Brexit will be a disaster. But it’s what comes after that really worries me.
Leaving the EU will be a catastrophe. Many firms will relocate their manufacturing to the EU. The alternative would be to lose easy access to just-in-time supply chains, and to have to store vast quantities of components in warehouses, at ruinous expense. It will mean a loss of control. We will lose our say in setting the regulations of the largest free trade zone in the world. In order to keep trading, we’ll then have to adopt these regulations with no say in how they develop. Brexit will create enormous uncertainty in the economy, and companies will struggle to plan for the future.
A 4% loss of GDP will be very painful, but, even if it’s a 10% loss, we’d still be one of the richest countries in the world. That would matter less if the pain were evenly spread around the country, but it won’t be. The pain will be concentrated in the regions that can least withstand it.
The economies of some towns in the North and the Midlands, heavily reliant on the investment of international companies in their local manufacturing companies, will be devastated. And what will they then do?
In our fantasy, we’d like them all to vote Liberal Democrat. If only. We’ll say “I told you so”, and no one will hear us.
People in pain get angry. But, in their anger at the current crop of rogues, they’ll turn to another bunch of snake oil salesmen. And the people will get swindled again.
We’ve got these rogues already in place. They are the official opposition.
These are the people who called for a kinder, gentler politics, while they privately think that violent rioters are “the best of our movement“. These are the people who promised to reverse the benefits cuts, then chose to increase them. They undermined the campaign to stay in the European Union by refusing to share a cross-party platform, but were happy to share a platform with antisemites.
Many will say about Corbyn, “he’s awful, but the election system only gives us two choices, and he’s less bad than the Tories.”
What about when Corbyn’s socialist experiment fails?
In our fantasies, we like to imagine a golden future, with an inevitable Liberal Democrat revival. But what if it doesn’t happen?
There are plenty of other snake oil salesmen out there.
For a hundred years, communists and radical socialists have said the failures of the past were because communism wasn’t implemented thoroughly enough; it was a bad batch of communist leaders, but the new lot are fine; or that it was the fault of US sanctions.
It will be similar with radical Brexiters. They are already saying the impending Brexit catastrophe is all the fault of Theresa May, because she isn’t committed to making it work; that she didn’t negotiate hard enough; and that it is because of the intransigence of the European Union.
Are we confident that people will be immune to the siren voice of a new breed of dishonest right-wing populist? They may not have fake tan and blond-dyed hair, but if they mimic the awful rhetoric of Donald Trump, they may yet mimic his success.
This crisis is bigger than the Liberal Democrats. It’s the risk of a downward spiral, where disaster upon disaster will compound the folly of Brexit. I’m not alone in this gloomy prediction. Millions around the country can see a crisis building. But they aren’t switching to us.
Why?
Maybe it’s because too many voters think we’re like Hillary Clinton. When she described Trump supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”, some didn’t vote for her because, although they didn’t think that accurately described them, they thought Hillary was referring to them.
I’d like to think that we recognise this national emergency. That we’re willing to compromise a bit, so we can build a wider, election-winning coalition, so that the country can avert this dystopian future. But too often, I hear Liberal Democrats making the same mistake as Hillary Clinton. They think they are tolerant, liberal, generous-hearted people. They don’t realise that, if they are careless in the language they use, they come over as anything but tolerant.
When I hear Liberal Democrats describe some voters as racists, bigots, authoritarians, or neo-liberals, I sigh, but perhaps I haven’t spoken out enough. That has particularly been the case when discussing those who voted Leave. If the majority of us want the party to be inclusive, maybe we need to speak up more. Even if we then risk being described as half-hearted, anodyne, and pandering to prejudice.
I wish I could believe that we are providing the country with an alternative that will avert this grim prediction.
I don’t want to be fearful for the future of my country. So, if you can reassure me, please explain why I am wrong.
* George Kendall is the acting chair of the Social Democrat Group. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A bumper set of of council and Parliamentary by-elections
The Joy of Six 1535
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
Brexit has cut trade in almost every sector of the UK economy
Replacement?
David Garlick
Nonconformistradical
Mohammed Amin
Jamie Sharpley
Ian Sanderson (RM3)
80 Comments
“Brexit will be a disaster” …………”Please tell me I’m wrong”
OK you’re wrong! Happy now? No? I thought not 🙂
But maybe you should take a look at the yield of 5 and 10 year bonds? The last time I looked they were about 0.8% pa for 5 years and 1.1 % for 10 years.
So if the UK is about to fall off the cliff edge on the 29th March, why would anyone want to lend at such low rates of interest?
I fear George that your analysis is spot on. If you read left wing blogs like Another Angry Voice and Nye Bevan news you will realise that Corbyn’s supporters are so committed to his leadership that they perceive anyone who does not wholeheartedly buy into his agenda as the enemy. While your appeal to moderation is eminently sensible, I think the fate of the Liberals Democrats is not in our hands. All we can do is hold on in there until the tide changes. It will probably take Labour losing the next general election for a more pragmatic, albeit left leaning, Labour leader to emerge, just as Kinnock did after Michael Foot, before the centre-left is able to successfully challenge the hard right.
George:
I do not think it helpful to make the unspecified assertion “When I hear Liberal Democrats describe some voters as racists, bigots, authoritarians, or neo-liberals …“, it is taring the party with the same brush and feeding a perception that you warn against. At the very least you need to be specific, context is all. Are you referring, perhaps, to reactions to Boris Johnson? Or are you suggesting that if someone displays racist or otherwise bigoted attitudes they should not be criticised for such?
I see very little, if anything, of the blanket descriptions that you criticise, though I do hear opponents claiming that Lib Dems have been as you describe. Criticism of the pro Brexit campaign’s concentration on refugees from war-torn Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, is often met with the response ‘so you are saying Brexit voters are racist’. This is obviously a cheap defensive reaction; I do not think it deserves credence.
The ‘project fear’ response is similar. This is a likely reaction to the first half of your article and it does have considerable traction: many people cannot believe that Brexit could be so damaging; there is a lot of trust that it would not come to that. In other words most people and certainly most Brexiters do not believe in a literal ‘no deal’.
A much simpler, self perpetuating, explanation for why people are not switching to Liberal Democrats is that support is perceived to be low, in many areas the party has little presence and attracts little media attention. It is not easy to break the cycle, but it is certainly not helped by self-flagellation.
George Kendall, you are right to be scared (we all should be) but not for the reasons you lay out.
Perhaps in your anti-Corbyn/Labour tirade you might have read further than the headlines; the poll you highlight also says, “More people trust Mr Corbyn’s position on the EU to the Prime Minister ( 28 per cent to just 18 per cent.)”. You should also remember that Corbyn’s 7/10 for remaining was just about the only honest assessment among the hyperbole on both sides.
As for ‘benefit cuts and Corbyn’s ‘socialist experiment”‘..I remember how enthusiastic LibDem ministers were in applauding the introduction of cuts between 2010-15 (“people in glass houses…”) and, far from a ‘socialist experiment’, Labour’s policies would not be deemed out of place in most of our European neighbours.
As for joining the Daily Mail’s anti-semitic circus?
When you wrote, “When I hear Liberal Democrats describe some voters as racists, bigots, authoritarians, or neo-liberals, I sigh” did you actually read your previous paragraphs; after all, who else would vote for the Labour party you describe?
@ Peter Martin UK Institutions are still buy gilts because their liabilities are in sterling and this is the least risky way of matching assets to liabilities. The strength of an economy is measured by its exchange rate, not its interest rates, and by that measure the future for the UK economy looks bleak.
@ Graham Evans,
There’s a healthy overseas market for Gilts too.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1407/economics/who-owns-government-debt/
“The strength of an economy is measured by its exchange rate”
This simply isn’t true. Germany could have a much higher exchange rate if it left the eurozone. It likes having a weak currency. Denmark could have a stronger krone simply by removing its unrealistic low peg to the euro. It likes having a weak currency. It gives them an advantage when it comes to selling their bacon into the UK. UK farmers would say an unfair advantage.
Most countries manage, not to say manipulate, their currencies to give their export industries an advantage. The exceptions are the USA, UK, Canada, Australia. So guess who ends up with the trade deficits?
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
George, you’re wrong. See the following, passim
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/
‘Many firms will relocate their manufacturing to the EU’.
Some firms, who are particularly reliant on export sales to the rest of the EU may indeed do so; but the UK is a net importer from the EU, and if both sides impose matching tariff charges the overall pressure will be for there to be an increase in manufacturing in the UK as companies shift production to minimise the extent to which their products are hit by those tariffs.
Mark Seaman 20th Aug ’18 – 10:52am…………..‘Many firms will relocate their manufacturing to the EU’….Some firms, who are particularly reliant on export sales to the rest of the EU may indeed do so; but the UK is a net importer from the EU, and if both sides impose matching tariff charges the overall pressure will be for there to be an increase in manufacturing in the UK as companies shift production to minimise the extent to which their products are hit by those tariffs………………………
We manufacture very little and that ‘litle’ is mainly high tech stuff for export the ‘basics’ we import. So, building/equipping these new manufacturing facilities and training skilled workers will start when?
Meantime……
@Mark Seaman
It is said that a car “manufactured” in this country crosses the channel effectively 8 times as different pieces are assembled and manufactured.
And of course Brexit will mean more non-tariff barriers — paperwork, delays, bureaucracy etc.
Where you going to build a car. In a market of 500 million were you can ship that car freely around. Or in a market of 60 million.
If have tariffs then the pressure will be on those car manufacturers to actual build cars in the bigger market as more efficient etc. and just pay the consequences of those tariffs.
@ Peter Martin If your economy is based on the export of manufactured goods like Germany a low exchange rate helps. Consequently central banks keep intetest rates down to try to prevent the exchange rate rising. However low interests rates are also introduced to help stimulate demand in a faltering economy. If you have fixed exchange rates as in the Eurozone, with countries at different stages of the economic cycle, this becomes much more difficult. In the early years after German unification the economy was struggling and to support Germany the ECB kept rates down. Unfortunately this led to an explosion of credit in countries like Spain and Greece where interest rates should have been much higher to cool those economies. Similarly, in the build up to the creation of the Euro, interest rates in Italy fell because investors thought that buying Italian denominated Euros, with a slightly higher rate than German bunds, was much less risky because of the support offered by the ECB and indirectly the support offered to the Euro by the strength of the German economy. It was not because they thought the Italian economy was thriving. Moreover the exports created by service based industries on which the UK is so dependent are often much less sensitive to the exchange rate. The UK’s low interest rates are a sign of a faltering economy, not a booming one.
Incidentally, only 27% of UK government debt is owned by foreign investors. The BoE owns 23% with the rest owned by domestic investors, predominantly UK financial institutions.
Many of the people who voted for Brexit are the ones who are going to be hardest hit… but they are not two years old when you could perhaps excuse them for not knowing that all actions have consequences. If the same people vote for Corbyn then they can expect hyper-inflation to wreck their buying power.
expats There are big barriers to increasing manufacturing in the UK. Eventually it may be achieved but in the meantime we will be faced with higher prices because of a falling exchange rate, as well as higher import duties.
I took a very simplistic view of the referendum and decided that the politicians and businessmen and women who were advocating Brexit were not the type of people I wanted running our country and I have not changed my opinion since, and as for Jeremy Corbyn, well enough said!!! There is only one party talking common sense and even if they are not getting the support they deserve it does not mean they are wrong. If only the media would give more time and space to the Lib Dems message.
@Michael1 “Where you going to build a car. In a market of 500 million were you can ship that car freely around. Or in a market of 60 million.”
If I’m going to move my car factory out of the UK anyway, somewhere reasonably stable, close to the EU, where labour is cheap. The North African coast – Morocco/ Tunisia..maybe Turkey or Ukraine. Keep design where the skills are for the moment.
Why doesn’t the LD message resonate with the electorate? Well, you can roughly divide the population into those who are benefiting from the Tories (and the coalition before that) and those who are losing out. Most of those who are losing out are younger(under 50!) not house owners or significant other property owners, maybe students or recent graduates who got caught by the fees for university introduced recently.
To the extent they think about politics, their aim would be to get rid of the Tories. Unfortunately, last time people voted in large numbers for the LDs, guess what? They got the Tories. So about the only situation where LDs stand a chance is where Labour are a distant 3rd in recent polls.
Standing as the “Sensible Centre” party doesn’t get you far without good policies, and I don’t see any convincing offers on anything but trying to reverse the Brexit vote.
Housing? Defence? Transport? Where’s the passionate opposition to Tory white elephants on gravy trains?
George, you’re wrong. But not in the way you want me to tell you you’re wrong.
We’ve spent almost a decade now bending over backwards to seem reasonable and accommodating to those whose values are inimical to ours. We have compromised and compromised and compromised and they have not shifted one iota. The result has been that the Overton window has shifted inexorably towards the populist and the authoritatarian, and every time it does we have gone “well maybe if we compromise a bit more…”
It’s not working, and we need to stop.
Jenny Barnes is right that people don’t trust us and don’t believe in us. We’re never going to get 100% of people to vote for us, but at the moment we’re not even inspiring 10% of people to vote for us. We need to be clear and principled and stop bloody compromising if we are going to give people something to believe in. And I’m afraid that means if people are saying things that are racist or sexist or homophobic or ableist we ABSOLUTELY DO NOT concede that they have a point, for two reasons:
1, they haven’t got a point. They are wrong. Telling people who are wrong that they might have a point doesn’t do anybody any favours, including the people who are wrong.
2, the few people who still believe in us are relentlessly put off by us constantly compromising with people who are wrong.
If you want us to go from ~8% in the polls to 0% then you have offered the correct prescription.
“I see very little, if anything, of the blanket descriptions that you criticise, ”
Sir Vince Cable made the very accusation you deny during a television interview earlier in the year asserting that Brexit voters wanted “white faces”.
When the interviewer made the challenge
” ‘so you are saying Brexit voters are racist’.
His answer included the magic word “probably”
A claim that he qualified with the word “some” won’t stand as unless he has a specific list of names for his accusation of “some” then all who voted for Leave must assume he meant them.
George,
I liked your thought provoking piece and I held my nose and voted Remain just because of the downside risks you highlight (even though I regard the EU as dysfunctional and any who think it isn’t can explain the CAP)
But your concerns don’t matter as by the 1st of April 2019 we will all have died of cancer, starvation or be reduced to cannibalism. Every factory will have closed, all transport ended, just tumbleweed blowing down our streets, deserted except for the emaciated skeletons of the unburied dead.
The Remain camp deluded themselves into believing that they would easily win the first Referendum. They appear to have the same delusion about a second.
They won’t until they realise that their superior, domineering, hectoring angry and threatening finger wagging is exactly to wrong way to approach the British public.
Thanks for the replies guys.
I didn’t write this expecting agreement. After all, I criticised Brexiters, Corbyn supporters, and those who are both Brexiters and Corbyn supporters. I also criticised Lib Dems and Remainers who insult people we need to vote for us. Sadly, on social media, that’s probably most of the people who post! But it’s a tiny minority of the general public, or of the membership of political parties.
@Martin
I don’t generally give specific examples, for a good reason.
If someone has made an ill-considered post on social media, unless they are a major public figure, I think it’s unfair to single them out for criticism. Besides, I don’t want to generate a flame war with an individual, that rarely leads to meaningful debate.
If someone wants examples of Remainers and Lib Dems calling people “racists, bigots, authoritarians, or neo-liberals”, they will find them easily. But if they don’t want to find such examples, they can easily explain them away. Context is important. But, if someone insults voters, rather than specifically attacking the bad behaviour itself, it’s almost always counterproductive, as Hillary Clinton discovered.
Of course, only a minority of Lib Dems do this. But we, the majority, who are careful to attack bad attitudes rather than attack the people, often don’t post, and we rarely challenge our fellow party members if they use unhelpful language. I haven’t spoken up enough either. With this article, I am trying to start to correct this failing.
Of course, many times when people complain about Lib Dems, they are being disingenuous. I’ve been attacked this way too. But there are too many Lib Dems who indulge in this. It is possible to be robust in your argument without calling people “racists, bigots, authoritarians, or neo-liberals”.
Agree with Jennie, and add I’m getting fed up and bored with all the echoing of all the tabloid anti Labour stuff.
Oddly enough I well remember the 1983 link up with the Social Democrats and judging by George’s rant it seems not much has changed. When, and it’s a big if, this party rediscovers its Liberal radicalism it might recover its self respect and support. Until then it’s in pale blue limbo.
Can we please put this into context As a nation we have been around in some form or other for about 5000 years.
In that time we have been we have been invaded (more than once) been devastated by epidemics fought in two world wars been through countless financial crisisand natural disasters but we have always pulled through and usually come out stronger in the end.
We have now voted to leave the E.U this should not be confused with Eruope (which is a continent and has been here a lot longer than all of us).
We have been bound to the E.U by E.U treaty for about 45 years which i would like to point out does allow any country to leave if they wish to do so.
So all those who say it should be just cancelled because it’s the wrong decision please think very carefully about what you are saying people have died and are still dying today around the world for the right to vote which can not and will not be dismissed so easily no matter how much you can try and justify it with what seems like a good reason becuses do it once no matter how justifiable it may be the second time will be alot easier and then soon it will asked why bother having a democracy anyway the people always get it wrong so we might as well just tell them whats happening and soon the government won’t even do that.
If we cash out with a no-deal will it hurt yes i it will, will it hurt the E.U yes i suspect it will.
Who will it hurt most in the short term (to be perfectly honest in my humble opinion) us in the long term i suspect it will be the E.U that will hurt most but no matter what we are told this it not the end of the world.
What we need is for each side so stop take a deep breath and start talking about the best way forward and above all start talking like adults
@Tom Harney
You are right. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. But only just. And she lost the election.
How on Earth did she lose, when she was opposed by a candidate who was so insulting to the female half of the population, the disabled and so many others? He whipped up racism, whipped up violence and lied, and a host of other horrors.
The reason she lost is that many held their nose and voted for Trump, because they thought Hillary Clinton was worse. The reason is not just because of the “deplorables” gaff (for which she apologised), but because voters thought that was what she genuinely believed. We need to be *very* careful we don’t make the same mistake.
@Innocent Bystander
I think Vince’s comments about racist voters was a mistake – I suspect he thinks so too – but in defence of Vince, we all misspeak sometimes. And while it was a similar mistake to the one Hillary made, it doesn’t resonate with his image in the way that Hillary’s gaff did with hers.
However, it was a mistake. Of course there are racists who voted Leave (after all, there must have been racists who voted Remain!), but for a politician to say that can be used by his opponents to make it seem he means every Leave voter.
@William Fowler
If we want to stop Brexit, we need to understand why people voted for it. This means we have to listen so we know how to communicate to them. And we need to use language that means they will understand that what we are saying (as opposed to being so enraged that they want to smash in the screen of their television).
If you think they are stupid, and deserve all the pain that is to come, fine. But those of us who want to prevent these terrible outcomes for the country, need to convince some of them to change their minds. To do that, we need to be smart, not angry.
A good guide is, if you post something, or say something on the media, test it out with a Brexit supporting friend first. Don’t have any Brexit supporting friends, go canvassing. If your phrasing makes them too angry to hear what you said, if you want people in the 52% to understand your post, you should probably rephrase it.
Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that a sign of success is lots of retweets. If you want retweets from angry Remainers, then insult away. If you want to change people’s minds, don’t.
To answer your question, perhaps the greatest reason for hope, George, is that democracy and free speech and that includes name calling which is perhaps not the best way to win friends and influence people – over time gets it – more or less – right.
—
The scenario I think is most likely is that there will be a deal, we will leave the EU, but within 20 years we will rejoin. I think that will mean that we have suffered economically over that time. But also it will mean a better EU. We have been a pro-EU party since the 60s but not an uncritical friend. Brexit – along with significant eurosceptism of about a third in many continental countries – will see less of a faceless bureaucracy trying to impose a “one size fits all” Europe on everyone and the continuation of strong sovereign European nations which is important for Liberalism.
—-
To continue your analogy essentially between Capitalism and Communism. The debate has raged often with a lot of name calling – “fat capitalist pigs exploiting workers as slaves = sending children down mines and up chimneys” versus “dangerous authoritarian communist dictators” = and there is truth in both. We have had perhaps more of this crude characterisations than detailed expositions of the weaknesses of both systems.
But take someone from 20th August 1818 – a mere blink of an eye in historical terms – and transport them instantly to today. And they would be shocked how communist Britain was. Free healthcare. Free education to 18. Free food and shelter if not working. Pensions handed out. Votes for the masses and women! But also shocked at the massive capitalism providing the wealth for these things.
Throughout those 200 years democracy and free speech has continually “self-corrected” and sorted out those areas that are suitable for “communism” and those for “capitalism”. I may be naive – I am sure we won’t have achieved perfection a thousand or even a million years from now and political debates will still be rumbling on – but I do have faith in democracy and free speech in getting us closer to that goal of perfection.
“I think Vince’s comments about racist voters was a mistake”
Whether he meant it or not is immaterial. We have all “misspoke” at times but some mistakes are not forgotten or forgiven. This one confirmed in many minds that they had no right to question the value of the EU and if they did they must be racist.
The economic consequences of Brexit are likely to be bad but I fear worse a second referendum. I feel the Remain side have convinced themselves (via a few polls and consider how accurate polls have been) that the Leavers now realise their “awful mistake” and are ready to apologise and correct it.
Not a bit of it – there will be the ugliest of campaigns with one side claiming that the self appointed elite can’t be trusted to honour their promises and the UK and European Blairites are still there, behind the scenes, manipulating and bullying etc etc
I sometimes believe that the Remain side expect a very polite debate of the form “We can now see that to Remain will cost each citizen two pounds fifteen shillings but to leave will cost two pounds seventeen and six so we obviously all agree to Remain”.
I voted remain but I do not wish to experience an even more divisive and bitter rerun.
I am only sorry that the LibDems didn’t take the opportunity to bind the nation’s wounds and bring us back together as a nation and find a way forward together rather than crushing the Leave side at all costs.
@ Michael 1
‘If have tariffs then the pressure will be on those car manufacturers to actual build cars in the bigger market as more efficient etc. and just pay the consequences of those tariffs.’
So in a market the size of the UK all manufacturers will ‘just pay the consequences’ ? … Until one maker decides to build entirely in the UK and then wipes those other manufacturers out of the market. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen as surely as water flows down-hill.
@ Grahame Evans,
Yours is a rather convoluted argument. Low interest rates and a lowish exchange rate are a sign of weakness in an economy unless it is Germany when they are a sign of strength ????
Oh come on! Interest rates are low in both Germany and the UK because anyone buying German and UK bonds knows they are a safe bet!
No-one, whether UK or overseas based, is going to keep their money in pounds if they think we are going to crash and burn next year.
What are all the supposed doom-mongers on LDV doing with their savings? If the pound is going to crash why not change your savings into euros or dollars before the exchange rate gets any worse? You know it would make sense!
@Mark Seaman
The point about car manufacture is that it requires a large investment in a plant. So there tends to be one (or two) factories making a particular model for the whole of Europe. If demand is split according to population size – that’s about 10% in the UK to 90% to the rest of Europe but say it was 30% in the UK, 70% in the rest of Europe.
The manufacturer you refer to who relocates to the UK to undercut its rivals paying tariffs – obviously benefits on the 30% but is disadvantaged on the 70% they have to export to make a return on their large investment.
The second issue is as I say the car crossing the channel 8 times – parts will come from all over Europe and if you have to pay tariffs on those parts there might be significant tariff costs anyway. Even if there are no tariffs there are likely to be costs in delays, paperwork etc.which some are fearful will threaten the “just in time” model of car manufacture.
@Peter Martin
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your comments.
For the sake of clarity, are you the same Peter Martin who commented last year on a blog post entitled ‘Labour should unite around the possibilities offered by a Corbyn government’
“We need to build on the new sense of unity within the party and be ready for the next election when it comes. The public won’t thank us if we bring that about too quickly. We need to be fairly circumspect just at present.”
That seems to me to indicate that you are a Labour supporter, perhaps a member, and perhaps a Corbyn supporter. Can you let us know if that’s that case?
See http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/06/11/labour-should-unite-around-the-possibilities-offered-by-a-corbyn-government/#comment-702993
George Kendall Mon 20th August 2018 – 8:23 am:
We will lose our say in setting the regulations of the largest free trade zone in the world. In order to keep trading, we’ll then have to adopt these regulations with no say in how they develop.
Just pause and contemplate the equipment in front of you on which you are reading these words: a desktop computer, laptop, tablet or smart phone. How many of the tens of thousands of standards embodied in the hardware, software and communication methods are set by the EU? Can you name even one?
Most standards and regulations are now set by international organisations and industry bodies. Outside the EU the UK will have more say in setting these, not less. Rather than having our position diluted to the lowest common denominator of 28 countries or ignored entirely before its even put forward, we will have our own seat at the table and in some cases, such as the WTO, a veto.
For the most part the EU is a rule taker, not a rule maker.
Cars? They’re covered by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe – an historic name for an organisation which now covers the entire developed World…
‘Vehicle Regulations’:
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html
Brussel sprouts? Surely the standard for those must be set in Brussels? Think again…
‘Fresh Fruit and Vegetables – Standards’:
https://www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/fresh/ffv-standardse.html
The EU just takes these standards and rubber stamps them as an EU Directive…
https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/943058028391227392/
Jeff: standard charging points.
There, I’ve named one. Shall I assume you’ll be moving the goalposts now?
@ George Kendall,
Are you the same George Kendall who writes articles for the same Labour website? So it’s OK for you to write an article but not for me to make a comment?
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/tag/george-kendall/
I have voted Lib Dem in the past. But I usually vote Labour. Until the Brexit issue became predominant I would vote for whoever had the best chance of defeating the Tory. I suppose when the Brexit controversy dies down, I’ll go back to my previous tactical voting pattern.
In 2010 I set up a website to encourage tactical voting. It’s gone now but is still recorded on the ‘wayback machine’. The counter in the link below isn’t showing the right figure. It got up to about 250,000 by the time polling day arrived and I had numerous enquiries to answer by email on how to vote tactically in particular constituencies.
The Lib Dems did well in 2010 and I played my part in putting quite a few otherwise Labour voters your way!
https://web.archive.org/web/20100409131344/http://www.tacticalvoting.org:80/
@Peter Martin In the boom years German governments, like those of Japan and Switzerland, sought to keep their exchange rates low because so much of their economies were dependent on the export of manufactured goods. However this policy always had limited success in the era of floating exchange rates because until recently the tools at the disposal of central banks were limited. Consequently the exchange rate rose, indicative of a strong economy, in which further currency appreciation could be anticipated. Currency gains more than compensated for low interst rates. However a struggling economy, like Germany after unification and the UK after the Brexit vote needs low interest rates for an entirely different reason, namely to promote domestic demand. A struggling economy therefore suffers a potential double whammy. Its currency falls because foreign investors get both a poor interest rate and also anticipate capital losses on their currency holdings. Normally the situation eventually corrects itself as domestic demand rises, promoting capital investment by companies funded by cheap money. A virtuous circle develops as company profits rise and foreigners again renew their confidence in the economy. At this stage the central bank has to walk a narrow path between preventing the economy overheating by raising interest rates on the one hand, and seeing the currency appreciate as a result, thereby hitting exports.
In so far as foreigners continue to hold some gilts it is impossible to really know their motives, though it may in some cases simply be a function of wanting a diversified holding of currencies. A FT article in 2017 sets out possible reasons.https://www.ft.com/content/389a25e8-fe8d-11e6-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4
@Peter Martin
Nothing wrong with you commenting on Lib Dem Voice. I just wanted clarity about where you stood.
I suspect others might appreciate the clarity too. After all, a couple of years back Lib Dem Voice published ten articles from you. I thought it would be helpful to clarify where your loyalties are now. PS Thanks for doing work on tactical voting in the past, that is appreciated.
Thanks also for the plug of my Labour-Uncut articles, which they were kind enough to publish, even though I was completely open about being a Lib Dem activist.
Here’s a plug of your past Lib Dem Voice articles: https://www.libdemvoice.org/author/peter-martin
To anyone else who is also a Brexit supporter, it’s fine for to add your comments to this site as well. But I may delay before replying to you. The focus of my article was to those who share my concern about the prospect of a hard Brexit and a Corbyn government. And who might listen to by concern about whether we are taking the right approach to providing a viable alternative, if we want to reduce the risk of something even worse following.
@ Graham Evans,
“In the boom years German governments, like those of Japan and Switzerland, sought to keep their exchange rates low because so much of their economies were dependent on the export of manufactured goods.”
It used to be like that in the North of England, Wales and Scotland too. Manufacturing, with many goods for export, were a key part of the economy! It’s probably not correct to say that it was killed solely by a high pound. There were other reasons too but the currency was a major factor.
However this policy always had limited success in the era of floating exchange rates because until recently the tools at the disposal of central banks were limited
Central banks have, and always have had since currencies became purely fiat, all the powers they need in this respect. Say the BoE decided that the pound needed to be devalued by 20% or so and that the new exchange rate would be £1.00 = $1.00. So the Bank sells as many pounds as anyone wants to buy for $1 each. What’s the problem? Like the BoE will ever run out of pounds?
The problem is the other way. If the BoE decided it needed to rise by 20% or so and the new exchange rate was going to be $1.50 then its options are limited. It can raise interest rates and that might help a bit. But the BoE can’t guarantee the pound to be higher than the market considers its value to be. It can’t run out of pounds but it can run out of US dollars or euros as we all learned on Black Wednesday. Except it was German DM then.
Brexit is a project of the few at the expense of the many. Whose side are you on, Jeremy Corbyn?
@ George Kendall,
It may surprise you to learn that I’m not that tribal politically. John McDonell’s views, at least as they are openly stated, on economics are woeful. All that stuff about fiscal credibility rules is just plain junk economics. You’d probably agree with him on those!
My only real ‘loyality’, are those I consider I owe to science. ie good science. I get quite upset when I hear ‘junk science’ espoused to justify doing nothing about climate change, for example. Fortunately the mainstream in science is ‘owned’, so to speak, by those who are in favour of good science.
Not so in Economics. The junk economists have some how captured the mainstream. That’s why we have the Economic problems we do. That’s why the EU is a shambles with depopulation occurring on the periphery and no-one other than Germany, plus maybe a few smaller close by countries benefitting from the economic structure as it is. Junk economics reigns supreme in the EU! If it didn’t, the result of any referendum would have been a very easy win for remain.
The articles I wrote for LDV were about improving general economic understanding. Or even just to get people to think about it a bit more. In other words, to do my bit towards getting it right and thinking about it in more scientific way.
It is important to get it right. It was junk economics which led to the 30’s depression, which in turn created the conditions which led to WW2. With 80 million dead as consequence? We don’t want all that, and worse, again!
Jennie,
I’m trying to follow. What did you mean by “standard charging points”?
We need to stay in the European Union so that we can still partake in its decision making. The chances are that by leaving the EU, we would become, in effect, a vassal state of the EU, subject to the majority of its decisions, but without any say.
Jennie 20th Aug ’18 – 9:46pm:
Jeff: standard charging points.
There, I’ve named one. Shall I assume you’ll be moving the goalposts now?
I’m inclined to invoke the offside rule. The Common External Power Supply specification is an International Electrotechnical Commission standard (IEC 62684:2011) which incorporates a micro-USB socket specified by the USB Implementers Forum. Good shot though; the EU did initiate this and drove its adoption first (sensibly) on a voluntary basis. The danger with legislating in this area is that it can stifle innovation ( e.g. development of thinner phones which can’t accommodate the specified socket).
@ Richard Sangster,
So you want the UK to partake “in EU decision making”? Some might say we can do that through the European Parliament, if we stay. But that’s just a talking shop.
Everything of importance is done well away and behind closed doors. We can be behind those doors too , IF we are members to the same extent as France and Germany. ie with the euro, Schengen, and no opt outs.
Is that what you want? If it is, how many others would want it too?
Who is it who said, “First seek to understand and then be understood.”? We live in an intolerant, xenophobic and mildly racist society so by speaking out about our ideal society, we alienate those we want to support us. We must be careful with our language and distinguish clearly our values from the practicalities of implementing them. A good rule of thumb is not to offend anyone, even your opponents as it rebounds. Also, talking impersonally about our society rather than specific segments of it might help.
Hi expats,
One of the key reasons why we lost the Referendum is given in that article. “Around 45 per cent of [Labour voters] asked thought the party was backing Brexit or its members were split down the middle.”
We know Corbyn understands how to campaign. That you give simple clear messages which you repeat endlessly over time, and you make sure that the statements you give create news headlines that repeat your side’s key messages. What you don’t do is create news headlines that repeat the key messages of the opposition.
The 45% figure shows that if Corbyn was trying to send a clear message to Labour voters that Labour supported Remain, he failed.
The newspaper headlines that followed the following story show that, if Corbyn did not want to promote Leave’s key messages, he failed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570383
However, I don’t think he failed, because I don’t think his objective during the Referendum campaign was for us to stay in the EU.
Some people think he deliberately created those “Corbyn says free movement means no limit to immigration” headlines because he privately wanted Leave to win. I don’t know.
But probably it was nothing to do with the EU. He knew he would face another leadership campaign. I think his main objective was to speak to as many Labour members as possible, in order to promote his leadership. He was starting his leadership campaign early.
@Jenny Barnes
I doubt car manufacturing will shift to Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey or the Ukraine, becuase just-in-time manufacturing is such an important part of manufacturing, and those countries are outside the EU.
Manufacturing doesn’t necessarily go to the country with the lowest Labour costs. This is especially true now because, with automation, the cost of labour is becoming less significant.
What will be vital for manufacturers is that everything about the manufacturing process is predictable. If they know that components will arrive at a certain time on a certain day, they don’t need to build an enormous warehouse, and tie up enormous amounts of capital in storing components. Instead they have the components delivered exactly when they want them.
If the delivery time of the components might be delayed at the border, they risk enormous cost, in having to halt the manufacturing process, or in building those enormous warehouses.
Added to that, developing countries often have other problems, such as an uncertain legal environment, which makes many companies reluctant to place their companies there. This is why employees in those countries are paid such low wages. If the governance of those countries could be improved, this would do a great deal to raise their living standards. But that is a subject for another post.
@Michael1
There will probably be a deal, because a no deal could, literally, mean the planes stop flying. But, catastrophes do sometimes happen: politicians play chicken, refuse to back down, and their cars crash into each other.
Even if there is a deal, I think Theresa May will have to concede so much to the hardliners that it will do significant damage.
As @David Bradley says, in the long term, the UK would survive May’s hard Brexit on its own. As I said in my piece, we will remain a wealthy country. But it’s what happens after that gets scary.
There will be a lot of incredibly angry people. Although the country as a whole may only suffer, say, 5% less growth over a few years, that cost will be unevenly distributed. Some people will hardly be affected. Others lives will be devastated, and they will react in unpredictable ways. I expect Theresa May to become the most hated PM in living memory. The lies of prominent figures in the Tory party, that there would be no downside to Brexit, will make the Tory party incredibly unpopular. Therefore Corbyn will probably win the following election.
There are one or two Lib Dem members who think a Corbyn government would be a good thing.
For them, I can understand the logic of their position, that we should not be a broad church, and that we support him from the sidelines.
But I think Corbyn would be a catastrophe. All governments fail to fulfill some of their promises. But Labour, under Corbyn’s leadership, has shown itself to be cavalier with the truth while in opposition. They campaigned for one thing on benefits, then they did the opposite two years later. They endlessly preach about tolerance and peace, but John McDonnell privately praises riots that included the throwing of a fire extinguisher from the top of a building at police. Some claim Corbyn just wants to introduce social democratic reforms, but some Corbyn supporters are contemptuous of social democrats, and are convinced that Corbyn is too. I think they are right about him.
My biggest concern is what comes after that. When things go bad, formerly prosperous countries are vulnerable to dishonest populists. Who knows what would follow a failed Corbyn government?
Are we doing *everything* we can to provide a viable alternative?
We need to wake up to our daunting responsibility to provide a viable alternative. Maybe we can only challenge for government when Corbyn fails, but we must be ready then.
George:
I agree that “There will probably be a deal, because a no deal could, literally, mean the planes stop flying.” At least there has to be a deal of sorts. I do not see the EU side backing down on the Irish border, particularly given that a backstop was signed up to last December,, nor do I see an extension of Article 50 (as I have explained in this article).
Most likely, I think, there will be a non-specific statement about future relationships and a 21 month transition period of prolonged uncertainty and lack of resolution, giving some the impression that Brexit is not too bad. In 2020 we shall have a strong sense of déjà vu, the end to participation in the Single Market and Customs Union will again be in question, though the UK will no longer be represented in European decision making, while Trump will be fighting for reelection. Whether the UK could sort out any trade deals in that time is very uncertain. Some agreements could replicate the EU agreements, but there are already signs of difficulties.
Unfortunately reversing would then be much more difficult, but the Conservatives and Labour will still be fighting over whether to stay in the Single Market and over May’s notorious red lines (though Labour might have trouble over other red lines). I do not see that Tory populists will stop exploiting race and religion to further their cause.
Don’t worry folks. After Brexit the U.K. is going to become an exporting “Super Power”. Who says so? Why, none other than a certain Dr Liam Fox MP. I wonder just how good a doctor he was. Could his diagnoses be relied on ? Second thoughts, perhaps we should be worried – VERY worried!
Jenny Barnes 20th Aug ’18 – 12:24pm:
If I’m going to move my car factory out of the UK anyway, somewhere reasonably stable, close to the EU, where labour is cheap. The North African coast – Morocco/ Tunisia..maybe Turkey or Ukraine. Keep design where the skills are for the moment.
Indeed; it’s already happening…
‘Is North Africa the next frontier for vehicle manufacturing?’ [November 2015]:
https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/north-africa-next-frontier-vehicle-manufacturing/
‘PSA will open Tunisia factory to build new pickup’ [December 2016]:
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20161201/ANE/161209996/psa-will-open-tunisia-factory-to-build-new-pickup
Of course George, you are absolutely right to be afraid. The mess our country is in, has come about because the one pro-EU party allowed itself to be totally destroyed from the inside between 2010 and 2015, and alienated so many of the actual and potential supporters of its policies that it has passed on from being not trusted, to now being totally ignored.
We can try to blame it on that spineless Cameron, that duplicitous Corbyn or just that devious Farage, coupled with robotic May and deluded Davis, but in reality it was that incompetent Clegg and his supporters who thought that it was OK for the Lib Dems to break the mould by breaking promises, and which abandoned the left of centre moderating force many of us had spent much of the last 40 years building up.
Now there is no moderating force as far as most of the British people are concerned, and to be honest only a few who are now wishing they hadn’t lost faith with the Lib Dems.
The consequences of never ending support for failure have now become almost inevitable and I don’t think there is any feasible way out that will do anything but heap praise and opprobrium in equal measure on whichever extreme decides it wants to march to the rescue (if one actually chooses to), leaving the Lib Dems with nothing to say except “we were right,” to people who no longer listen to us.
@Martin
I think what you say may be right. Your post is similar to what Lord Liddle said at the Social Democrat Group fringe at last year’s conference fringe.
However, I don’t think that changes the predictions in my article. I can’t see the Tories calling an early election, May won’t want to go early again after the shambles last time, and the Tories will keep delaying an election, because they will fear they will lose it. Therefore, the chaos of leaving the transitional arrangement will happen before the next election.
No one knows when the next recession will be, but there must be a strong chance it will be within the next three years (it’s ten years since the last one). If there’s a recession before the next general election, the public will probably blame it on Brexit. Which will be partly fair, because though there might have been a recession anyway, by reducing growth Brexit will have made it more severe.
If the public blame Brexit for a recession, they’ll also blame the Tories. If we haven’t done everything we can to build a wider electoral coalition, the electorate won’t turn to us, they’ll hold their nose and turn to Corbyn.
A Corbyn government may last longer than we expect, because he will be able to blame the Tories for the bad effects of his early mistakes. But when Corbyn’s government fails, if we do not reach out to the wider electorate, who knows what political force will take its place? But the chances it is Trump-like must be high.
‘After Brexit the U.K. is going to become an exporting “Super Power” ‘
Mmm. Ok it would be possible if the pound was worth a lot less. Simply we couldn’t afford so many imports, the UK market would be a less attractive place to export to, our exports would be a lot cheaper for other countries, and UK manufacturers would be looking to sell in more profitable high value currency regions.
We’d also be more inclined to holiday in Bridlington than Benidorm.
So whereas Dr Fox is presenting this future vision as a success, it is unlikley that many people will actually see it that way if and when it actually does come about.
Peter Martin 22nd Aug ’18 – 7:34am………….‘After Brexit the U.K. is going to become an exporting “Super Power” ‘………………‘Mmm. Ok it would be possible if the pound was worth a lot less. Simply we couldn’t afford so many imports, the UK market would be a less attractive place to export to, our exports would be a lot cheaper for other countries, and UK manufacturers would be looking to sell in more profitable high value currency regions………….
Importing parts/raw materials would cost more and, even if we magically produced these extra exports, where are these high value currency regions?
The USA has tariffs, we won’t match the manufacturing economies of Asia on cost, Australia/NZ are too small a market (even if they chose the UK over Asian products), new tariffs will be in place for exports to the EU, etc.
Try emerging markets like South America/Africa? (the GDP of the entire African continent including gold, precious stones and oil is less than that of Spain).
In short, we should’ve stayed where we were. I agree with your and John Marriott’s ( 21st Aug ’18 – 5:59pm) assessment of Fox’s predictions.
Fox has a lot in common with my great granddaughter; she, too, believes in fairies and Father Christmas.
@Mike Jay
I don’t trust propaganda from pro-EU groups, nor should you trust propaganda from anti-EU groups. What impresses me is the near unanimity of groups of economists who warn about the cost of Brexit. (Even the Economists for Brexit’s Patrick Minford predicts an end to UK manufacturing)
@Peter Martin
I have more faith than you in the City of London. I’m more inclined to believe the projections of bodies like the OBR, government advisors, numerous think-tanks, etc.
That said the City of London doesn’t just consider the damage of Brexit to the UK, but the risks of alternative places to put its money. I’m afraid the world at present is full of risk, and just because some places are even more risky that a Brexit-bound UK doesn’t mean that Brexit won’t do serious harm.
@Mark Seaman
While the UK is a net-importer of cars, leaving the EU won’t mean an increase in UK car production. Our economy is not the size of the USA.
These days, building a car is an enormous undertaking. We simply aren’t big enough to support the enormous supply chain required. Post-Brexit, unless the deal is far softer than projected, car companies will stop investing in UK plants, and over time the UK car industry will mostly disappear.
Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what the car manufacturers themselves are saying.
@Barry Lofty
I share your wish. But I think there is more the Lib Dems could do to attract wider support. One thing is if we, the membership, focus more on the concerns of ordinary voters, and use language that they understand and can relate to.
@David Bradley
I wish I could share your optimism. We have indeed survived many disasters. But I don’t believe in British exceptionalism. We have many great qualities as a country, as my many friends from overseas keep telling me. But if we make enough mistakes, those qualities won’t be enough to see us through.
I hope we will prevail, but it’ll only be if those who see the disaster coming argue for a direction that will avoid the disaster. The point of my article is we face, not one, but two disasters. Brexit then Corbyn. And we can’t be certain there won’t be a third. Disaster is not inevitable, but it is if no alternative is offered.
@ Expats,
I agree with you that its highly unlikely that there will be a surge in UK exports if and when we’ve left the EU, just like there hasn’t been a surge of exports while we’ve been in the EU.
If Germany is doing its bit for world trade by being a net exporter then the UK is doing its bit by being a net importer. We can’t all be Germany!
Its all tied in with the Government’s deficit. The Government’s deficit is equal to everyone elses surplus or net savings. So if we divide up everyone else according to where they live then
Government Deficit = Domestic Net Savings + Overseas Net Savings
Overseas Net Savings = Current account Deficit.
So, we should be happy that Germany wants to save the pounds that they earn selling us BMWs etc. Those savings enable us to run a budget deficit. It’s when we can’t do that we should start worrying!
An interesting factoid from the yougov poll is that among Remainers we are statistically tied with Labour on which party has the best policy on Britain leaving the EU (Lib Dem 17%, Labour 19%).
While I guess it is obvious – it is interesting how split British politics is split on Leave/Remain lines with 71% of leavers supporting the Tories or UKIP and 75% of Remainers supporting Labour/Lib Dems/Green or nationalist.
@Jeff
You are right that many of the EU regulations that Brexiters so like to complain about are actually world regulations.
However, there are regulations that are EU specific, for example on food. See the following article.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/is-chlorinated-chicken-bad-for-our-health-and-the-environment-a7860866.html
For farmers this will not be a small issue. If we follow US standards, then UK farmers will have to adopt lower animal welfare standards, or be driven out of business by US competition. If they do, then their products will be excluded from the EU.
This is one reason why Trump suggested that May’s Chequers deal would mean a US trade deal would not be possible.
As to whether leaving the EU will give us more influence over world-wide regulations – that seems extremely unlikely to me. The EU is the largeest single market in the world, so it has enormous influence in the setting of international standards. We are a big player in the EU, so we have a lot of influence through the EU on those standards. On our own, our negotiating position will be far, far weaker.
@Arnold Kiel
Corbyn has said many contradictory things about Brexit, so it’s impossible to know for sure what he thinks.
However, my guess is that, in his heart of hearts, Corbyn is still a follower of his mentor, Tony Benn. Benn was a passionate opponent of the EU, because it would prevent the kind of socialism and protectionism he wanted.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-eu-migration-immigration-brexit-free-movement-bernie-sanders-populist-protectionist-a7519091.html
Some supporters of Corbyn say he wants us to follow the Nordic model. If that were so, he would be an enthusiastic supporter of membership of the single market (which all Nordic countries are members of).
Instead, Corbyn has said: “It would therefore be wrong to sign up to a single market deal without agreement that our final relationship with the EU would be fully compatible with our radical plans to change Britain’s economy.” https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/jeremy-corbyn-single-market-hold-uk-back/
The above is a typically opaque statement from Corbyn. But I read it to mean that his “radical plans” for the UK go far beyond the Nordic model. And that really worries me.
George Kendall said: “There will probably be a deal, because a no deal could, literally, mean the planes stop flying.”
Yes that’s true. But it begs the question, do we have any clear understanding of what “no deal” is supposed to mean?
A low-level deal – Canada minus – would ensure enough goodwill to sort out a host of urgent administrative problems. If the final agreements on things like medicine safety, animal welfare, product certification, and flights had not been finalised on March 31st 2019 – Then there would be enough goodwill to cover these issues by temporary derogation. For example, the EU would permit UK goods to be exported to them without the necessary new documentation they would in principle require – at any rate for a few months, until smugglers emerged to take advantage of the confusion and force the EU to tighten up their procedures to our disadvantage.
But what does “no deal” mean? It presumably means that the EU offers something like “Canada-minus” and the UK says “not accepted”. But what happens then?
One possibility is that things turn very nasty, the UK refuses to pay the divorce bill despite being obliged to do so under international law, and the EU in turn make life as difficult as possible. Planes get grounded. Who knows, military exercises might even begin! But – A more benign possibility is that a minimal series of arrangements do get put in place to enable planes to fly, dying patients to get urgent medicines, etcetera.
“No deal” could be a catastrophe, or it could be a major problem that falls well short of a catastrophe. It all depends on whether we get somewhere close to a war footing, or whether we can back off far enough to avoid absolute catastrophe.
The implication is that we can’t define “no deal”. Justine Greening’s idea of offering it as a referendum option is a bad one, because nobody can be sure what it would entail. The same problem will arise with the Government documentation about to be published. There’s no one clear thing that means “no deal”. There are lots of variants. They are all dreadful, but they differ in how dreadful they are!
the UK refuses to pay the divorce bill despite being obliged to do so under international law
Is this right? I don’t think so.
The UK should always honour its obligations under international law but any payments to the EU after exit are, in the main, one for negotiation rather than any legal requirement.
Peter Martin 23rd Aug ’18 – 6:26am:
The UK should always honour its obligations under international law but any payments to the EU after exit are, in the main, one for negotiation rather than any legal requirement.
Indeed; if this payment is for accrued liabilities that we legally owe, then the £350 million figure used on the side of that coach may have been an underestimate.
David Allen 23rd Aug ’18 – 12:28am……………… If the final agreements on things like medicine safety, animal welfare, product certification, and flights had not been finalised on March 31st 2019 – Then there would be enough goodwill to cover these issues by temporary derogation. For example, the EU would permit UK goods to be exported to them without the necessary new documentation they would in principle require – at any rate for a few months, until smugglers emerged to take advantage of the confusion and force the EU to tighten up their procedures to our disadvantage………………….
The scenario you suggest is contrary to WTO rules; if we continue to try and trade ‘as normal’ having left the EU bloc we will be in breach of WTO rules…
Liam Fox tried putting forward a similar ‘fiddle’ ages ago. He suggested that meat, butter, eggs, wheat, etc., could be imported by the UK on the same terms (low or zero tariffs) as the rest of the EU; the USA, Australia, Brazil and New Zealand immediately objected and the idea quickly and quietly ‘disappeared’.
What happens post Brexit will be carefully scrutinised by other nations who will not hesitate to cry ‘foul’ and take action.
Expats, you’re talking about tariffs, but I was talking about documentation.
Certainly the UK cannot favour one country over any other country with which is does not have a trade deal, when it charges import tariffs. So if we are now charging Indian exporters a tariff when we import Indian widgets, then with “no deal” on April 1st we must either drop that tariff, or else start charging French and German exporters that tariff. Which will be nightmare enough.
Safety clearances etc may be a somewhat different story. That great French medical product which we long ago determined was safe for human consumption won’t automatically need to be retested by the UK on April 1st. However, things might change once some clever criminal works out how to pass off a counterfeit version of that French medical product and rely on laxity in the confusion of no-deal.
To quote the Sun reporter’s question to Raab this morning “Your no deal planning seems to assume you will do deals with the EU. That doesn’t make sense.”!
Peter Martin,
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill
says
“Could we walk away without paying?
If negotiations broke down later this year, and the UK refused to pay, the EU might seek redress through the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict.”
Would you be happy to see Perfidious Albion evade its responsibilities via legal loopholes and technicalities? What do you think that would do for our standing in the international community?
@David Allen
Thank you for your posts. Some great points which show how complex and difficult this issue is.
Some claim that Brexit was a simple yes/no decision, and that we just need to implement the version of Brexit that *they personally* thought Brexit meant. This, of course, is nonsense.
The reality of Brexit is so complex that, not only do none of us in this thread fully understand it, but probably no one does. Specialists may understand their chosen field, though with some uncertainty about what the courts may rule in certain areas. But those specialists won’t fully understand Brexit in an area that they are not specialists in.
However, I think there may be merit in Justine Greening’s idea. It seems to me that there are broadly three camps in the Commons at the moment.
Those who want what they call a “clean break”. They want a Brexit that means no single market, no customs union, no European court of justice, no European Court of Human RIghts, and no transition arrangement. If that cannot be achieved by negotiation to their satisfaction, they want us to leave with no deal. If these people were running the country, I think leaving with a no deal would be likely, in that they’ve been telling the PM to call the EU’s bluff. At the time of a Referendum, the option for anything but a very basic negotiated solution would be impossible. So a no deal, or something very close to it, is what they’d be offering.
Those who support Theresa May’s approach. A transitional arrangement, which puts off most of the pain for two years, but eventually leaves the single market, joins a form of customs union (though there’s a lot of questions on what that means), and compromises on some things. During the referendum, this would have been described as a hard Brexit, but things have got so bad, many now call it a soft Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn uses different language, but in effect he supports the government position.
(1/2)
2/2
And those who think that the public were sold a pup. We were promised a pain-free Brexit. That we were told we would have full access to the single market, all the benefits of the EU, and none of the pain. These people think the public, once they realise what Brexit means in practice, will want another say, and if given one, will decide to stay in the EU after all.
If a way can be found to offer a three-way referendum that covers these three options, that’s what I think we should go for. Even if a majority of MPs decide they want such a Referendum, it’ll be extremely hard to deliver, partly because a three-way referendum would be hard to tightly define in the short time scale. But if it were on offer, I think there’s a chance that Remain would win, because many of the lies of the Leave campaign would have been exposed for what they are.
I think a Referendum is the only way out of this mess. If we overturned the 2016 Referendum without a Referendum on exit terms, there would be outrage. And a future pro-Leave government would just unilaterally leave on a future date.
I also think that, if we don’t have a three-way Referendum, the only Referendum we’d be offered is, accept May’s deal, or have a no deal with all the chaos that would unleash.
/ends
@ David Allen,
There have been lots of discussion about this. The usual comparison is to say that when we leave a golf club we just leave without any further obligations. When we joined the EU we didn’t have to pay for the existing EU infrastructure nor did we get any thing back. So if there’s neither a refund nor a bill on joining, apart from the usual subscriptions, it would seem logical that the same situation should apply on leaving.
But what applies to a golf club might not apply to the EU according to international law. That would be for the courts to give a ruling on – should the matter be failed to resolved amicably. It wouldn’t necessarily be a ruling based on loopholes and technicalities – which could work both ways of course!
I must say there is a lot nonsense being put out at the moment. I’ve just seen on a BBC wesbite that UK residents in the EU might lose access to UK bank accounts.
I lived in Australia for many years and there was never a problem maintaining my UK accounts! Why should it be any different after Brexit?
George Kendall 22nd Aug ’18 – 8:33pm:
Benn was a passionate opponent of the EU, because it would prevent the kind of socialism and protectionism he wanted.
Tony Benn was a passionate opponent of our membership of the EU because it is undemocratic.
Here is a transcript of his famous speech, during a debate on the Maastricht Treaty, in which he explains why it was wrong for parliament to give away our democratic rights…
’Tony Benn on democracy and the EU – 20th November 1991’:
https://whitewednesday.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/tony-benn-on-democracy-and-the-eu-20th-november-1991/
We now know the answer to Benn’s rhetorical question.
David Allen 23rd Aug ’18 – 1:07pm:
Would you be happy to see Perfidious Albion evade its responsibilities via legal loopholes and technicalities?
We’re not “Perfidious Albion” and there are no “legal loopholes and technicalities”. We have no responsibility to pay money which we don’t legally owe…
‘UK not obliged to pay Brexit bill, say peers’ [March 2017]:
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/03/uk-not-obliged-pay-brexit-bill-say-peers
While you may wish to gift £40 Billion to the EU, most people would prefer to spend it on such things as the NHS, more police officers, social care, tax cuts for the low-paid, or reducing the national debt.
George Kendall,
Thanks for your detailed expostion of what, at first sight, might appear to be the three main options which could be covered in a three-way referendum. However, I think there is a fundamental flaw – That only one of the three options, Remain, is sufficiently well defined to be offered as an option on a ballot paper.
We don’t tell the electors of Little Wotting “Vote Lib Dem, and our candidate is either Joe Bloggs or Jo Smith, it hasn’t been decided yet, so just mark a cross against Lib Dem.” Yet the proposed 3-way Europe referendum really looks very much like that.
“The Theresa May approach” is one of your proposed options. But what does that mean? The “Chequers deal” is not a deal at all, because the EU won’t accept it as it stands. Maybe they will insist on huge concessions, maybe they will accept smaller concessions, maybe Theresa will change her own mind and propose something not even thought about when the referendum vote takes place. How can anybody reasonable vote for – or against – such an ill-defined option?
“No deal”, as I explained earlier, is equally ill-defined. It might just mean not agreeing an overarching deal of any sort but reaching a host of hasty accommodations by agreement with the EU to avoid the worst of the chaos. Or it might mean total rupture, each side spitefully acting to maximise hurt for the other side. How can anyone vote “no deal” when they haven’t been told which of the above options that means?
I don’t want to be a destructive critic. I think some sort of referendum is the least worst solution. I think there are two possibilities that might be workable.
One, TMay reaches a final agreement – or an agreement not to agree – or an agreement to agree only limited measures – and we then hold a two way vote, accept May’s agreement or else Remain. “No deal” is simply an illegitimate third option at that stage, though a problem is that many politicians will pretend that it isn’t an illegitimate option. The bigger problem is that there will be precious little time, probably not enough time.
(2/2)
Two, we call for a “Brexit reset”. We tell Europe that Government and Parliament has failed to make anything work that can get approval from Parliament. We ask the EU to grant us an extra year. In return, we promise them that we will by that time have decided precisely what version of Brexit we will offer the British public, and reach agreement with the EU on that Brexit (and in the event of failing to achieve this by the specified deadline, Remaining). We will then hold a two-way referendum between the “agreed” final Brexit option, versus Remain.
The EU could accept that, because it would be a viable and different plan with a clear outcome. It would be fair, because it would eliminate cakeism. The Brexiteers would no longer be able to pretend they could combine the emotional “advantages” of hard Brexit with the economic advantages of a Norway-like option. The Brexiteers would have to choose one or the other, and then the nation would at last see the reality of their choice.
@ David Allen,
That only one of the three options, Remain, is sufficiently well defined to be offered as an option on a ballot paper.
Why is that any different? ‘Europe’ is changing all the time. In 1975 we voted to join a 6 country trading group known then as Common Market or EEC. In 2016 we voted to leave a 28 country grouping known as the European Union which is clearly a very different organisation. So what will be the EU in ten years time?
And what will be the reaction of the other 27 countries who are less than impressed with our lack of enthusiasm for their noble cause of ever closer union, our unwillingness to share a single currency, or adopt the Schengen agreement, or pay according to the same rules as everyone else? Our insistence on not pulling our weight in the EU, as they see it, hasn’t gone unnoticed.
So what will happen if we tear up Art50? Is that all going to be forgotten and we’ll be welcomed back into the fold like a prodigal son?
Peter Martin,
Yes, Europe is changing. So is NATO, so are many organisations. That doesn’t stop us taking a clear decision now – e.g. to join NATO, or to Remain in Europe. So it’s one valid option on a referendum ballot paper.
In hindsight, “Leave” was not a valid option on the 2016 ballot paper. It should have been either “Leave the EU, the single market and the customs union”, or “Leave the EU, but stay in the single market and the CU”. In other words, either “Leave, and gain freedom of action at the expense of a massive loss of trade and investment” or “Leave, gain only limited freedom of action, but retain most of our current trading advantages.” Instead we voted on “Leave, and let’s kid ourselves that we can keep all the good things and ditch all the bad things from the EU”. That won a slim majority, but it can’t actually be achieved, because the EU negotiators are not complete patsies!
But you’re right, our bad behaviour has left the EU nations pretty fed up with us. That will make life difficult for us, whether we Brexit or whether we Remain. Frankly, Barnier is playing nice at the moment…!
2/2
At present, thanks to ideological Brexiters in the Tory party, and Corbyn’s criminal dereliction of duty to provide meaningful opposition to the government on the issue of the day, most of the political pressure on May is from ideological Brexiters. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that it is the Peoples Vote campaign that is dragging her towards a more sensible outcome. The campaign is important, but what motivates her is she doesn’t want to go down in history as the PM who wrecked Britain.
A three-way Referendum would mean she faced genuine competition from the Remain side. It would also give her an excuse to give to the Tory party membership – “if I go for too hard a Brexit, then Remain will win”. That’s one reason the ideological Brexiters are so opposed to the idea. They are dragging May towards a harder Brexit, they don’t want anything pulling her in the opposite direction.
The Referendum has to happen after the negotiations are complete, or May’s option will be as undefined as you say. But May’s option will still not be properly defined. There will be much negotiation left for the transition, which will make it very hard for us to campaign against it. That means that May’s option winning the deal would probably be the favorite to win such a vote. But, in the awful mess we are in, this is the only real option we have. And the chances are that the Tory and Labour leaderships will prevent us getting it.
/ends
@David Allen
I’d be very happy with the May option versus Remain, but I can’t see it being politically possible.
Ideological Brexiters, Brexit tabloids, UKIP and Putin’s bots would all feed a betrayal narrative. Tory MPs will be too afraid of their local associations to go along with any Referendum that doesn’t give an option that ideological Brexiters can get behind. The Tory party membership are just too ideologically pro-Brexit.
If there’s no option on the ballot paper that ideological Brexiters can get behind, a future pro-Brexit Tory government (and once a Corbyn government fails there may be) would just leave without a Referendum, claiming they already had a mandate to do so.
I agree it’s not ideal. but it’s the least bad of the options.
Not should we fool ourselves that the outcome is certain. Polls are close at present, despite the wealth of information about how damaging Brexit is going to be. But it’s the only way we can Remain.
A three-way Referendum on exit terms, with Remain and a No Deal as an option, also has the advantage that it changes the pressures on May while she is still negotiating.
1/2
1) Just in Time methods are not just crucial to manufacturing competitiveness, but are also used in many other areas, such as for medical drugs and materials, such as lifetime limited radioactive isotopes and in Supermarkets.
Blithely telling firms to get warehousing will not work. Honda is one of the smaller UK car plants, yet would require warehousing equal to 42 football pitches to hold 9 days worth of parts to cover delays at ports on both sides of the channel ( export documents would be needed over there). Yet even if it were economic (it isn’t), those warehouses do not exist and where would they be built, or get permission to be built, in Swindon?
Radioactive isotopes arrive in hospitals from EU country tries, just in time for operations and cannot be stored or they lose their effectiveness.
Fresh food comes from EU countries ( 49% of all food) and if delayed at ports would deteriorate and could become unsaleable, plus it would not be on the shelf when required to meet the largely predictable flow of demand. There is no warehousing sufficient to store much of the UK’s food and if stored much would go off.
WTO tariffs on cars is 10%, which is more than the profit margin, so how is that going to work. If the UK was expecting to sell cars to distant markets, the shipping costs would be too high and it would be cheaper to buy them from Japan, USA etc. WTO tariffs on food and agricultural products are a business killing 20%-40% or 100% in a few cases.
2).
The Commonwealth has 3 developed countries including the UK, of which Australia and Nz are getting EU free trade deals soon. Canada already has one. After that, the average income across the remaining commonwealth countries is under U.S. $3000 p.a., in which case they are not buying many UK exports. They could buy them now if they wanted to.
If you take the entire continent off Africa and add up all of their GDP annual wealth, it adds up to just half of that of France. They are not buying Nissans made in Sunderland in any numbers any time soon.
Grayling was recently floored by the British Transport Industry telling him that with a no deal, UK lorries would have no legal right to go to the continent and no effective insurance.
90% of the UK’s exports are not done with the WTO, but with scores treaties signed by the EU, such as 20 with the USA alone. If the UK became the only developed country in the world to have tariffs applied to it’s exports by the weak and failing WTO, then exporters would be massacred.
The Leave campaign are liars and charlatans and how on earth they have got this far is a mystery to me. But after the BBC reports on the news yesterday, I feel it has put the wind up many of the non political public who don’t follow this closely. Expect a shift in polls.
George,
May needs a result which does not produce immediate blatant catastrophe. That’s why Chequers proposes a trading agreement on goods but not services. Many have argued that it is losing trade in services which matters more to the UK. But May doesn’t see it like that. Financial losses can be glossed away, but making the M20 a car park would hit the headlines, and see May thrown out of government!
However, the EU won’t let May have Chequers as it stands, and the Brexiters will paint whatever is “agreed” with the EU as capitulation. Then Labour will have to decide whether to join with the ERG in voting May’s “deal” down. May will no doubt threaten that in that event, we must crash out with no deal. That threat may be enough to cow Labour into abstention. If Labour have the gumption to oppose rather than abstain, May will then have to decide whether to carry out her no-deal threat.
That’s a no-brainer. She wouldn’t survive the catastrophe of no deal. She would, in this scenario, have to eat her words pronto, and find another way out. A referendum would be an awkward option because it couldn’t be organised quickly and nobody would agree what the question should be. Calling a GE would be much quicker and “cleaner”. That would probably be the only available drastic action that would persuade the EU side to extend Article 50.
So – If Labour are “wargaming” this scenario – It will tell them that they can get what they want, i.e. forcing a GE, if they have the courage to oppose May’s deal. So, they’ll probbaly do that – and then campaign that May has made a pig’s ear of Brexit, whereas Labour can “do it properly”. They may then struggle to agree what that will entail…! but, with the EU thinking that “things can only get better”, Labour will probably win.
Well… That mightn’t be the worst outcome I suppose. Especially if Corbyn has to cede some control to Starmer. But the mess won’t end in 2019 – it will last a generation.
@ David Allen,
“…our bad behaviour…..”
You can argue it’s unwise behaviour but it’s not “bad behaviour”. If we are members of anything at all like NATO, the WTO, the WHO, the UN then we should be free, as a democratic country, to decide to either remain, or leave, as we see fit.
Just as you or I can leave our partners if we choose, or they can leave us. It’s not necessarily the leaver that’s bad and the remainer who’s good. It’s probably better not to go there at all by trying to apportion blame!
With this thread being a week old, if you want to continue the debate, you can add comments on the Social Democrat Group Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/SocialDemocratGroup/posts/2231833953729410?__tn__=-R