In between discussing pay caps yesterday I also spent some time discussing Brexit. I heard a fascinating range of opinion. Some was resigned. Some bullish. And some was fascinating. The purpose of this blog is to discuss one of the latter.
The proponent of the idea in question (I shall not name them: Chatham House rules applied) suggested Brexit will never happen. That is not because the UK will not try to leave but will instead be because the EU will, as a result of election results in France, Germany and the Netherlands this year, realise that it has no choice but reconsider the four fundamental freedoms - the free movements of labour, goods, services and capital - on which the EU is built. The argument made was that the commitment of those countries to these principles is only as deep as their electorates permit, and even if the far right win in none of those countries it will be such a close run thing that free movements, starting with labour, will all be in the melting pot for renegotiation well before the time that the UK will have served out its notice.
I admit I am not sure if this is credible or not. But as an alternative, another theory on why Brexit may not happen that was that we will have the next full-blown economic crisis by 2019 and that will so blow the EU off track that the four fundamental freedoms will be under review because they underpin a failed model of globalisation. I think that more likely.
What I think is necessary is an open mind. I happen to think that it's the job of Labour to now talk about what could be done from 2020 onwards if the government delivers hard Brexit, which is the only option left on the table now it is clear that migration is its priority. But I also think that imagining a world where the EU remains open to much broader negotiation because it realises that free movement of capital, in particular, has been deeply destructive, is important as well. The path through the next two years may be far from obvious.
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:
Richard
I think the view that we shall never leave the EU is quite widely held for the reason s you set out. I’ve always felt that the timing could not be better. I just wonder whether there would need to be another referendum even though the key concerns could all be addressed through the French and German ballot box.
I’ve held the view since the Referendum that we will not leave. For the ones you mention and one other reason. And have found that many share it in the public meetings I attend and front.
A ‘Leave’ vote may have proven necessary to shock EU change into action, reforms that were needed were never going to happen by careful argument from within the tent. The EU, like all entrenched, privileged elites, don’t change through the operation of argument; change must be pried from their fingers. I hope these changes do happen and we can retain membership but of a reformed organisation. That’s what I voted for.
If Le Pen wins in France and the Italian banks collapse there will be a lot of reconsideration going on. Also the legal/constitional position vis s vis the UK’s Parliament is still not clear whether a single plebiscite narrowly won that was purely advisory on 23 June 2016 is a sufficient basis to make such a monumental decision as leaving the EU. The UK is in an impossible negotiating position to maintain free access to the EU market and will be left facing WTO trade rules only. In such a rapidly changing world a complete political rethink is essential before the final decision is made to sever our relationship with Europe.
I think it not terribly credible. The indications I’ve seen are that Merkel will win in Germany, and the German establishment will not tolerate the four freedoms being watered down.
The future cannot be the same as the past. History suggests that those who try to shape the future, as in Empires, treaty blocs etc, can come badly unstuck. Indeed those who often try hardest to determine the future get the reverse of what they intended. As for the EU with all its built in features, lack of democracy, shoddy organisation, top down governance and the fact it is now in reality bust, time will tell, only it will not be the EU that tells the story.
I find it difficult to believe that any UK government would be prepared to overturn the result of the Referendum whatever reforms might happen in the EU.
Events…..
I agree. The future is very uncertain at present. I’m not sure if you have seen this recent interview with Prof Michael Dougan.
https://www.facebook.com/FullEnglishBrexit/videos/703524559821547/
The problem is that we’ve now got to go out into the outside world and try to convince other people that our fantasies are true and our lies were justified”
Very good
The future is very uncertain in many ways at present. The next couple of years are likely to produce significant seismic shifts within the EU, and the UK with no particular direction in mind is going to find negotiation of a deal a bit like wrestling with a jellyfish. Even if they get to a point where there is an articulated deal it will be leaving an EU in a very different state from the one it was last year (see: http://outsidethebubble.net/2016/11/28/brexitingin-an-earthquake-zone/).
Our referendum has already shifted the foundations to a degree and each EU political campaign will help to destabilise it further. Even if Merkel and the German establishment remain in power, the desire to see the EU succeed will be more compelling than the individual 4 freedoms.
Pragmatic approaches to the future of the EU will evolve in the UK must use what influence it still has to make these more acceptable to the UK. Whatever happens it seems inevitable that another referendum or a general election will be needed before any Brexit happens.
Outside The Bubble is a very useful resource. There is a good discussion of immigration and the EU rules here. I would like to say that I am less worried now than on the 24th June but am unable to do so.
http://outsidethebubble.net/2016/12/06/massive-negligence-by-theresa-may-when-home-secretary/
I found this point in the post that Craig links to of particular interest. I wonder when the government are going to mention this. Or is it yet another aspect of Brexit that we’re to believe is of no significance?
‘One recent development is the realisation that leaving the EU is something that does not automatically lead to leaving the European Economic Area. The EEA was set up to provide non-EU countries access to the European single market. At present the non-EU members are Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. It provides for free movement of goods, capital, services and PEOPLE between member states. Being in the EEA would not allow the UK to block immigration from other EEA states, even if the UK is no longer a member of the EU. It is increasingly clear that leaving the EEA would also require a formal notification (Article 127 of the EEA agreement requiring 12 months notice of quitting the EEA). Leaving the EEA would inevitably be challenged by the Remain side, in the courts and by the Lords, as being something that was not addressed by the referendum.’
Hmmm – a tantalising idea but it maybe that the European project has actually run out of time – fuelled by the re-energised anti-EU rhetoric now sweeping Europe in the wake of BREXIT and Trump?
I do not want to be right.
Why do you not want to be right? Why not support euro-skepticism on the left.
Because it seems too many on the Left treat EU membership and completely free movement of capital and people within it as an article of faith, of in-group membership, rather than an issue subjected to the winds of rational investigation and the adoption of tentatively-held conclusions. Failing to question their own stances is as endemic as women remaining in the catholic church …
A fair question Bob.
What I wanted from the EU was to be responsive to these issues where certain policies were not working as they should and where certain other rules could be applied to mitigate them. The EU has not shown flexibility on this but I’d rather the UK stayed in and effect change from within. But the UK itself as not helped either (see below).
I have never been a euro-sceptic except as far as the eruo was concerned – I agreed with those who said that a single currency was a step too far as the EU is currently configured.
My view of the EU is benign – I am certain that it has enabled Europe to remain peaceful given its past history and enabled us to compete together on the world stage – it’s net worth as an economy is even bigger that of the USA.
Being a member of the EU has also contributed to getting projects done in this country that may never have come to fruition from Westminster budgets alone. We have got plenty of money back given what we have put in.
I am also not a euro-sceptic because I know for a fact that the EU is not a sovereign super state – it is a treaty framework really relying on the use of each individual’state’s sovereignty to make it work.
Another view I have is that perhaps one of the reason’s the EU immigration policy has not worked for Britian is because of the way in which Governments here have beaten down trade unions, making it easier to hire and fire people and take on cheaper labour from abroad as they have done.
And if you undermine the Unions you also undermine the Left. I think that too many people miss this link.
Worker protection in the greater EU zone might be better at dealing with this as unions are still taken seriously? The fact remains that the failure to protect workers is a failure of British Government – not the EU.
I know people who have been laid off as cheaper foreign labour has been taken on where wage cuts have come in. This is not a myth but it is the behaviour of some British businesses – not the EU.
But I also know of firms who have hired foreign workers because there are skills shortages in certain sectors of the national economy. It’s a mixed bag of issues with immigration. But OUR Government has shown too little interest in these issues (whetherv Labour or Tory).
The other reason I remain commmitted to the EU is that I have grown to distrust British MEPs. What have they been up to exactly on our behalf in Brussels or elswhere? Making silly videos of themselves disrupting meetings or sitting there reading the Daily Telegraph and not contributing to meetings or debate?
Our ‘commitment’ to the EU has always been half hearted in my view – because we have always been drawn to being like America and also because of a sense of superiority we’ve had since WWII ( because we did not surrender apparently – but that is because we weren’t invaded too).
The capacity of a British political class that wants to undermine the EU is a palpable thing and must not be underestimated.
So that’s why I do not support euro-sceptism on the Left or the Right or the Centre. Because the euro-sceptics base their sceptism all too often on some spurious ideas. And I don’t want to be a victim of them either.
The activist Left is trapped in a false ideology that is rapidly becoming a religion.
It appears that the problem stems from the philosophy, which swallowed the neoliberal myth hook, line and sinker. So not only is the economics nonsense, but all the philosophical principles built on top of that are nonsense too.
The left cling to an Open Borders, One World, One Government, One currency viewpoint — extreme centralisation — run by elite, indoctrinated hierophants in perpetuity. Democracy is tolerated to quell the masses but really they don’t want any genuine democratic state at all. Tax is a statement of how morally pure you are — a religious devotion that shows sacrifice. Hence the obsession with taxing anything that isn’t nailed down. It is a purifying device to drive out sin — like fire was to the medieval priest. The poor are patronised in an act of virtue signalling rather than genuinely helped out.
But worst of all you are judged and categorised solely on prejudicial attributes rather than your own actions.
Even worse, ‘progressives’ want a different electoral system simply so that nobody ever gets a majority and the balance of power is shifted down to minority groups with axes to grind. In other words them.
No thank you. We like to get things done here in the UK.
In our system minority groups with axes to grind are ignored completely for failing to join a grand coalition *before* the election. Hence why UKIP has next to no MPs — it should really be part of the wider Tory party.
We always know what we are voting for in the UK. It’s very rare that there is any after election negotiation by politicians.
I prefer the organic and messy UK system and the less I like the ‘intellectually pure’ contrived structures that ultimately end up being far, far worse.
The ability to compromise and form a consensus that people will vote for is prized above all other things.
Until this insular entitled clique is ejected from the temple, progress is going to be very very difficult.
I post this with some hesitation because so much of it misrepresents the motivation of the left as I see it
The left is certainly not helping the poor, that is a fact. The left’s liberal ideology without a doubt fuels the divide between the have and have not.
That’s utter nonsense
Labour was vastly better for child poverty
Stop talking nonsense
Agreed Richard, tax credits also helped the poor to an extent. Credit where credit is due.
“misrepresents the motivation of the left as I see it”
I’m sure the *motivation* is fine. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
No it is not
That’s just a silly cliche that’s not worthy of use
I actually agree with you about UKIP Bob. When you strip away the anti EU guff you are basically left with a Tory party MKII – but less well educated and prone to beating each other up.
But the rest of your post I find some what unsatisfactory both on the points it makes and the way it is written.
Let me start my reposte from here: Thatcher is rumoured to have said that ‘New Labour was my greatest creation’.
I mention this because the problems you mention with the Left actually had their genesis in the Right.
So my view is that it is the Right that should change – not the Left. The ideological and philsophical effluvia they’ve been pedalling with their friends in business and the media this last 40 odd years has inculcated itself in many layers of society in way that would make Orwell’s Big Brother proud.
Yes – the Left has wavered and bought into neo-liberalism which has now resulted in Leftist politics in crisis – something which may need to happen and maybe we are seeing neo-liberalism being excorcised as a result.
But to solely focus on criticising the Left is not good enough. We need to concentrate more on the Right. As I said, it is they who have to change.
Why?
Because since Thatcher our productivity has not risen.
Debt – personal and other wise – is bigger than it ever was. There is no new money. It is always money that is just moved around.
Inequality has continued to grow – wages have declined and people are being punished for not having work, not being able to work etc., through no fault of their own.
Trickle down does not work. Proven! Extra money at the top is whisked away to our offshore tax havens. Money trickles side ways in point of fact.
British firms and former public services are increasingly owned and controlled by foreign businesses. Treasonable – surely?
The NHS is chronically under funded as are other public services which will never be privatised because there is not enough profit to be had out of them by the private sector. And the Right will not give the NHS any more money.
Our elderly are portrayed as a burden and the Right thinks this is a good thing and will not fund a better system to help them.
The Right pretends that the Government cannot print money and that all money belongs to private individuals – especially rich and worthy ones.
I could go on but…..
When are people like you Bob going to realise The Right are wrong OK? Their policies are submerged in value judgements and urban myths. It is they who have to change because the last 40 years of Right dominated thinking have resulted in nothing but the biggest stock market crash EVER (2008) and as a result no worthy policies to deal with it’s consequences.
The Left are not in power. The Right are. We must make the Right change.
Sorry but this is where we are and this is what we have to do.
They helped a little, by taxing those who were slightly better off. What I’m getting at, is the whole scheme of things the left have failed miserably to curb the evils of modern rampant capitalism. The left’s move to liberalism has proved disastrous to hardworking families on medium to low incomes.
If you’re saying its embrace of neoliberalism was a mistake you are right
Yes I am sadly
The EU is of great concern to me for at least these aspects and I hope it falls apart. It does not benefit ordinary people methinks.
1] because of the CETA/TTIP manipulation with associated ICS/ISDS all of which has been/is being negotiated effectively in secret with it seems an inner level of manipulation.
2] why 3 states had to re-vote at various Treaty stages;
3] why the EU ‘books’ apparently have not been externally audited, YET!;
4] why Tusk, Juncker et al talk as though the UK has a poor hand when, as we are occasionally reminded, the UK imports more from 26 of the EU 27 other ‘states’ than it exports to, ie surely they must be worried, but perhaps they are better than the good old Brits at poker;
5] why we are not informed of the amount that the EU takes in rake offs from VATs and other financial constructs paid within the EU;
6] why we are not reminded constantly that the UK has had all its 55 attempts to modify EU ‘constructs’ turned down
7] why the EC was conceived and why we are here with so much more baggage;
8] AND (last but not least) it’s said that there are Bilateral Investment Treaties from which we can walk away and we would then be in charge of our affairs
For too many years a large percentage of the British electorate have refused to engage in reality preferring to blame or scapegoat others rather than engage in the difficult process of thinking things through. So, for example, British owned manufacturing has been in decline for nearly fifty decades and the country has become heavily dependent on foreign owned businesses including financial services for its currency support. Of course, many of those businesses are here to access the single market. Now the Brexiteers want to scapegoat it regardless. It’s sad!