Hi guys!
It's been a while since my last post....perhaps I've been suffering a bit of post-Brexit, post-Trump blues. Let's face it, as a Brit, living in a (relatively), largely democratic free West, our world has changed immeasurably in the last 9 months or so. Impending Brexit and all that that means for Britain, the British, for Europe, for our security, for our future, for our children's future, and the rise of Donald Trump with his extremist, nationalistic views are sending seismic waves around the globe, fostering and nurturing selfish, undemocratic, right-wing feelings that are divisive in the extreme and designed to undermine the democratic principles upon which we in the West have, over the centuries, built our nations!
For days after the June referendum I felt bereft, as if I'd lost a close friend or a family member. Maybe this seems like an over the top reaction to what is, after all, just a question of politics! And that may be true! Although the grief wasn't apparent in exactly the same way (as after a death), the feeling was certainly analogous. The problem is that Brexit is NOT just a question of politics. It has the potential to impact upon almost every aspect our lives from our health and health services to our military capabilities, from our ambient environment and climate to our employment and business prospects, from our education systems and the future of our schools, colleges and universities to our access to food resources, from our levels of influence around the globe to our everyday security....the list is endless and I feel I could go on all day.
I have just watched Tony Blair's speech to Open Britain (on BBC Parliament) that he gave on Thursday last and, whilst I couldn't agree with every word of his assessment of the situation, his message certainly struck a chord and I think he does have a point, and a bloody good point at that! In a nutshell, his message was this: we are better off in Europe and, despite the result of the referendum, it is not too late to stop Brexit. He insisted that it was not undemocratic to shout down the June 23rd result in favour of Brexit because 'we had been sold a house and were moving in without having seen it first'. A simple analogy perhaps, but the point was made.
Now that we can see the far shore does the grass really look any greener (my analogy)? Is Blair's new house any shinier, brighter, possessing of greater potential or not? I, along with Blair, would argue for the latter; that Britain's prospects appear significantly dimmed by a life outside of the EU.
He proposed a new cross party movement to tackle the issue, though the specifics were lacking somewhat, he suggested that it was the peoples right to change their mind on Brexit now the terms and costs of an exit from the EU are becoming more apparent. The prospects of a so-called 'hard Brexit' loom large, as does the possibility that (after the required 2 years of negotiation) we might exit the EU without any deal at all, something that may cost the UK economy ~£6bn a year in extra tariffs should WTO rules apply. And for all the furore created by the (ongoing) bill to trigger Article 50 and the proposed amendments therein, the plaintive cries of MP's wishing to have their say on how and what Brexit should like from a British perspective, everyone keeps forgetting one simple thing. Britain will be negotiating (largely) from point of weakness, certainly as regards membership of the single market economy, because quite simply it is not up to us; it will be decided by the EU, so that when Theresa May says that we will leave the single market she should be taken at her word. Asking for an amendment that insists for it to be otherwise is just naive and unrealistic. What's more Britain will be expected to pay a 'hefty' price for it's divorce from the EU, says Jean-Claude Juncker, which may be upwards of 60bn Euros!
Even if, after some (what would be) remarkable negotiating on part of the UK's team, some sort of deal is in place in time, it will not be a comprehensive one! It will at best, be a bit part deal that only covers trade in some of the more financially lucrative areas, such as the motor trade in which both the UK and the EU have vested interests. However, it should be noted that despite what the leave campaigners said (during the lead up to June 23rd) and still say today, German car manufacturers for one, have strongly intimated that they are willing to take the hit (in terms of added tariffs for trade with UK) in order to preserve the single market for the countries that remain in the EU. Yet Theresa May insists that falling back on WTO tariffs is a far better deal than no deal at all (with the EU).
I would suggest that before negotiations are even begun, maybe even before Article 50 is triggered, that the various likely scenarios should be put to parliament and debated long and hard to avoid Britain doing the honourable English thing, and going for a Brexit at any cost that could bring the nation to it's knees! For me, the cost of being 'democratic' in this regard is way too high! I am sure that many who voted for Brexit did not envisage these horrendous possibilities, and there is no doubt, they are horrendous. Is it really worth all that Brexit means just to avoid having a few immigrants enter the country? I say 'no'!
However, there would those who would insist that we would more than make up for the losses through trade with countries outside of Europe. However, this again is a misnomer. Monique Ebell, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, says the cost of Brexit could be as much as 30% long-term reduction in trade (if WTO rules apply) whereas the likely up side (from new non-EU trade deals) is not projected to exceed 5%.
But Donald Trump has said Brexit is a good thing and he promises a rapid and a good deal for the UK I hear you say! And I would say that Trump, whatever one may think of him (and I don't think a whole lot), has shown himself to be a man who, for all his bluster and controversy, is trying to stick to his campaign promises. And what was his biggest promise? That's right....America first! Sure, he'll give Britain a deal, but it will be a one-sided affair because he knows that if he waits till Brexit is done (and he must, as must we) then we will be on knees and willing to accept just about anything that is offered. He is first and foremost a businessman, this is why he wants to destabilise, even break the EU, because, to use a military analogy, he wants to divide and conquer. Why deal with a strong EU when he can push the right buttons and deal with France, Germany, Britain, etc on a far stronger footing? Trump isn't interested in doing a good deal for Britain, only for the US because that's his job.
Miriam Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, who is an international lawyer and is likely to be part of the British negotiating team, insists that the negotiations are going to be horribly complex and may take up to 10 years to complete (which could cost more than £60bn in extra tariffs- see above), a time frame that dwarfs the 2 year limit imposed by the triggering of Article 50. She has talked about how Britain has only 25 negotiators (a number that Rod Abbott, former director of WTO says is minimum number for making a deal with a small nation, e.g. Vietnam & many more needed for larger deals) skilled enough to deal with the complex discussions that will arise, and how that figure is woefully inadequate (she suggests 500 skilled negotiators would be more apt; Professor Jim Rollo of the University of Sussex says 900 is a more likely scenario) and that Britain is always likely to get the worst of any deal just because we are small when compared to the EU as a whole. And that is without the added pressures of trying to tie up deals with nations outside of the EU (the US, Australia, etc) and Gonzalez even goes as far as suggesting that it is just not possible for the UK to complete any of these negotiations at the current time ....the deal many want from Brexit simply can't be done given the limited time available, which means that the uncertainty that clouds Britain's near future is likely to persist for much longer, perhaps decades longer, than what has been promised and anticipated.
As Blair reiterated one huge effect of Brexit has been the divisions it has wrought in the UK; young against the old, North against South, Scotland against England. For me, in the immediate aftermath of the vote one statistic that stood out more than any other was the huge difference in attitude towards Europe between the over 65's and the under 25's. What irked me about this at the time was that the vast majority of those over 65 who voted to leave have taken all the benefits that the EU has conferred upon our society, and now out of an (irrational?) fear of immigrants, are willing to consign the wishes of our young to a more insular, insecure financial future. Now, after we know much more that annoyance remains every bit as real to me now as it was then. Now that we know the difficulties that all these negotiations will bring, the time that will be needed it becomes even more apparent that it won't be those over 65's who will pay the price, it will be this years school leavers. The vast majority of those over 65 will be dead (sad but true) before negotiations will be completed, yet my son, who was 6 months too young to vote (at the time, and incidentally built, designed and launched the most downloaded independent app on iTunes that gave daily updates on the Brexit debates) will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his (hopefully) long life.
Blair laid the blame for Brexit squarely on the shoulders of his 'debilitated' former Labour Party. That Corbyn was weak during the referendum campaign is no secret, but I would argue the case that David Cameron's misreading of the situation (with regard to immigration) and the blatant lies told by the 'Brexiteers' (the extra £350m for the NHS, for example) should also take their fair share of the blame. But apportioning the blame so long after the horse has bolted seems like a redundant argument, when perhaps the focus should now be more on what happens next rather than what has already passed.
And what of Europe if, and when, we do leave the EU? Will it be stronger or could Brexit be the catalyst for the firing of the European dream? We have witnessed the rise of right wing nationalist, protectionist politicians right across Europe. With both French and German elections coming later this year we could well be seeing the beginning of the end of Europe as we have known for the past few decades. Marine Le Pen is campaigning, as Cameron did before, on the promise of an 'in/out referendum' should she win the election. This is very worrying, if not solely from a political standpoint, then surely from a security one. Putin's Russia is waiting in the wings, rattling its' sabre, waiting to pounce upon a weakened Europe, whether it be economically or militarily, and that cannot be a good thing,
Now is the time that Europe should be pulling together, not ripping itself apart. The EU is far from a perfect institution, we all know that. But what if we re-thought our situation and went back to Europe with another, separate deal, one that says Brexit is not inevitable if the EU can reform; make itself into the properly democratic, fully answerable union that it was intended to be, then we might, we just might, find a way out of the woods that is good for everyone, good for all the member nations and its' peoples, good for the environment, good for our security, even good for the refugees that have perhaps been the over-riding cause of much of the angst. Can we do this?
As a great man once said, "Yes, we can!"
No comments:
Post a Comment