Skip to main content

Imagine Brexit doesn't mean Brexit

Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Do you remember when it all appeared so simple? Just a few weeks ago Mrs May was still delivering the mantra 'Brexit means Brexit'. That was before the general election. Now it doesn't appear so simple, and Brexit gets softer, and softer and....why?

Reality awakens. The truth is understood. Brexit isn't good. It isn't good for the economy, for jobs, for health and social care, for research, for fighting climate change, and so the negotiations now turn on how to ameliorate the harm it will do.

When these harmful effects were outlined in the EU referendum, they were dismissed as 'scare tactics' by the Leave campaign. But they are real. The government will try to negotiate some sort of access to the single market. It will do so because much of our economy depends on it. That access will come with a cost, and we will wonder what is better about it. "What's it all about Alfie? The question will be repeatedly asked. Why leave?

Ah, I hear it said 'to take back control!: But will we really be taking back control when we will have access to the single market on worse terms than we have now? Is that really sensible?

Of course, 'take back control' referred in large part to migration. We will take back control of our borders. Yet, what is this control? Is it really worth a can of beans?

Our health service is struggling with a staff shortage. It would be made much worse by our leaving the EU without making arrangements to recruit staff from the EU.

Mrs May is right, now and belatedly, to wake up to the problem. Up until the loss of her parliamentary majority she failed to give priority to the status of EU citizens working in the UK. It was a bargaining chip we were told. Now, a more sensible if not complete approach is being adopted. Let's hope it leads speedily to removing the uncertainty hanging over EU citizens resident in the UK.

I have been giving some thought on slogans Mrs May might adopt to regain her authority. She would have liked 'tough on Brexit, touch on the causes of Brexit'. But now  "Soft on Brexit, soft on the causes of Brexit' comes to mind.

When the impact of Brexit was put forward as a reason not to leave, we were told it was just an opinion. All at once 'experts' were dismissed as mischievous and plain 'wrong'. They didn't know what they were talking about, we were told. Their view was no better than...than anyone else.

And so it was that estimates of a loss of GDP of nearly ten percent modelled by the Treasury, NIESR and the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE were dismissed in favour of populist Brexiteers.  Hardened Brexiteers pointed to disagreement in economic forecasts as a reason for ignoring them.  It was a bit like ignoring all weather forecasts on the basis that the don't always get it right - it might rain, but then again it might not.   Uncertainty of forecasting is no excuse for ignoring it. 

Similarly, warnings from the IMF and the OECD of the negative impact on the British economy were dismissed. "Well they would say that wouldn't they?"  Would they? 

So Her Majesty's Treasury forecast was a negative impact of between at worse -7.5 and at best  -3.8.  Rubbish the Brexiteers cried.  The Centre for Economic Performance forecast negative impact of -9.5 to -6.3. Rubbish the Brexiteers cried.  The National Institute for Economic and Social Research had negative impact of -9.2 to -2.4. Rubbish cried the Brexiteers.  

It became a mantra to dismiss such forecasts.  Brexit would be good for the economy.  The trick was then to make it almost unpatriotic to suggest Britain would struggle and 'could not stand on our own feet'.  Don't talk the country down.  "Be proud to be British!: "Britain" we were told "is strong".  We are up for it.  It was macho bravado! Things can only get better!  Ah, wouldn't it just.  

Certainly the realities of Brexit are  nuanced. But that alone will not be sufficient to mitigate the damage.  The simplistic 'the people have voted' approach is I suspect turning to a more realistic assessment of whether or what they voted for.  Brexit doesn't simply mean Brexit.   To say people voted to leave and to ignore the consequences is frankly abrogating any kind of responsibility.  It is a kind of 'now look what you made me do!"   It is time politicians were honest about it.  It is time they stopped simplistic slogans and owned up to the consequences.  This they are now having to do now Mrs May has lost her majority. 

Some of our EU partners are now saying they wish we would stay.   I wish we would too. 

European Council President Donald Tusk has quoted lyrics from John Lennon's Imagine to suggest the door remains open to the UK staying in the EU:  "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

You can listen to an extended version of this piece on The Thin End podcast.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they