Brexit’s faulty premise

By Pete North - June 24, 2020

Brexit, I am told, was about restoration of sovereignty, the exact sovereignty we had before we went into the EEC.

The problem however, is that rolling us back to that point rolls us back to a time when the EU did not exist. But there’s one small problem. It does exist. Had we not become a member of it we would need a deep and comprehensive relationship with it.

Being that we share the same seas and skies, it follows we would need binding agreements on fisheries conservation and air space management, and being that the English channel is the busiest sea lane in the world, at least some form of comprehensive customs cooperation, recognition of driving qualifications and vehicle safety certification – as a starter for ten.

But then it would be widely recognised that our proximity and the cost effectiveness of travelling to Europe would make for lucrative opportunities which would see both sides seeking the elimination of tariffs and at the very least cooperation on standards.

More than likely, without the toxic politics of Brexit we’d have gravitated to something akin with the relationship now enjoyed by Switzerland with extensive regulatory cooperation.

This is where you get Spikedophiles railing against “rules based technocracy”, but even if we could prove that the Brexit vote was an explicit rejection of it, the fact is the EU27, Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Australia, South Africa, Korea (to name but a few) along with the WTO and the UN specialised agencies, have very much not rejected it and it’s the sea we must swim in.

The Brexiteers, almost uniformly, have now persuaded themselves that only a year zero approach will do where a mere agreement on tariffs is a sufficient basis for two first world entities to interact commercially, neglecting everything from airline services, banking services, digital services, intellectual property, energy trading and various other instruments that facilitate modern trade.

Attempting to lodge this with Brexiters is a wholly futile endeavour. They’ve convinced themselves that after our departure, minimalistic “mini deals” will plug the gaps. The problem here is these complex sectors don’t lend themselves to mix and match quick and dirty deals. They are technical in nature, necessarily complex, and to obtain the benefits of these such agreements there are corresponding obligations.

No doubt there will be bilateral arrangements in addition to whatever is accomplished during the transition (if anything), but only for the mid term convenience of the EU. Brexiteers can and will spin this to mean more than it does, but there is no hiding from the real world consequences – even in the Covid age.

We are told that a radical break from the EU is necessary since a more binding relationship places constraints on the UK that will limit its bargaining power our in the rest of the world. But here we again bump into that faulty premise. We may be leaving the EU but the EU doesn’t stop existing and has its own international trade agenda. Not only does it exist, it has existed for decades and has exported its standards and regulations for decades, especially in more recent times.

In this the EU can offer the world access to its massive lucrative markets. The UK, though, is not in a position to make a better offer. We will, therefore, bump into EU mandated standards and regulations wherever we go. Seven of the CPTPP members have new generation FTAs with the EU, have already adopted EU rules and will continue to do so as their relationships mature. That is the long term strategy of the EU which the UK played a part in crafting.

Put simply, the rest of the world is not virgin territory ripe for plunder by a buccaneering free trade inspired UK. In fact the very notion of free trade has evolved to become the detested “rules based technocracy” where the EU is a major player, a superpower even, whereas the UK is not. The UK by way of being canny with alliances can certainly influence the game, but leaving the EU doesn’t mean we can simply ignore it and wish it would go away.

Railing against that “rules based technocracy” is one thing, but it is a feature of the global trade landscape. Moreover, though it may be an impediment to the absolute sovereignty as imagined by Brexiteers, the system is better with rules than without. This is why we bothered to design them in the first place.

For all the wailing we hear about (overstated) constraints state aid, how can nations freely compete if everyone is subsidising their own inefficient industries? For every market intervention there is an international retaliation. This is precisely where we don’t want to be which is why I have no great objection to binding level playing field provisions for both sides.

The question of democracy and sovereignty versus rules based technocracy is a long standing debate with ramifications for all, not just former or current members of the EU. To a point the two are mutually exclusive but this is why FTAs have institutional frameworks to manage the politics of trade and it’s why there are waivers and safeguard measures. This is why trade is largely the domain of consumer groups, NGOs, trade layers, trade guilds and unions. It does not, as such, have a public participation element to it.

Arguably this is where the EU parliament comes into play, where if MEPs take the role seriously instead of waving flags and using the forum as a Youtube set, they can shape the rules accordingly. The extent to which that process is democratic is a matter of some debate, and as a leaver you can guess where I stand on that, but like it or not, the rules based order is here to stay. It will outlive the EU in one form or another.

The argument for Brexit, or rather my argument for Brexit, is that the supreme authority over decision making in respect of trade matters should reside exclusively in the UK so that our directly elected MPs, working exclusively in the national interest (notionally) can respond to the changes, threats and opportunities as they arise – hitting the pause button as and where necessary. That does not, though, mean that the UK will not be bound by its external relationships. Absolute sovereignty in the world of technical and regulatory collaboration simply doesn’t exist and is of limited utility.

Sadly, though, I’ve lost that argument. Brexit is the now owned by the year zero fanatics who will drive us over the cliff, destroy our EU trade and land us with a number of uncomfortable dilemmas with serious consequences for jobs and traditional industries on the UK. The lunatics took over the asylum and there is little we can do to stop them, which goes some way to highlighting the inadequacy of our own democracy.

That then, brings into question the entire basis for Brexit. If the aim was merely to exchange a dictatorship in Brussels for one in London where our parliament is an idle spectator, then we cannot say the Tory Brexiters were ever sincerely on board with the underlying democratic principles of Brexit. We’ve simply handed the country over to the Tories and their American paymasters.

This is not to say that I in any way regret my vote to leave. I merely regret the circumstances of our departure and the fact we shall have to learn a hard lesson at great cost before we establish a new normal as an independent nation. The great worry now is that between Covid and a year zero Brexit as envisaged by the Brexit blob will cost us so dearly that the UK may never recover its economic standing or its political competence. In driving us over the cliff the Tories have made us vulnerable to political instability that may never settle down in my lifetime.

This is all predicated on the assumption that eventually the UK would be rescued by German car makers and that the EU will eventually stop existing. No doubt the EU will indeed face internal pressure to normalise trade relations, but they can certainly afford to wait us out while we’re in a weakened position. The whole gambit, therefore, is based on the supposition that the EU will eventually collapse.

As it happens, I think it probably will eventually. An institution designed by and for the elites, largely unloved and a useful whipping boy for populists, at some point in the future the EU will be swept aside by the tides of history. I just don’t envisage that happening any time soon and certainly not soon enough to bail us out of our poor choices. Ultimately this year zero approach is not only a retreat from Europe, it is a retreat from reality – and soon we will count the cost.