The Thin End

One thing that strikes me about Brexit is how readily people entrenched in the in-out camps.  For either side, the reasons were 'obvious' - so obvious that neither side could see the point of view of the other. One oddity is that the Left had more reason to vote leave and 'destroy' the European dream than had the right. Yet, on the whole, the liberal left was taken on the mantle of knights in shining armour to defend the EU.   It left Jeremy Corbyn on a limb - his instinct was to Leave.  But his party had become overwhelmingly pro-EU. Once upon a time, it was mainly the Left who campaigned against British membership.  For Tony Benn, it was a question of sovereignty.  The left entrenched into an anti-EU position.  An 'ever closer union' based on capitalism was not for them the utopia they sought. During the referendum, I campaigned to remain in the EU, but I always understood the arguments for leaving.  Remainers wonder what went wrong. What wen...

Little has come from the Summit at Davos, or at least not much that indicates the major economies are coming together to tackle the pressing issue of our time: climate change.  Political leaders are more interested in promoting growth in world trade than in tackling its environmental consequences.  They are fighting over tariffs, but none of them really wants to restrict world trade.  Yet, that is what needs to be done if they are to stop carbon emissions.  A recent report  for the OECD projected carbon emissions from global freight transport is set to increase four-fold over the next quarter of a century.  This has to be added to the carbon emissions from manufacturing.   This is the carbon footprint of global trade.  Global trade is killing our planet, and there is little prospect of anything being done to stop it. President Trump attacked the 'prophets of doom' and the 'pessimists' over climate change. The child, Greta Thunberg says ...

The People's Vote campaign needs to decide whether it is campaigning to Remain or for a people's vote.  The two are not the same, and the arguments sometimes conflict.  It sends a confusing message.  To get a people's vote, they will need to win support across the spectrum. Simply telling Leave voters that they have made a "mistake" isn't going to win them over.  They need convincing that a people's vote is not merely a trick to stop Brexit; it is for them also. But, listening to some Remain campaigners, a people's vote appears to be a ploy to stop Brexit.  Their argument is primarily based on the idea that voters were "tricked" or "misled" in the last election. Their argument is another way of saying Leave voters were stupid, or gullible.  When they are challenged on this point, they will say "no, of course, we are not saying that", and then it is followed by a "but" - "but the Leave campaign lied!...

There is a saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.   This can be said of the Withdrawal Agreement reached by Boris Johnson with the EU.  The devil, as ever, is in the detail, and these details raise many issues that still need to be resolved.  Rushing the complexities of those issues through Parliament on Saturday is hardly likely to give them proper scrutiny. Boris Johnson will tell MPs that it is "his" deal or no-deal.   This, of course, need not be so, but time is running out, as is the patience of the EU.  They want to get a deal so they can move on.  So also does the British public. I am sure we are all fed up with Brexit, but it is the most significant decision our country will make for generations. Accepting a deal merely because we want to 'get Brexit done' is not a good reason. We need to be sure the compromise is workable and that it is what the British people really want. The withdrawal agreement is at least a...

A deal for Brexit is still on the cards. The British and Irish Prime Ministers meeting today say they can "see a pathway to a possible deal." As ever, the devil will be in the detail.  The two sides also say that a deal "is in the interest of all." That is undoubtedly true. Crashing out of the EU without a deal would be harmful to all sides and profoundly damaging to the UK. This much we have said all along. An agreement is necessary. We must hope that there will now be a meaningful dialogue to achieve one, and an end to the gameplay.   Finding a way forward that keeps the border with Ireland as open as needed for the Good Friday agreement and the peace process is essential.  Any deal must be put back to voters. People talk a great deal about 'respecting' the referendum result. But that result was not about giving the UK government a blank cheque to make whatever kind of arrangement without proper scrutiny. A key element of democracy is accounta...

If we do remain in the European Union, then it cannot be based on an "ever closer union".   One thing Brexit has done is alter the aspirations for Britain's membership of the Union forever, even if by some miracle we now decided to remain. The "ever closer union" was at the heart of David Cameron's "negotiation" with the EU.  In a statement to the House of Commons he made clear this objective: “we do not want to have our country bound up in an ever closer political union in Europe.” An ever closer union has been precisely what the UK has signed up to time and time again. During the 2016 referendum, it was often said by the Leave side that we only signed up to a Common Market in the referendum of 1975.  But this is disingenuous.   An "ever closer union" was incorporated into the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome setting up the European Economic Community (common market): "DÉTERMINÉS à établir les fondements d'une uni...

Nigel Farage says that Boris Johnson's "new" Brexit offer is a "reheated" version of Theresa May's withdrawal agreement. As I write the details are unclear;  but, deal or no deal, it doesn't stop there.  A no-deal Brexit isn't what it says it is.  Yes, we would leave without a deal, but it isn't the end of the matter. We still have to make a trade deal with the EU, just as much as we would need to make a deal with the USA.    Unlesss we want to capitulate to all the demands made many years of haggling lie ahead.  Our formal exit from the EU is just the beginning.   That, after all, is what the fuss about the backstop has been about; it is about what happens if we can't reach an agreement.  Of course, if we leave 'without a deal', then the backstop doesn't exist, but what then do we do about our arrangements with Ireland? We would need to renegotiate how those work.  Many businesses operate across the border.  Arrangemen...

The problem with Boris Johnson's strategy on Brexit is that he has closed his options.  His government have devoted so much attention convincing Brexit supporters that Britain would do great if it left the EU without a deal, that it is now difficult for him to justify a deal.  Why bother with an agreement if 'no-deal' is such a good proposition? The answer, of course, is that a deal is necessary, and even if the UK left without one, a trade deal with the EU would have to be negotiated.  Just as the UK would need a trade deal with the USA, so also it would require an agreement with the EU. So, none of this political mess is really about a deal or no deal.  A future trading arrangement with the EU will take time to agree.  That is so for all trade deals.  They are years in the making. The argument, now, is about the "backstop"; the arrangement that would kick in if a trading arrangement isn't forthcoming.  The backstop is necessary to keep the bord...

Jeremy Corbyn's position on a Brexit deal is a sensible one, whether or not people agree with it.  But no doubt it will be criticised from all sides.  Corbyn is set to frustrate those who wish for an entrenched position on either side of the fence. They want it all to be simple.  Either you are in or out.  Corbyn now asks an interesting question: shouldn't we wait and see what deal can really be achieved with proper negotiation?  He also dares to suppose that, with the right kind of arrangement with the EU, we "could be" better off out.   Note that he doesn't say we would be.  He simply thinks we should consider it.  After all, if we could get a "good" deal, it might make it possible to heal a divided country and rescue the United Kingdom from a constitutional crisis. Today on BBCs Marr show he teased out the distinction between those who support the EU as a matter of principle and those who want to remain but do not like the move to...

I really don't understand why we didn't approach Brexit sensibly. There was a mad rush to invoke article 50 and set the process in motion. It was a signal to voters that the result of the referendum would be 'honoured', and with a lot of macho grandstanding. But no planning for Brexit had been made. The voters gave an answer that wasn't anticipated. Complex trade deals take ten or more years in the making. They are also politically entangled. Brexit is a more complex trade deal because it involves disentangling our institutional arrangements, not just trade but our politics. So much of our security depends on cooperation with European institutions we helped establish, and many of these collaborations we would wish to continue. This is why treating the EU as an 'enemy' in the negotiations has been so foolish. They are our partners.  We should have considered that any transition would be politically difficult. Instead of making the transition ...

Brexit isn't an ideal. It might break the cosy economic and political illusion that all growth and trade is good. But there is little thinking behind it. It won't lead to better trade. It won't save our planet. No plan for Brexit The UK is  now just months away from leaving the European Union, yet still the government has no plan for Brexit. Sector after sector of British society are registering their concerns about the consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit.  The country is in the dark about what the future might hold.  Key issues remain unresolved, yet it is as if it doesn't matter.   Brexit, remember, means Brexit!   Whether we are for or against Brexit we should be concerned that the government can't agree on what kind of deal they want with our biggest trading partner - the European Union.   There is no idealism behind Brexit, and no vision for the future.  Instead, there is a blind hope that it will be 'alright on the night'...