Today the government commences Brexit negotiations.
There are four possible outcomes.
We can leave entirely.
Or we can leave the EU but stay in the Customs Union.
Alternatively we can leave the EU but stay in the Customs Union and the Single Market.
Or we can stay in the EU.
The only option that doesn't harm the UK is staying in.
All the others cause harm. The only question is how much and how long we can defer the time until it hits.
And yet no one is saying it's time to change our minds because an election victory secured by a tiny margin on the basis of lies, at best, can be ignored. Which is my definition of madness for today.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are you saying that Norway and Iceland are on balance making themselves worse off by being in the Single Market but outside the EU and the outside the Customs Union. If so, calling successful countries stupid isn’t going to endear yourself to them.
I am saying that the UK will be better off in both
We are not Norway or Iceland and I was not making the case for them
Your style is a little boring. Please take note. I don’t like being trolled and that seems to be your intent
The opportunities created by this madness will be hoovered up by those who are used to making hay out of chaos.
The rest of us will have to suffer no doubt.
I wonder what the history books of the future will say about the period from 2015 to say 2022?
It will read like a soap opera I’m sure.
What angers me more than anything is that a year ago the majority of MPs went round saying precisely what you are saying, that leaving the EU would hurt almost everyone. Without in any way suggesting they have changed their minds, they now happily support a course of action which they believe will hurt those who voted for them. They just repeat endlessly “The will of the people”.
Our son’s comment on a particularly egregious Theresa May interview was “Fails the Turing test”. If MPs are considered to be human, computers sailed through the Turing test 30 years ago. A fair few of your readers could have written a program on their BBC computer to keep repeating “Strong and stable” interspersed with “Coalition of chaos” and “The will of the people”.
Don’t worry too much – lets wait for the negotiations to start and the govts popularity to go even further over the next couple of months and everything will start to shift. It’s like the Tao te Ching says: you just have to be patient some timess
“because an election victory secured by a tiny margin on the basis of lies”
Are you saying that Labour didn’t lie? Their manifesto was full of them!
I was talking about the referendum
And as far as I know Labour did not win the election. Are you saying otherwise?
If Jerome thinks the Labour Party lied during the GE then he should specify them. I am not a Labour party member but I can not remember any untruths stated in their manifesto or from their spokespeople. True Dianne Abbott got her arithmetic in a muddle but that was due to her type 2 diabetes.
I have to say I can’t recall any lies either
Not like falsified expenses
Or £350m on a bus which the ONS says is wrong….
There seems to be a widespread misconception that you can leave the EU and stay in the EU customs union. You can’t, so the second and third options are out.
Not that the customs union per se is particularly important, anyway. The key phrase is “customs cooperation.” It’s all discussed in this JP Morgan PDF: http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/JPM%20Customs%20Union.pdf – “the idea of ‘staying in’ the customs union does more to confuse the situation than clarify it.”
I do not accept ‘can’t’ in this
If ‘can’t’ is the only opinion there is no negotiation
It’s absurd to say that in the face of a new situation the EU cannot change because of course it can, whatever JP Morgan think
Legally there can be no negotiation on the customs union. Once you leave the EU you are also out of the customs union.
Politically anything is possible of course and can in theory be negotiated, but it is very difficult to see how continued membership of the EU customs union can be achieved.
Note, for instance, that Turkey has a separate customs union with the EU.
So, everything can be negotiated
What’s the point of the pedantry in that case?
Surely Jerome’s is querying whether you think all elections are illegitimate because of lies.
If so, there wouldn’t have a been a legitimate vote ever anywhere – whether a referendum or the election of a government. It is an unavoidable part of it, and it is ‘voter beware’ for voters always.
You have in the past commented (quite rightly in my view) on the democratic deficit in the EU. Now you are saying that by staying in the EU there is ‘no harm’.
Which is it?
I do wonder where the tribe of those who troll but are unable to spot shades of grey come from
Do you really live in a world of absolutes?
And if not (because that is the only answer you can give) why do you think such a false standard should apply to me?
Of course the EU can be flawed and be the best deal
That, for the record, is true of most marriages, even at the outset
I suggest you deal with it
But in your post you said there were no shades of grey. Only leaving causes harm – there is no harm in staying.
Isn’t that the point you’re making, or have I misunderstood?
I did not say staying was optimal
Of the choices available I said it was the best
Further pedantry of this sport will be deleted
Adam J:
Your view that it is “voter beware” sounds a lot like “buyer beware”. I know a lot of libertarian types would like no regulations on the products for sale but most of us like to know we are getting what we pay for and some come back if we find ourselves defrauded.
I think the same of our democracy – yes voters should be aware of reality but they should have some help from the system in ensuring what is on offer is truthful and some come back when they find they’ve been massively lied to.
The electoral system, the media, the economics “profession” and the party political system are in the habit of distorting the truth and making everything partisan and confrontational. The public are often disengaged and I’ll informed. Brexit is the biggest example of the chairs that ensues after asking uninformed people silly questions for politically partisan motives.
I live in hope of a more mature and reasonable politics arising to replace the farce we currently “enjoy”.
Adam S
Elections (for government, referenda) produce a lot of chatter from lots of people. Some of it will be wisdom, some outright lies, with a lot in between.
It’s a fact of life that has existed in every genuine election, ever. To me, it is part of the fun of living in a lively society.
Do you really want a committee or the like saying what can or can’t be said? Who gets to be on that committee?
We have such a committee
It is called the Electoral Commission
The need is for it to do its job better
I take umbrage at the dismissive conclusion to your repky to Bell.
As far as is known you have no grounds for the contention
that he is trolling unless he has past ” form” of this on your blog. Details please.
To the dispassionate eye he was putting forth a view point which deserves
substantive consideration and rebuttal for its reply to garner any respect.
You should have stopped at your second paragraph while you were still ” quids in “
You may take umbrage
That’s your right
This is my blog
And you too are trolling it
Define ” trolling”.
I don’t need to
This is my blog
And I can delete anything I like
In practice it’s usually what contravenes the comments policy which is available on a separate tab
Personally I agree, we should just cancel Brexit and stay in.
However, I don’t know enough about the EU rules impinging on our government’s ability to spend money into existence to rebalance our economy and achieve full employment as per MMT. Looking at it another way; I don’t know how much we can do via tax and bond issuance and an investment bank towards the same goal whilr still being in EU.
Richard – are there no conceivable scenarios where a Norway style solution could eventually be better than remaining fully in EU when you take into account our greater monetary policy/fiscal policy flexibility in the Norway scenario?
Norway can’t change the EU rules to permit such changes more widely
Staying in we could
And I think an MMT appraoch is viable within the EU as it is subject to a QE workround
Can you elaborate:
“And I think an MMT appraoch is viable within the EU as it is subject to a QE workround”
I mean cash can be created if required
“Doesn’t suffer fools gladly” is such a lovely phrase, isn’t it? You just keep on keeping on, Richard, and don’t take any hostages.
PS: accusing the Labour Manifesto of being “full of lies” when it was fully costed, as compared with a totally uncoated Tory manifesto, whose pledges were going to be funded from some, possibly fanciful, future growth, strikes me as an egregious example of both special pleading, and Nelson’s telescope put to his blind eye.
Besides, you cannot call “pledges” lies, until, as with £350 million a week, they are proven to be lies! If Labour’s pledges aren’t implemented when they’re in Government, then those pledges will have been lies, but as of now, they can only be pledges, and nothing more.
when it really comes down to it and the reality hits home that many businesses will go bust if we crash out of the single market (which I’m sure they will), then I really cannot see it going ahead.
I think the best possible outcome at this stage is to negotiate an immediate transition period (or moratorium on implementation) for say a 5 year period until leaving would have any actual impact.
You are right
And then the request will be for a five year extension….
This is the most colossal own goal, shooting ourselves in the foot, isolationist, exceptionalist, monumental piece of stupidity conceivable. Mind you, it will enable the UK to maintain it’s no.1 position in the tax-haven firmament.
(P.S. Enjoyed your latest book)
Thanks
Of course the EU can change but its appetite and scope for change is extremely limited as Yanis Varoufakis has written in his excellent recent book “Adults in the Room”.
Not when it wants to it is not
I’m racking my brains to think of an example but failing. Do you have a substantive case in mind?
Varoufakis makes clear that Wolfgang Schäuble and Angela Merkel are big obstacles to any relaxation of rules.
Oh come on, no country has left until now
Of course the rules might be changed in that case
As readily as you adopted your pseudonym, no doubt
At the moment the two main parties are willing to negotiate an exit from Europe. The “will of the people” argument is wearing rather thin as the referendum result is rapidly moving past its sell by date — on the basis of the untruths, the fact that voters didn’t really understand the implications and that many of the young were disenfranchised from a vote that will affect their future.
However, I cannot see the position of the Conservatives and Labour changing, at least in the short-term.
I am pretty sure the hard-line conservatives see Brexit and the associated massive changes in legislation as a wonderful opportunity to re-shape the UK along lines which suit their neo-liberal objectives: reducing government spending on social problems, the NHS etc; clobbering the poor and infirm; reducing regulation; setting up a low tax economy for the rich and corporations; reducing human rights and so forth. That is why the fact the government is weak is for them a good thing as the outcome of negotiations is likely to be a total break and extensive change to legislation.
On the other hand Labour sees current rules and regulations of the EU as a barrier to implementing their social and redistributive agenda; nationalisation and so forth. So if Labour were in government, although they may aim for a softer exit arrangements, they would still move forward with negotiations.
What will it take if for politicians to see that either of these approaches, in the present circumstances, is a totally unnecessary and damaging waste time and resources ?. On the one hand, the conservative approach will just make the country more divided and unfair, on the other the labour approach will divert them from addressing the inequality in society and strengthening the NHS and other public services. With the threat of another election in the short term, it seems politicians who could make an impact are so scared of the “Brexit” vote they will not come out and state the obvious: the best option for the UK is to stay in the EU.
What can we do to make people see sense ?.
Explain how much it will cost them