It’s now five months since the EU referendum on June 23rd: plenty of time, you might have thought, for a government which appointed ministers committed to Brexit to key posts to have developed a strategy. Yet confusion reigns in Whitehall and Westminster. The clock is ticking towards Theresa’s pledged date of invoking Article 50 by the end of March. Yet the government seems more focused on fighting a court case to limit the involvement of Parliament than in setting out its preferred future relationship with our neighbours on the European continent.
This is a degree of incompetence about which we should be angry, on top of our anger at the false promises and illusions of the Leave campaign. Some, at least, of the leaders of the Leave campaign should have had a strategy for negotiating a new relationship with the EU. But the coalition of ideologues and opportunists who led the Leave campaign only agreed on what they did not want. Economists for Britain wanted unilateral free trade; Professor Tim Congdon is still promoting this in the press. Liam Fox thought the Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth would welcome us with generous free trade agreements, and has discovered that this is not how trade negotiations work.
Boris Johnson has so far offended most other EU foreign ministers by flippant remarks and unwillingness to recognise that they have their own interests to defend. The anti-foreigner undertones of the Conservative Party conference hardened attitudes in Berlin, the Hague, Stockholm and Helsinki – our closest natural allies within the EU – and reduced willingness to offer special concessions to ease the Conservatives’ dilemmas. The Europhobe ultras continue to argue that we should tear up the treaties and leave, without further negotiations. And heaven knows what the Prime Minister thinks; stories circulate around Whitehall about her determination to keep control of the process, but she has few people around her who understand the issues.
Tory Europhobes, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph have covered this drift and confusion by ever-more shrill attacks on their critics – from judges to Liberal Democrats. Bits of information are slowly emerging. The government has said that it wants to stay plugged into police and intelligence cooperation (thank goodness); papers are reportedly being written about how to maintain cooperation in defence and foreign policy (but the Europhobes will bitterly oppose that); some sort of deal has been offered to Nissan, and another may be cooked up for the City. But there’s no coherent package within sight.
Meanwhile, the total contradiction between shrinking the state and ‘taking back control’ becomes clearer. The Taxpayers Alliance wrote in last Friday’s Times that ministers should resist taking on more civil servants to manage the negotiations; somehow we should manage this massive task while cutting staff and taxes further. Parliament heard on Monday that the UK has 3 coastguard boats to patrol our lengthy maritime border, while the Dutch have 16 boats for 200 miles of coast. Promises of more money for the NHS and funds for an industrial strategy are yielding to cuts in corporation tax to compete for business outside the EU.
This is a mess. In previous revisions of the EU Treaties, our governments published white papers, set out their objectives, and carried the public with them. This time, the Prime Minister is clinging to secrecy, in order to avoid deepening the antagonisms within her own party. Any international negotiation has to win over domestic opinion as well as persuade foreign partners; so far, over five months, the government has gone backwards in convincing either side. Liberal Democrats have the right to say to those who led the Leave campaign to its narrow victory: ‘You broke it, you fix it.’ ‘And if you can’t work out how to fix it, what then?’
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
44 Comments
“This is a mess. In previous revisions of the EU Treaties, our governments published white papers, set out their objectives, and carried the public with them.”
More embracing of post-truth facts from the Lib Dems.
The public have wanted out for years.
Brilliant and depressing article
@John Peters
“post-truth facts”
What on earth are you talking about 48% voted to remain in last June’s poll, now the majority want to remain. Furthermore, of those that voted to leave, a good proportion want to remain within the single market. The vast majority of the population are therefore opposed to the path our government is taking us down in pursuit of the impossible and naive have-our-cake-and-eat-it demands of many who voted leave.
Once Article 50 is signed 2 years to being free (of the EU). How long does it take to complete Non EU trade deals?. What we loose from the EU, will it be replaced in 2 years? I think we are definately going to be a poorer country. I have heard a comment that we have dropped from 4th to 7th in the economic legue?If this is true we have already lost due to the Brexit mess.
Thanks for this William. Some of us (yes, you and I amongst others!) have spent over half a century struggling against the poison of the Daily Mail – particularly on the Tuesday before polling day. It is the newspaper most read by Liberal Democrat voters. I’m not sure that we have ever worked out a fight the Mail strategy but, if ever there was a time we needed one, this post-truth era is surely it. I suspect that clarity in our own position (real patriotism perhaps) is part of it but I wonder if anyone has any more clues.
Brexit was won on blaming the EU for everything, the irony is if hard Brexit becomes a reality we can truly blame the EU for not rolling over for us; we are exceptional you know (or at least the Brexit team think so) and we can have our cake and eat it too. Reality will be a hard world for the gallant Brexiteers, experience keeps a hard school but fools will learn in no other.
Show more patriotism and policy in our leaflets?
William >The Europhobe ultras continue to argue that we should tear up the treaties and leave, without further negotiations.
And along comes John Peters to obligingly prove you right.
It does seem, for a loud section of society, that as long as we leave the EU, it doesn’t matter what follows.
If it wasn’t ‘my’ country, and my son’s, as well as theirs, I’d be seriously tempted to say ‘leave ’em to it’. See how happy they are come 2019.
It is the poison of the anti-EU press, over decades, that has brought this attitude about. That and governments happy for blame to be deflected for their own shortcomings.
I dread to think who/what the Mail and Express will turn on when they can no longer scapegoat the EU for all Britain’s ills.
It’s five months in and the sky hasn’t fallen. unemployment hasn’t rocketed, we’re not in the grip of hyper inflation or at war. There’s been a few bumps and a bit of posturing. In short the much vaunted tsunami of ill winds look more like hot air by the day.
Quite pleased with the progress so far.
We have not left yet We are in the calm before the possible storm. Uncertainty does not help business, trade, that we rely on.
Yesterday was illuminating in one or two small ways.
All the talk about the need to avoid “cliff edge brexit”, and Empress Treeza’s sympathising with it. This, to me shows how worried the powers that be are about the effects.
Glenn, I would have thought by now the reality would be breaking through with you – as nigel hunter says, we haven’t left yet – the effects will kick in then – many other things will stem from the devaluation of the pound, and other economic effects.
Glen, we have jumped off the 100th floor, and are currently falling past the 90th. It’s a bit windy, but what a great view! Some losers talk about the ground, but that looks a long way off and anyway we may have learned how to fly by then.
To stretch the analogy a bit further, people over the years HAVE jumped off high buildings and cliffs, expecting to fly. Most have been under some sort of delusion. All have died, except for those who planned intelligently before jumping, and equipped themselves with a properly designed flying machine or wingsuit. Brexit had the delusion, but no planning and no wingsuit.
We are in a strange position at the moment with regards to the process of brexit. I read the article carefully and agree with much of it.
Blame for the situation lays squarely at the feet of Cameron and the Whitehall mandarins who clearly did not prepare anything for a leave vote.
We are now in a strange holding period while we get prepared to leave. Thankfully I do have genuine faith in David Davis competence and ability to guide this process.
It really does make sense that to get the best deal then we cannot show/reveal aspects of our negotiation strategy before the negotiations begin. Even though that is deeply frustrating to everyone. It is the same frustration when you have boarded/sitting on a plane/sitting on a train expecting to take off/leave and times goes by and it becomes 30 mins and you think “what the hell is going on?” and there is no announcements/information being given. Frustration and demand to know what is happening is clearly going to rise.
It is a paradox. The frustration and irritation building-up is because we are currently in limbo without information yet we cannot (should not?) expect information due to damaging negotiation.
ethicsgradiant “Thankfully I do have genuine faith in David Davis competence and ability to guide this process” I feel you will be badly disappointed, people who put to much faith in one man tend to be, they are after all only one man.
David Wright and Tim’
I disagree. Things are looking ok and I’m moderately chuffed. The jumping metaphor was being overused 5 months ago and now Remainers are beginning to sound soothsayers with a short supply of sooth.
In recent weeks the Norwegian Wealth Fund, various Chinese Companies, Google, Facebook, AXA and others have all announced very large or even massive investments in the UK. Things aren’t perfect, but lets not go over the top.
When will people wake up and realise that all this talk of negotiations is just ‘Promise Land’. There can be no negotiations because the Brexiteers will never accept compromise on immigration and the EU will never give up on the four freedoms, of which free movement of people is one. The government is just holding ground whilst it ponders the impossible. We are all going to end up poorer and maybe that is the price to be paid for our independence and sovereignty. Not my choice but what can you do?
“It really does make sense that to get the best deal then we cannot show/reveal aspects of our negotiation strategy before the negotiations begin.”
Why on earth is that then ? This line has been totted out as if it was self-evidently true when the opposite seems more likely. The Govt. hasn’t got a strategy to reveal. “Getting the best deal” is also meaningless if one doesn’t agree on the idea deal. Cameron promised to trigger article 50 straightaway, he lied, but it leaves no excuse for the leave campaign not putting out a single view of what they wanted, however fanciful or unrealistic.
P.J
The freedom of movement stuff is a bit red herring from both sides. You can have freedom of movement without European citizenship and therefore without the right to reside. Conditions thus could be put on housing, benefits, NHS treatment an so on. In effect making it possible to apply a degree of targeted “nativism” here and there.
I think it would be fairly easy to convince most leave voters to accept free movement under these conditions, but it probably would require some tightening of immigration rules from outside the EU. I also suspect that on the remain side of things, once people realised it applies both ways there would be less resistance to leaving the EU. The main sticking point I see are going to be demands for continued financial contributions to the EU. I may be wrong, but isn’t Britain the second biggest contributor to the EU at the moment? I’m expecting a bit of a fuss about money once article 50 is triggered.
This is very good from Lord Wallace , almost satire ! The involvement of the constructive needs to be laced with humour , as it is a more appealing trait than bitterness. Tim , our leader , is best like that , in this approach we shall reach more of the electorate.
We must talk up Britain and the British , and feel able to take others to task. Yes that means the Brexiters with a hard line . But it means the Europhiles in the EU , at the top table , and other powers making things more difficult .
Why can those who have to negotiate these things in the EU not seem to realise that the more unhelpful they are , the more the public resist them with anger .
The silliest thing shown, in an otherwise sound approach to these things , by President Obama , was his Cameron influenced, ” back of the queue ” comment !
As the late and talented Pete Seeger wrote in Where have all the flowers gone , “when will they ever learn ?!”
@Glenn
That doesn’t sound too far from the deal David Cameron got from the EU in the first place. Not really worth leaving for in my eyes. Like to see them sell that one.
What we need to do is show that remaining in the EU is patriotic. When I campaigned in Folkestone, I found many leavers found it difficult to take when I called out “staying in the EU is the patriotic thing to do!”, and I was called a traitor for my pains once or twice, and greeted with incredulity on other occasions. But I also sowed doubts in some leavers because they had never heard anyone say anything like that before.
Brexit is not a football match with a home and an away (i.e.”foreign”) team. There are strong patriotic grounds for remaining. I fear these were underplayed during the referendum. Here are five to be getting on with. It is not too late to shout them from the rooftops.
First, the referendum has already diminished our standing in the world and with our friends and allies. This will continue, slowly and ineluctably, like a deflating inflatable mattress which has been pierced by a pin. Brexiters are making us little Britain, not Great Britain.
Secondly, Britain is having to demean itself. Now we may have the indignity of HM the Queen possibly being obliged to host Trump at Buckingham Palace. If we had voted to remain, we would not have needed to do this, and the PM could have spoken out proudly as Angela Merkel did when she congratulated Trump on his victory by referring to the values she hoped Germany and America had in common. May would not dare to emulate Merkel on this. We are scurrying after every possible chimera of a trade deal with anyone, however much we dislike them or have doubts about them.
Thirdly, Leave has seriously led to further strains between England and Scotland. Is breaking up Britain – or making Scotland permanently unhappy as a member of the UK – patriotic?
Fourthly, I am a governor of a single form entry primary school with a number of pupil premium children but we are facing more budget cuts. The financial constraints of Brexit will make Britain a nastier, more brutish place. The cushioned, affluent Brexiters of the shires are talked about much less than the Labour core voters who backed Brexit. They should be made to feel ashamed, and to realise that they can afford Brexit but many inner city children can’t.
Fifthly, what about values? Resentment, envy and xenophobia seem to me to be the only values Leave espoused. Leave is thoroughly unBritish. We should say so loudly and clearly!
John, pro-EU campaigns have for year attempted to drape themselves in the Union flag and make the “patriotic case for the European Union”. They all just look silly. I appreciate that patriotism is a value many people hold strongly, but you can never be more of a patriot by suggesting that you share institutions which your neighbours than in suggesting you can be independent and beat them by being British.
Being in the European Union means that British people have more of a say and ability to change the major things that affect them, and as an aside will probably have made them quite a bit richer. The mistake was to take the Brexiter agenda and their strong points and to attempt to win against them, instead of starting from why the EU is important and a good thing.
@John McHugo
odd as it might seem (seeing as Brexit is all about UK’s place in the world) I would urge caution about bringing patriotism into debate because it can lead to some very dangerous places. Very dangerous places indeed…
I would not question how patriotic/how much someone love or respected their country if they had voted to remain or voted to leave.
The choice to leave or remain was made on a myriad of factors (democracy, economy, accountability, place in the world, sovereignty) but i would never say someone is more or less patriotic which ever way they voted.
To start to claim “I am more patriotic that you” would be unequal and once someone is saying someone is less equal than the other……. Well………… that is that path which Hitler went down ( Not that I think you mean that…of course you don’t)
I am just drawing your attention to the very dangerous road the can be trod when how patriotic someone is, is brought into the debate.
@John McHugo “Fifthly, what about values? Resentment, envy and xenophobia seem to me to be the only values Leave espoused. Leave is thoroughly unBritish. We should say so loudly and clearly!”
It’s telling that you think those are the only values leave espoused, because I heard a very different message.
It also explains why your side have lost so much and will probably keep on losing. If those are the only values you hear I would suggest that your side of the debate aren’t listening to anything outside their echo chambers and if that’s the case you’ll never win.
In fact come 2020 Lib dem MPs could become a thing of the past if you you guys carry on not listening.
National wealth has been shrunk by trillions due to the drop in the Pound but the Brexiters still cant decide between “its worth it” and denial.
Recently there has been talk that an interim estimate loss of £100 Bn has been “priced in” to the Autumn Statement as a result of Brexit. Has anyone confirmation of this?
@Peter Chambers
do we really to need to play hyperbolic games on “guess the amount”. We were predicted to enter a shallow recession caused by a vote to leave (the vote result not the triggering of A50 or the actual leaving) and yet the economy has continued to grow. Yes the pound is down so the value of non-liquid assents has fallen. However it has produced and export boom. The pound will at some point rise (it was over valued to begin with) and asset value will recover. Yes a lower pound will lead to some inflation . Again though we were near deflation and required some inflationary affect.
the point is making will guesses and predictions of ‘possible’ economic losses is just silly.
I try to be honest with myself. I don’t expect things will all go smoothly and there will be some form of loss. Which I would expect to recover in th longer term once we are free from the EU.
IT’s like the figures for trident £80bh, the £100bn, the £150bn last one I heard was £200 bn. The fact is someone can work out a cost of builing the things but have a reason guess at 10yrs and then the rest is just made up.
It is the same with trying to estimate the costs of brexit right now. It ranges from +benefit to huge loss depending on how things go. who know?
Blame for the situation lays squarely at the feet of Cameron and the Whitehall mandarins who clearly did not prepare anything for a leave vote. ethicsgradient
David Cameron can only be blamed to the extent that he hadn’t seemingly thought about what a ‘leave’ vote might mean for him and his administration’s next steps – hence the shock at his sudden resignation and resulting disarray in government. Otherwise, he was very clear: membership of the EU was both a Conservative party manifesto commitment and government policy, thus no effort would be put into considering ‘leave’ until after the referendum. Hence the promise to trigger Article 50 straight away, meant starting the entire process from scratch, which is what he did do…
So ‘blame’ for the current situation can’t be pinned on one person; the leading lights of the Brexit campaign also have to take the blame for not having done any real research or even having a credible way forward, in case they won… [Aside: that includes David Davis; a reading of his published works promoting ‘leave’ show that he didn’t have any real idea just what leaving the EU would involve; his views being just as naive and rose tinted as Farage’s, Johnson’s, Liam Fox’s et al…]
I can’t see the Brexit zealots being happy about this, but then given we are talking about spoilt children who are blind to their own culpability…
Let’s be clear about this Britain will not hard Brexit before the next general election it’s simply too difficult and expensive to do right away. But this will leave the country facing huge uncertainty. My guess is that we will have a soft Brexit within the next 2 years with a promise of hard Brexit later on. This will leave the government open to accusations that we will have a worse deal in soft Brexit than we do now and still no control over immigration, whilst people who believe in the single market will point to the huge risks to the economy of Hard Brexit.
Frankly the Lib Dems should fight the next election as the party of jobs and higher standards of living. One way we can do that is by drawing the link between the ill effects of Brexit on people’s standards of living. We should also warn that the chancellor will either have to slash spending on things like schools and hospitals or tax people more to fund Brexit.
Our challenge will be to build a coalition of economic liberals who often vote Tory with pro EU Labour voters. For this reason we should promote a pro business agenda and support for hard working Brits by developing an industrial strategy that works for ordinary people and a commitment to build up people’s standard of living.
@Christian
“For this reason we should promote a pro business agenda and support for hard working Brits by developing an industrial strategy that works for ordinary people and a commitment to build up people’s standard of living.”
Call me naive but I rather hoped all political parties were already doing that.
@JohnPeters saying and doing are 2 different things. In my view Brexit is in the short to medium term incompatible with boosting living standards and jobs. Jeremy Corbyns Labour meanwhile seem to be pushing an anti business agenda which can not sustain job growth. In other words the Tories and Labour say the same thing but have no mechanism to deliver it whilst fixated on their current policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/22/the-brexit-economy-remarkable-resilience-as-spectre-of-inflation-looms
The country hasn’t fallen into the abyss just yet. All data in is positive so far. I don’t suggest that things will continue as smoothly next year. Huge political events to come
1. Article 50 trigger
2. Italian referendum and probable general election after Renzi loses as seems likely
3. Dutch general election
5. French presidential election
6. The first year of a Donald trump presidency.
7. German general election
8. Return of Greek debt crisis.
The thing is for all of this I think we will muddle through ok. The world is not going to fall in and we should at least be reassured by good data seen in the last 3 months.
Lord Wallace incredulously writes that in previous EU treaty revisions the government published white papers and took the public along with them. What absolute nonsense.
The public were never educated about the nature of the EU. That was one of the ways we were kept in so long. The only possible way for Remain to have won on 23 June was to play ” Its the economy stupid” and economic catastrophe. Can the public differentiate between European Council, Council of Ministers, Council of Europe and European Parliament? This was always a fantasy country dreamed up by and for economic elites.
@ Christian
“build a coalition of economic liberals … support for hard working Brits”
The last thing we should be doing is building anything with economic liberals. Didn’t the five years of Coalition not teach you there is no future for us on the centre-right? I don’t understand how any liberal can say we should only be supporting “hard working” people. This implies no support for the retired, the unemployed and those on Employment and Support Allowance (because of their health).
We should not favour business nor create conditions for businesses to fail, however we should be creating conditions to reduce inequalities and improve the economic well-being of those who feel left behind and those who are having difficulty just managing (no matter if they work hard or with ease or not at all).
@ethicsgradient – how can you say that “all the data is positive” when the pound has clearly fallen. Deny deny deny…
The efforts of William to keep us in the EC/EU for several decades is as ever admirable and inspiring.
In answer to Nigel Hunter, a back of the envelope calculation does indeed suggest that with the fall in sterling since the referendum, France and India (just) have pipped us into seventh place in the league table of world largest economies. A similar rough calculation suggests that with possible parity of the pound and dollar and Scottish independence, little England’s world economic ranking will be halved to 10th, behind Canada.
Geoff Reid calls for a strategy for countering tabloids, but this is not really one which a political party can espouse. There is a growing campaign @stopfundinghate which is pressing leading advertisers such as John Lewis and the Coop to stop placing ads in divisive tabloids. This campaign may have contributed to Lego’s decision to stop advertising in the Daily Mail. Hit the tabloids where it hurts: in their pocket! @nickhopkinsonEU
@Alistair – In 2015 the IMF stated that the pound was overvalued by 19%. Deutsche Bank described it as “the most overvalued currency in the world”. See for example this article in the Telegraph from December 26th, 2015: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/12065157/Pound-is-most-overvalued-currency-in-the-world-analysts-claim.html. Sterling rose a further 7% between then and the referendum as money poured into London from the Far East.
The post-referendum fall in the pound has reduced it to fair value. The fact that the pound is now trading at historic lows is an indication of how unbalanced our economy has been over an extended period of time.
However it is amusing that Remainers keep saying “look how low the pound has fallen” while simultaneously asserting that the economy’s continued stability is because we haven’t triggered article 50.
Nick.
If Scotland leaves the UK the immediate cause will be the EU, but the reality is that it’s the inevitable consequence of have a devolved parliament and the decline of religion . People like their national identity and independence.
@Glenn “inevitable consequence of have a devolved parliament and the decline of religion”
Inevitable? Bavaria has a parliament, and its pro-independence party got 2.1% at the 2013 elections. Sub-nation-state parliaments are hardly unusual in the world and are not always, or even usually, associated with an popular independence movement.
As for “decline of religion”, do you have any evidence that that has led to increased pro-independence feeling even in Scotland, never mind the general case?
@ Glenn. Boing, Boing !! What on earth has the decline of religion got to do with it, certainly in Scotland ?
IF Scotland decides to leave it will be because of the final straw of narrow English nationalism exemplified by Brexit and the growing differences between a social democratic Scotland and a Tory dominated economically small ‘l’ liberal economic England. In Scotland we already have PR in Holyrood and local government, no grammar school threat, a superior (but not perfect) nhs, more vibrant local government, a much better green record, and no wish to possess nuclear weapons. The various religious groups play a respected part in what is a much more liberal society.
There is already a debate about all this in the Lib Dems, the 6 Green MSPS, and Labour which will probably clarify when we get the Brexit outcome. Don’t underestimate Nicola.
David Raw.
I’ll tell why l. The thing that kept Scotland attached to Britain historically was Protestantism and suppression of Catholicism. Remove religion and a big chunk of historical resistance to independence goes away. I’m atheist so I think the decline of religion is a jolly good thing and I don’t think independence is a bad idea either. I’ve said this to you many times. I like Scotland. If it wants independence I’m fine with it.
You on the other hand just sound Anglophobic sometimes, which is your right, but which is a bit meh really.
Jaguar Land Rover are saying openly that they would like some subsidies, please, from the UK government. These might be considered as illegal state aid while the UK is in the EU, but presumably not after a Brexit.
Spin doctors are saying that this is a triumph for Britain, so we should all be glad. Their friends in the press and media are using the press releases straight up. What did George Orwell call these people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
William Ross; I am no fan of the E.U. but I would disagree with the point that the public were never educated about the nature of the E.U. The was some information put our right at the start, and subsequent to this there has been information produced for public consumption, just not very much, not in detail and not well publicised, but it has been available.
Wilson’s own government had members that were very concerned about the direction of the European project, at the time of the first referendum, arguably that’s why it was held.He stated that membership would not result in any ‘significant loss of sovereignty’ significant of course never being debated that closely.
I completely agree that many people are either unaware of the existance of, or unable to explain the difference between the European Council, Council of Ministers, Council of Europe and European Parliament? to which I would also add the Commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.
The people I spoke to that we least likely to be aware of the differences between these bodies were the younger generation 18-25yrs who, I would agree, are largely in favour of membership and perversely are the biggest cohort of people who didn’t vote.