Brexit: Some End of Year Reflections

Just over a year ago, on 7 December 2017, I noted that the UK faced three possible futures (http://gordonmckechnie.blogspot.com/2017/12/on-irish-border-question.html) -

a) Hard Brexit,

b) Vassal State, or

c) EU Member.

I also noted that there was probably not a majority in Parliament for any one of these futures.

At the end of 2018, we seem to be in exactly the same depressing position as a year ago. Jacob Rees-Mogg and a number of former cabinet members back route a) – now generally called a “no-deal Brexit”; HM Government backs b) – the half-Brexit negotiated with the European Commission; and, having witnessed the utter incompetence of the Government’s negotiation of Brexit, a large portion (possibly a majority) of the electorate would now like to forget the whole thing and have the UK (all of it) remain a member of the European Union, i.e. (c). Liam Fox, one of the Brexiteers still in the Cabinet, is recently reported as saying that the odds of the UK remaining a member of the EU are now 50-50. Meanwhile we await the postponed vote in Parliament on b). It seems likely to be rejected. There is not, currently, a majority for any one of these three ways forward in the Westminster Parliament.

The official opposition’s (Labour, by the way) position is that an election should be held to resolve the matter of the UK’s future direction. But it seems rather doubtful that an election would resolve anything at all on the most crucial question in British politics in most people’s living memory. The Conservative Party is (perhaps fatally) divided on the issue of Europe – as it has been, to the country’s immense detriment for many a year now. Labour’s position is no clearer now than in was in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 Referendum, and the electorate’s concern over the Labour Party’s leftward drift would probably deprive it of a majority anyway. The Liberal Democrats have the advantage of a clear position, but the distinct disadvantage of meagre representation in Parliament. Even if we were to have a second General Election in 2019 (as we had in 1974, and something that is beginning to appear in the crystal balls around Westminster), would resolution be any closer?

Unfortunately, the most sensible way out of the impasse seems to be a second referendum. We are in our current position because of just such an exercise in direct democracy, undertaken in the vain hope of healing Tory internecine strife. It was originally meant to be only advisory, but the result of the vote has taken on a moral force unparalleled by any normal Parliamentary election, with politicians claiming deep insight into what was intended by the Brexit that 52% of those voting chose. The fact of the matter is that, in 2016, we didn’t know what Brexit entailed. Voters voted for Brexit for a wide range of reasons. Two-and-a-half years later we now do have an emerging idea as to what Brexit might mean. It’s not looking as rosy as some of 2016’s promises suggested, and Donald Trump’s chlorinated chickens are just the starter.

A second vote would not be the élite telling the plebs, “Sorry you got it wrong. Try again.” It would be a different vote because we now know what we are voting for. In 2016, even Boris Johnson was toying with the idea of a second referendum when the facts became known.

Against the idea of a second referendum, I hear people (those who KNOW what the electorate really voted for in 2016) saying that it would betray The People. Really? Wouldn’t not consulting The People be a greater betrayal by the Westminster élite? I hear of fears too that, if a Second Referendum resulted in the UK remaining in the EU, there would be a risk of civil unrest. Are we proposing to let such a minority hold the rest of the country to ransom by such talk?

Let’s say for a hypothetical moment that a second referendum is held and the result is the withdrawal of the UK’s 2017 Section 50 notice. The UK decides to remain a full EU member – with the special and rather good deal it now has: budget rebate, opt-outs from the Euro and Schengen, and so on. Does everything simply revert to the pre-2016 position? It could, but it wouldn’t seem wise. Analyses of the 2016 referendum result have pointed up deep issues and divisions in the country. With all the focus on Brexit itself these have not been addressed in any substantive way over the past three years. They need to be.

Moreover the UK should develop a positive engagement with the EU. In the past, before 2010, the UK was a major influencer as to how the EU developed. After a period of time it could be so again. It would need to learn again how such influence is exercised. It would need to learn again how the EU works, so that embarrassing situations such as David Cameron’s after-the-event opposition to Jean-Claude Juncker’s leadership of the Commission and George Osborne’s surprise at the size of the UK’s budget contribution don’t happen again. (See  http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-uks-main-problem-in-influencing-reform-in-europe-is-that-it-is-regarded-as-a-semi-detached-member/) We would need a Minister for Europe, preferably at Cabinet level, backed by a Ministry staffed by experts. Other EU member states have such a position. Why shouldn’t the UK also have a Ministry for Europe that helps it make the best of its membership?

The Minister for Europe would consider how other countries deal with issues (for the UK’s issues are common to other countries) and learn lessons. Take immigration – apparently one of the most prominent issues leading to the Leave vote. It continues to be a serious issue for many people – though perhaps for fewer than in 2016. Immigration from non-EU countries has over many years run at a higher rate than immigration from the EU. Statistics also show that, whereas EU immigrants on the whole make a positive contribution to the economy, non-EU immigrants (again on average) are a drain. HM Government has been unable to keep non-EU immigrant numbers down, where there are no Freedom of Movement rights, no “interference” from the EU. What is there to suggest that, on present form, the UK would keep unwanted EU immigrants out even if it were not a member of the EU? If we really do want to keep net immigration down, let’s look at how, say, Belgium does it even as an EU member. A Ministry for Europe would know.

So what does 2019 hold? It looks far more uncertain than most recent new years. But whatever it is, whether by drift or deliberate decision, may I wish you a very good year ahead. Happy 2019.