems promised a second referendum. Labour increased their votes and seats!
You are right to have your own opinion
But I tell the truth as I see it, including in the absurdity and negligence of Corbyn’s position on Brexit
I am not in Labour and do not do party politics. I split nothing. I just see the works as it us. And Corbyn will destroy his own relevance if he does it make clear where he stands here.
And for the record, Norway is the position he really called for so don’t say I am opposing him
It’s just the crass way he’s doing it
I’m not at all into party politics either.
But the point that jumps at me time and time again in all discussions, opinions and blogs is the undisputed and unreflected NOT-differentiation of hard/soft/open/etc. Brexit in respect to its consequences on economy OR jobs OR immigration aims.
What I mean is:
When some eastern European countries joined the EU a few years back existing members were given the choice for some years to “control” the amount and schedule of how many foreign workers they would allow in.
And it was NOT Germany or France that allowed, even invited, in nearly a million of Polish/Bulgarian harvest workers.
It was your precious United Kingdom’s industries that “grabbed the opportunity” to profit from cheap labour — which gave them the opportunity to make your cherished Wimbledon Strawberries affordable to everyone.
What was NOT taken into account then is that cheap labour, once let in, leads to cheaper labour in other areas too, which seen from the economy’s side looks wonderful — but not from your working class’s perspective.
So, many industries now do NOT worry about wages they pay or social injustices (how would they…) but about the cheap labour that may no longer be available to “the United Kingdom” (= them).
“What is good for the economy is good for people” is the utter nonsense that many a party all around the world maintains to justify anti-working-class laws and regulations. At the beginning those undoubtedly get the countries higher tax revenues, but in the long run at the cost of lower incomes to all employees.
What do you think by what means the German economy was flourishing in the past years?
In 2010 laws were introduced that led to a huge surge in “mini jobs”, temporary job contracts and the like. All of these supplying cheap labour.
People either work without paying social security contributions (e.g. doing several mini jobs) or below union negotiated tariffs. There have never been so many people at work as today — and never so many children living in poverty; food banks are flourishing too.
In the long run this leads to massif deficits in pension claims etc. In 15 years’ time ONE IN FIVE German pensioner will have to apply for “Grundsicherung” (pension stock-up) to make a very meagre living — a majority having worked a whole lifetime …
It is abolutely vital to differentiate between economy’s and people’s welfare:
Don’t let yourselves be fooled by promises to guarantee a “Brexit for the economy”. It definitely must be a “Brexit for the many, not the few” (employers)!
I am happy to agree with the sentiment
But leaving is a Brexit for self harmers
Didn’t mean to defend Brexit AT ALL!
… some nutty Nationalists/populists and fun-politicians (B.J.) recklessly seduced your “left behinds” through lying (£350bn to NHS) and racist rhetorics (PLUS traditional anti-EU-hate-media) into this self harm — in order to make themselves feel less nutty and —instead— “GREAT again”…
My commiserations to the UK.
On second thought: from various reasons, your decade-long rebates among them, Brexit might eventually contain some element of “righteous self-punishment”.
What I’m most afraid of (for your sake) is the fact that about 3/4 of your tax revenues are earned from (mainly financial) services.
I doubt very much that the UK will be able to keep this “magic money tree” that UK politicians unwittingly accuse each other of invoking …
BTW, there’s a suitable German proverb: You don’t see [recognize] the forest because of all its trees.
Tax revenues are earned from government spending
We choose to reclaim them fro financial services for policy reasons
We have our own currency: we did not make your mistake
I may have used the term “revenues” inappropriately.
As far as I read ab. 3/4 of tax INCOME for UK’s budget comes from services (as opposed to e.g. agriculture).
I very much understand your pride in “sterling” — as we were proud of “D-Mark”.
Still I relish our holidays in Italy, France, Spain etc. much more as we no longer have to change money for every single state …
But then your very own “sterling” has led to a (passing) advantage when it lost quite against the Euro after UK’s referendum. Maybe de-valueing might be a strategy to keep UK’s economy on world level, but imports will get more expensive.
When a small child (mid-sixties) I used to buy toys in Italy for one hundred “Lire”; 10 years later a similar toy cost about one thousand to fifteen hundred “Lire”.
Maybe Italy should have kept its own currency, like you did ?!? Greece anyway ???
I like the Euro quite a lot ’cause i feel freer when travelling Europe. No boundaries, no money changing — the whole of Europe to go to and buy whatever you like.
It’s not the EU that’s been a disaster
The Euro has been
It never made economic or social sense
“It’s not the EU that’s been a disaster
The Euro has been
It never made economic or social sense”
Well, obviously you’re the expert and I’m not (no allusion to Gove intended 😉 ).
But then I’m the one who has travelled Europe for the last and a half decade without having to hamper with currencies (plus 3 previous decades of hampering to compare).
I still find passing through Switzerland quite annoying as you have to put their small change somewhere in the car; might as well throw it away, I sometimes think.
So for me the Euro HAS made a lot of sense.
It changes one’s attitude when on the way — but then Britons have never been too keen on “belonging” to Europe, is my impression:
— £-Sterling
— Driving on your left road sides
— No ID cards (except for settled EU’ers)
— Four (or five?) national football teams for one country (why not at Olympics?)
— A Queen of your own, responsible for half the world
— Laws written on goat skin (or s.th. similar), drying a whole week
Your traditions are certainly kept quite apart from modern day habits …
Sorry
As a regular eurozone traveller myself (in the last 24 hours) I too find that useful
But I would nor crush Europe for such a petty gain: literally small change, as you say
You told “the truth” as you saw it when you said that Corbyn was rubbish and should resign. Then the you told “the truth” as you saw when you said you were wrong to say that. Now, you’re telling “the truth” as you see it about “the absurdity and negligence of Corbyn’s position on Brexit.”
It’s sad that you can’t see how arrogant your penchant for equating your opinion to “the truth” makes you.
Did you read my apology?
Have you followed any of my reasoning?
I think not
“A couple of days in the heart of Brussels may not be everyone’s idea of fun.” I’m wondering why you preface your article with this statement which appears to reflect the stereotypical English prejudice towards Belgium. I hope that was not your intent. I lived in the country for several happy years and enjoyed the company of some of the most generous, intelligent, open-minded, amusing and hospitable people I’ve had the pleasure to know. For a small country it has a rich and varied multi-lingual culture that is more than a match for our own – and, of course, with some of the best food anywhere on the planet. I miss it.
‘Brexit’ is as much a cultural tragedy as an economic suicide note. Future generations will question what possessed the country to distance itself from our cousins across the Channel with whom we have so much shared history. And in Belgium’s case more than with many other Continental countries. But at least you appear to have enjoyed yourself.
I was referring to Brussels as a metaphor for the EU
I rather like Brussels as a place
And have nothing whatsoever against the people: all I come across are charming
I also ate well: I will have to be rigorous on my diet for the next few days
I don’t think it’s an accident that both Brexit and Trump happened in anglophone countries, with MSMs dominated by the wealthy. It’s also part of the ‘Protestant work ethic’ which allows the wealthy to see themselves as exceptional, without any need to placate their fellows who are allowed to look up to them, but not to criticise. After all. criticism of those favoured by God implies a criticism of God, doesn’t it?
🙂
Can I put in a plug for Progressive Pulse book of the month: Ian Dunt’s “BREXIT: What the Hell Happens Now” http://www.progressivepulse.org/book-of-the-month/bom-july-2017/ ?
The UK electorate seems very volatile and my preference would be a referendum once the final deal has been negotiated; the effect on Northern Ireland could be horrendous if talks break down.
Certainly a Norway type solution is the best Brexit option