Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting interview with the boss of TechUK this morning:

"We know little about how Brexit will evolve. Is it possible to foresee the impact on tech companies?

You’re right, we don’t know, which is a bit concerning in itself, a year on, and it depends on the outcome. Two issues really need to be got right among a list of five that we recently published. The first issue is data. The point about services is that it’s really driven by data. Data flows in the UK is about 3 per cent of GDP, but it’s 12 per cent of global data flows. So we’re a data economy, and a lot of that goes to the EU, so if we don’t get our data relationship right out of Brexit, that will be a big issue. The second big issue is talent and skills. The UK has attracted talent and skills from all around the world but a significant amount is from the EU, and in particular they’re very easy and flexible, which is what you need in a fast growing tech environment, so if we aren’t able to get those skills and keep them in the UK, that’s going to be an issue."

Someone should tell them that forecasting and planning ahead is a mugs game.
 
In relation to the following from Oxford University, a question for @Old Blue 2. @peteblue et al. I know you don't like forecasting, but it seems reasonable to believe that a government who are keen on reducing migration and are enacting a policy for which a large part was about 'taking back control' of migration will have fewer workers coming from abroad. Therefore you might also assume it would be sensible to invest heavily in training native people to fill that gap. Do you believe the government are doing enough to ensure Britain has the skills required to thrive? Are they doing enough to equip the 'left behind' with the skills they need to not be left behind? As an example, whilst the chancellor has expressed support for autonomous vehicles this week, have they offered any support to help drivers retrain? Or is that kind of forecasting just a bit silly?

From Oxford University:

"A new and dramatic wrinkle seems to be added to the process of Brexit talks every week. But rumbling underneath the political positioning are some fundamental problems for business. Perhaps the most startling challenge is the prospect of a cavernous skills gap.

A lot of attention has been paid to the problems of low-skilled workers – the “left-behind” who voted for Brexit in the first place, and the migrants who are currently propping up the agricultural economy and doing the jobs that UK workers don’t want to do. But a more pressing issue is the fact that for too long a large proportion of our skilled labour has been coming from outside the UK.

This is not only in the form of skilled individuals who are recruited to work for companies and public sector organisations in the UK, but also in the way Britain outsources the manufacture of complex parts to companies in the rest of Europe.


Can the UK bring skills back home? bibiphoto/Shutterstock
Qualified successes
After Brexit – and already people are starting to drain away from the country – there will be virtually nobody to fill the gap between low skilled and unskilled labour at the bottom, and highly specialised professionals at the top.

This is because over the past 20 years the UK has lost the training habit for skilled technician-level people. The country will soon pay the price unless the government and the business sector can work together quickly to redress the balance.

First, we need to reduce our current obsession with the “traditional” academic education route, in which GCSEs lead to A-levels, which lead inexorably to university degrees. This has resulted in qualification inflation, whereby jobs that were once trained for through apprenticeships and college courses are now accessible only to graduates. Young people are racking up large amounts of debt in pursuit of degrees that will never “pay for themselves” in terms of large salaries. And yet there seems to be no alternative.

Second, we need to increase both the quality and status of technical education and training. It should not be the B-stream option for students whose A-level results are not good enough for university, but a positive choice that is seen to lead to solid employment opportunities.


A new approach to higher ed. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
It is ironic that, when polytechnics became universities after the Further and Higher Education Act in 1992, one of the first things they did was phase out BTECs and other sub-degree technical qualifications, passing them on to colleges of further education.

This sent out a clear message about the worth of these qualifications, and therefore of the benefits of pursuing them. Reversing this perception, and raising the profile and prestige of the technical training route, will require new leadership from the sector.

Staying put
Finally, there needs to be a fundamental rethink of recruitment, training, and HR policies on the part of employers. Recruitment has become very lazy: almost every job description now seems to start with the word “graduate”. Training, too, has become truncated and superficial – so-called “apprenticeships” tend to last no longer than a year, and are more like work experience than developing the next generation of skilled workers.

It’s as if employers have believed the hype about people who expect to move jobs every couple of years, and have given up rather than giving them reason to stay.

There are some honourable exceptions. Accountant and consultancy firm PwC introduced a Higher Apprenticeship that provides a work-based route to chartered accountant status straight from school. And Rolls Royce’s engineering apprenticeships are successfully competing with top universities to attract talented young people.


Engineering a new deal for apprentices. Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock
The benefits to both sides are clear. New recruits are paid throughout their training – not a lot at first, maybe, but it’s better than accumulating debt. And the companies can train them in precisely the skills and behaviours they need. In addition, if the trainees are treated well and can see a clear path to progress through the company, there is little reason for them to leave. Employers can continue to reap the benefits of their investment.

There will always be people for whom a traditional academic education is the best choice, and jobs that are particularly suited to graduates. Similarly, there will always be people who are naturally inclined to move about, eager to change jobs, employers, and even careers at regular intervals. But there is no reason to assume that everyone is like this – and nothing to suggest that it would be good for employers or the economy if they were.

If nothing else, the spectre of Brexit has at least forced many within the UK to take a long, hard look at our highly unbalanced economy and recognise where we have let things slide. Whatever happens in the future, the balance has to be restored, and that means starting now."

Good article. The country has allowed things to slide, but at least now companies will be forced to train people again. The rush for degrees as opposed to gaining knowledge and experience has for too long been the difference between the U.K. and Germany. However that is in part down to the ‘imbalance’ referred to in the piece. Brexit gives us the incentive to fix this imbalance, which will be better for our people.......
 
Cheaper exports also mean more expensive imports of raw materials, which means more expensive production costs, which means laying people off, which means less taxes, which means less for UK services.

Case in point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42088699

"Trading conditions for UK retailers continue to be difficult due to a number of factors including economic uncertainty, rising commodity prices, increasing business rates and the fall in value of the pound which has increased the cost of importing raw materials and products,"

There's your stronger economy. 550 people about to be laid off just in time for Christmas if they don't find a buyer.

Then why was the BoE desperate to devalue the £ prior to Brexit ?......
 
Good article. The country has allowed things to slide, but at least now companies will be forced to train people again. The rush for degrees as opposed to gaining knowledge and experience has for too long been the difference between the U.K. and Germany. However that is in part down to the ‘imbalance’ referred to in the piece. Brexit gives us the incentive to fix this imbalance, which will be better for our people.......

That's the thing though Pete. There is practically no evidence of the government doing the things you believe would make Brexit a success. That's foolhardy, no?
 
As an aside, it's perhaps worth noting, especially when people question why the EU negotiators were adopting a 'wait and see' approach after May's Florence speech, that 5,301 EU citizens were deported last year (up 20%), with a fairly strong possibility that the government are breaking EU law (of which we are still bound) in doing so.

"The law surrounding deportation in the EU comes from Article 28 of Citizens’ Directive 2004/38 which states that EU citizens can only be deported from another member state for reasons of public policy or public security. There are only three situations in which deportation is allowed.

The first requires that alongside the public policy or public security reasons, deportation can only be allowed if adequate consideration of various factors are taken into account. These include how long the person has been living in the country, their age, health, family and financial situation, and how well they’ve integrated into society.

The second situation concerns permanent residents, those who have have lived in a member state for five years or more (you are not required to have documents proving this, though it is necessary for British citizenship applications).

For permanent residents, only serious grounds under public policy or public security will justify expulsion. What a “serious” ground is must be justified by the member states, but there is no guidance in the directive as to what constitutes “serious”. It must relate to a fundamental interest of society. These include preventing unlawful immigration, maintaining public order, preventing tax evasion, countering terrorism and preventing repeat criminal offences.

The third situation is for those who have been in a member state for the last ten years – or minors. In these cases, only imperative grounds of public policy or public security will be accepted. Again, “imperative” grounds are up to the member states to justify and the directive offers no definition. However, it is clear that they are stricter than “serious” grounds. Therefore, the longer you have been in a country, the more difficult it becomes to deport you. Case law has accepted being involved in a drug dealing organisation as an imperative ground of public security, but the general meaning of “imperative” remains unclear."

Where things appear to get interesting, because in some cases the Home Office have actively told EU citizens that they would have better access to their European Convention on Human Rights if they left the country. Of course, we are still bound by that at the moment, and said recently that they had no plans on leaving it. What they say and what they do appear at odds however.

To add to this mix, the UN have recently booted the UK judge from the International Court of Justice.

The principal judicial organ of the UN holds elections every three years, with five vacancies each time around. This year, judges from France, Somalia and Brazil were reelected without incident. If bookmakers were offering a market on the election, the odds on the two remaining seats being filled by Greenwood (the UK judge) and Dalveer Bhandari from India (who were both seeking reelection) would have been very short indeed. Instead, Nawaf Salam, Lebanon’s permanent representative to the UN, was surprisingly elected for the first time. That left Greenwood and Bhandari to contest the remaining seat.

In a series of subsequent votes, the General Assembly and the Security Council faced an unprecedented impasse. The former favoured Bhandari and the latter Greenwood.

As the plenary organ of the UN, within which all members are represented, the UK faced increasing pressure to respect the democratic credentials of the General Assembly. Just minutes before a third meeting was due to take place on November 13, it conceded the election.

It's particularly embarrassing because traditionally permanent members of the UN Security Council have had seats in the ICJ, and certainly no member has ever lost an election for their seat before. Coming so hot on the heels of losing both the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority though it's hard to reconcile this with the image of Britain as having a greater influence in the world now we're leaving the EU.
 
As an aside, it's perhaps worth noting, especially when people question why the EU negotiators were adopting a 'wait and see' approach after May's Florence speech, that 5,301 EU citizens were deported last year (up 20%), with a fairly strong possibility that the government are breaking EU law (of which we are still bound) in doing so.



Where things appear to get interesting, because in some cases the Home Office have actively told EU citizens that they would have better access to their European Convention on Human Rights if they left the country. Of course, we are still bound by that at the moment, and said recently that they had no plans on leaving it. What they say and what they do appear at odds however.

To add to this mix, the UN have recently booted the UK judge from the International Court of Justice.



It's particularly embarrassing because traditionally permanent members of the UN Security Council have had seats in the ICJ, and certainly no member has ever lost an election for their seat before. Coming so hot on the heels of losing both the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority though it's hard to reconcile this with the image of Britain as having a greater influence in the world now we're leaving the EU.

The U.K. did not get booted off. The U.K. judge who had already served a lengthy term tied with an Indian judge, after a few votes continued the tie the U.K. said it did not wish to waste the SC time and withdrew in favour of the Indian judge.....
 
The U.K. did not get booted off. The U.K. judge who had already served a lengthy term tied with an Indian judge, after a few votes continued the tie the U.K. said it did not wish to waste the SC time and withdrew in favour of the Indian judge.....

Ah, "it's not you, it's me"? We wanted it enough to put the judge up for nomination, and a nomination that no SC member has ever lost. That it even came down to a tie is hardly a glowing endorsement of our new place in the world, is it?
 
Gradual devaluation can be good for businesses. On the brexit vote we got a currency crash coupled with economic uncertainty and a collapse in consumer confidence.

No we didn’t. There was no collapse in consumer confidence or spending after the Brexit vote. The currency movement was well understood if there was a vote to leave. The ‘economic uncertainty’ was only that painted by the government and the project fear remainers, it was hardly surprising that the markets moved after the incessant doom laden forecasts........the £ moved from about $1.43/44 pre result to a low of $1.20 and steadily moved back to $1.35/33, which is where the BoE wanted it. The country talked itself down, the wild and inaccurate forecasts of doom, the continuous lack of acceptance of the result all playing its part, yet we continue to do well. Things will change, they always do, there will be many ups and downs, just like there always has while we have been in the EU.......
 
Ah, "it's not you, it's me"? We wanted it enough to put the judge up for nomination, and a nomination that no SC member has ever lost. That it even came down to a tie is hardly a glowing endorsement of our new place in the world, is it?

Bruce, it’s only you that seems concerned with our place in the world. We are just a little country that will do fine........
 
Bruce, it’s only you that seems concerned with our place in the world. We are just a little country that will do fine........

Forgive me Pete, but I could have sworn on many occasions that you've said that the UK defence capabilities would be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. It comes across as you cherry picking which areas of 'global influence' are important based upon those which we still have.
 
Forgive me Pete, but I could have sworn on many occasions that you've said that the UK defence capabilities would be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. It comes across as you cherry picking which areas of 'global influence' are important based upon those which we still have.

Two entirely different situations. One where we are negotiating with the EU and one where India played the ‘colonial’ card......
 
‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave
In June 2016 they voted out of Europe, now they’re not so sure. Meet the Brexit voters who have changed their minds



Dorian Lynskey

Saturday 25 November 2017 10.00 GMT

On the morning of 23 June 2016, Rosamund Shaw still wasn’t sure if she wanted Britain to leave the European Union. During the preceding weeks, she had been in turmoil. She absorbed a stream of negative stories about the EU in the Daily Mail, but wasn’t sure they were reliable. She trusted Boris Johnson, but loathed Michael Gove. Her family was divided. One daughter, who worked abroad, was a staunch remainer; the other an adamant leaver. Upending the usual age dynamic, her younger relatives complained of eastern European migrants costing them work, while her mother, who had lived through the second world war, felt that the EU had guaranteed peace in Europe. In the voting booth, Shaw finally made her choice: she voted leave. “To be quite frank, I did not believe it would happen,” she says. “I thought I’d put in a protest vote. The impact of my stupidity!”

As soon as Shaw saw the result the following morning, her heart sank. “I was in shock,” she remembers. “Even though I voted leave, I thought, ‘Oh no! This is terrible!’ Then all hell broke loose. The texts started flying. There was a massive fight on Facebook.”

Rosamund Shaw is a pseudonym. If she was identified, she says, it might inflame the bitter family row that has been raging since last June, and she still hasn’t told her remainer daughter the truth about how she voted. In the weeks after the referendum, she found herself feeling apologetic around EU migrants. “I feel I need to smile and talk to people who are waiting on me in pubs and cafes and say, ‘I’m really glad you’re here. I don’t want you to go.’”

A few months ago, Shaw was hospitalised after an accident. “That was the catalyst that brought me over strongly to remain,” she says. “Ninety per cent of the people who dealt with me were immigrants. I thought, what the hell are we doing? This is wrong on so many levels. We’ve opened Pandora’s box and that distresses me beyond measure.”

How does she feel now about her decision on 23 June?

“I feel horrified with myself that I was so gullible,” she says heavily. “I feel ashamed.”

***

Seventeen months after the referendum, the regretful leave voter is the dog that hasn’t barked. Since the result came through, remainers have anticipated a significant U-turn for many reasons: the protest voters who didn’t expect leave actually to win; the ones who felt misled by the promise of £350m a week for the NHS; the ones spooked by the plunging pound and, more recently, the faltering negotiations. Surely, they felt, enough voters would see the error of their ways to weaken the mandate for hard Brexit at the very least.

according to YouGov, the number who believed the referendum result should be honoured plummeted from 51% to 28% between June and October – movement from leave to remain is slow. In October, the proportion of voters who felt that Britain had made the wrong choice reached a new high of 47% versus 42% (the rest weren’t sure). But that’s not yet enough to change the political calculus. However the question is phrased, the level of regret remains consistent with that following the 2015 election. The people featured in this article are a minority.


“It’s not that nobody is changing their minds,” explains Joe Twyman, co-founder of YouGov. “Very few are, and when they are, they’re cancelling each other out, so the aggregate level change is very small.”

For experts in voter behaviour or cognitive science, however, this is unsurprising. Humans do not instinctively enjoy changing their minds. Admitting that you were wrong, especially when the original decision has huge ramifications, is a painful and destabilising experience that the brain tends to resist. Research into this kind of denial has given us concepts such as cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

“When you have a strong view about something, you’re likely to reject information that’s contrary to your view, reject the source of the information and rationalise the information,” says Jane Green, professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-director of the British Election Study. “We select information that’s consistent with our views, because it’s more comfortable and reaffirming.” In fact, it’s physically pleasurable. Some recent studies of confirmation bias indicate that consuming information that supports our beliefs actually produces a dopamine rush.

In the case of the referendum, there are additional factors that make it even harder for people to change their minds. For one thing, the decision in the voting booth feels irrevocable. Someone who regretted, say, voting for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 could choose another party in 2015, but someone who feels bad about voting leave doesn’t (yet) have a second chance. This makes life difficult for pollsters. While they can ask voters how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, a question about a hypothetical second referendum is controversial. Brexit opponents, including Nick Clegg and Alastair Campbell, have argued that another referendum on the terms of the deal would be legitimate, but many voters see this as a devious attempt at a do-over.

Being Wrong: Adventures In The Margin Of Error. “They think hard about something that most of us don’t have to think about at all. What these voters represent, however, are possibilities the rest of us often foreclose: the ability to experience uncertainty about even hugely important beliefs – the ability to wonder, right up until the moment that the die is cast, if we might be wrong.” And, in some cases, the ability to admit, after the fact, that they made the wrong call.


FacebookTwitterPinterest
Serviceman Mark Olive: ‘We were deliberately misled.’ Photograph: Lewis Khan for the Guardian
Mark Olive is a 30-year-old serviceman who lives in the south of England. Before the referendum was announced, he had never thought much about the EU, so he tasked himself with reading as much information as he could from all sides. “I was just getting a negative feeling about the EU, like it didn’t serve the interests of our country,” he says. The main reason that he was undecided until referendum day was the tenor of the leave campaign. “When I saw Nigel Farage and his Breaking Point poster, I thought, actually, I don’t like any of the people who want to leave the EU.”

Nonetheless, he went for leave. “I went to sleep thinking that we weren’t going to leave and in the morning I was shocked. I remember when I went to the cafe on camp, I felt very bad straight away. There are Europeans working there and it occurred to me that I hadn’t even thought about them during the campaign. All these issues started popping up. I hadn’t thought about half of them.”

Many regretters report experiencing a visceral emotional jolt when they heard the result. “From the moment I watched the results revealed live on television that night and my vote for leave played a part, I didn’t feel joy,” says “JC”, a 49-year-old former NHS worker from Manchester. “I felt dread and fear over what would unfold for our country. Then it transpired that the leave campaign backtracked on the £350m NHS ad. I knew we’d been fed BS.”

known as Lexit, persuaded that the EU was “a big-business dictatorship that prevented true socialism from being implemented”. “I had misgivings from the morning the result was declared,” he says. “The most enthusiastic leavers appeared to be on the right. I thought: what have I done?” Before the referendum, Berry had emailed the EU requesting clarification of the rules on certain issues. The reply, sufficiently thorough enough to demolish the arguments that he had believed, arrived a few days too late. “I feel that, compared with the Scottish referendum, not enough time was given for ordinary people to learn all the facts. To be honest, I didn’t know anywhere near enough to make such a monumental decision.”

Some leave voters U-turned months later, based on subsequent developments and revelations. John Chalmers, 60, runs a guest house in north Lincolnshire, a region that voted leave by a 2:1 margin. Although he was aware of the economic risk, he was swayed by his friends and neighbours, the rapid influx of eastern European migrants to Lincolnshire and the promise of more money for the NHS. He is now a staunch remainer. “I think we’re aware of a lot more now than we knew during the campaign,” he says. “What to do with this new information? Do we act on it or say no, sorry, the decision’s been made? I think we should act on it.”

Brexit. When I presented them with various scenarios, some chose a second referendum, but others wanted the process stopped in its tracks. “If I could wave a magic wand,” Olive says, “I wouldn’t want us to leave at all, because I honestly don’t think it would do anyone any good.” Towne agrees: “I’d love to call the whole thing off. It’s been head-in-hands awful, watching the lack of vision and Theresa May’s ridiculous culture war soundbites.”

Most people I spoke to felt that holding a referendum to decide policy, rather than to gauge public opinion, had been a disastrous decision in the first place. “They should have measured feelings so they could go back and negotiate,” Chalmers says. “A company doesn’t run that way. You’d need a quorum to make a decision like that.”

Hartley has been disturbed by the surge in aggressive behaviour towards people in Lancaster who aren’t white and British, including some friends from Lithuania. “It’s almost like it’s now OK to be racist. People aren’t afraid to show those feelings. Even if for some reason we don’t leave, I worry about the impact on the country.”

“For me, leaving the EU has cast a huge cloud of gloom and anxiety,” JC says. “The Tories put this mess in the hands of the British public, and for that I will never forgive them.”

***

Anyone who follows the Brexit debate via the news, Facebook or Twitter could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are inflamed with righteous passion. But Rosamund Shaw has encountered complacency and detachment among her leave-voting friends. “They won’t talk about it,” she says. “They have this Pollyanna attitude: it’ll be fine. I can’t decide if they’re being ostrich-like or if they believe it.”

Olive has also encountered a reluctance to discuss Brexit. “A lot of people who voted leave are very casual about it. They don’t think about it that much. The feeling I get is people have their minds made up, and they want to be left alone to move on to other things.”

For most Britons, Brexit is a phoney war that barely touches their lives. “From a personal point of view, things haven’t changed, so there’s no reason for them to change their minds,” YouGov’s Twyman says. “It’s like Vietnam during the Kennedy years. It’s this thing that you watch on TV but you think doesn’t affect you, and it won’t affect you until it’s your son getting the draft papers. I’ve been doing this job for 17 years and I’m never surprised by the lack of attention that most people pay to politics. We know that a lot of people voted to leave the EU so they wouldn’t have to discuss Brexit again, little knowing that we’re going to have to do nothing but that.”

Even when 64% of voters in YouGov’s latest poll think the negotiations are going badly, Brexiteers can shoot down criticisms by invoking “the will of the people”. But what happens to their mandate, and the perceived validity of a second referendum, if the will of the people shifts decisively and MPs begin to fear for their seats?

“The mainstream media is slanted towards leave,” Berry says. “There is no recognition of people changing their minds. I have been very active on social media to spread the truth about the EU and what we will lose. I have been accepted by the remain side. I have also made friends on the leave side, with those willing to listen. Many have changed their opinion, too.”

“It bothers me that remain politicians and public figures aren’t talking to regretters,” Towne says. “If you want to stop or dilute this thing, then you should be appealing to us. My friends and family who voted leave can all see it’s a shitshow, and we all wish we hadn’t voted for it. I’m talking about dozens of people. I think there are a lot of shy regretters who don’t show up in the polls. I think if the polls start to switch, then slowly but surely the discourse will change.”

Green says it would take a seismic event significantly to move the needle. She cites Britain’s ugly exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in 1992, which hammered the Conservatives’ reputation for economic competence. “People change their minds when something shakes them out of their resistance,” she says. “Symbolic events that are so politically salient that you have to adjust your opinion. I think with Brexit things will have to go badly wrong. Something that you can’t rationalise away.”

Twyman expects to see serious movement only when a final deal is presented to the public. “Seventy per cent of people believe that in theory we should leave the EU,” he says, citing a recent poll in which only 32% actively wanted to thwart Brexit. “But what if that’s 10 groups of 7% or 20 groups of 3.5%, each group with its own particular requirements? And what if the deal that’s struck appeals to only one of those groups? There’s huge potential for change.”

Until that happens, a straight leave/remain binary won’t reflect the more subtle changes unfolding beneath the surface. “I think people can see that it’s not going well, but is that enough for them to say they would have voted in a different direction?” Green says. “I don’t think it is just yet. People are more likely to say they don’t know than they are to switch sides. That’s the destination for a lot of people who have reservations.”

Far from being a dead zone of apathy, the category of Don’t Know – ranging from 10% to 15% in polls – may therefore contain some of Britain’s most thoughtful, self-questioning voters. Chalmers proposes that we think differently about the value of changing our minds and view regret as a virtue, rather than a vice.

“I don’t feel like you have to be weak,” he says briskly. “You can apologise, pick up the pieces and make yourself stronger out of it. If you’ve made a mistake, realise it, undo it and move on. Not everybody can do that.”
 
Think Brexit negotiations are going badly? It’s about to get a whole lot worse
When talks finally turn to the future relationship, the EU will ask what we want. And the truth is we don’t know
by Ian Dunt / November 24, 2017 / Leave a comment
2.33368096.jpg

Photo: NurPhoto/SIPA USA/PA Images

If you have been following politics of late, it will not have escaped your notice that progress in the Brexit negotiations has been painfully slow. Eight months on from the triggering of Article 50, Britain has managed to stumble over every imaginable hurdle. It has been like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Britain is desperate to move on from simply discussing exit terms—it wants talks on the future trading relationship. But the EU has maintained that it will not move in this direction until the UK offers some clarity on EU citizens’ rights, the Irish border (a nightmarishly complex issue), and the Brexit “divorce bill” to settle the UK’s financial obligations.

Until recently, there had been no progress on the UK side whatsoever. But now, after months of huffing and puffing, it looks like the UK may be about to make the much-needed breakthrough. On the divorce bill, at least, there have been more positive noises coming from No 10, with Theresa May doubling her offer from £20bn to £40bn. There is a chance, if things move further still, that the EU will decide “sufficient progress” has been made at its December summit and that talks on the future relationship can begin.

Great news, you might think. You’d be wrong. The problem with entering phase two of Brexit talks is that Britain has no idea what it wants out of a future trading relationship. The prime minister doesn’t know what she wants, cabinet doesn’t know what it wants, parliament doesn’t know what it wants and the public don’t know what they want. If you thought phase one was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Here’s why.

When Britain enters phase two, it will be confronted with a simple choice: do we want trade or control? And we don’t know the answer to this question. Indeed, we haven’t even accepted it’s a choice we’ll have to make. But the reality is that if we want lots of trade, we have to give up some control. If we want lots of control, we have to give up some trade. It’s as simple as that. This is why it is so unhelpful to hear politicians pretend this choice does not exist. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Each bite of the cake you consume means there is that much less cake on the table.

Global free trade is about cooperation on regulation. This fact has driven most British free trade advocates mad. They’ve been fed a daily diet of “Brussels red tape strangles UK business” for decades. In their minds, the word “regulation” signifies a restriction on free trade. But in reality, cooperating on regulation facilitates trade. It means two countries can ship goods between them without long checks at the border to make sure they satisfy domestic legal requirements. The EU single market is the absolute pinnacle of regulatory cooperation. It melds economies together so tightly that any service, good, person or money can flow freely, as if national boundaries did not exist.

“Brits have been told they can have total control and total free trade—they can’t”

Britain has said that it wants to leave this market. Outside it, there are three basic approaches to cooperation: harmonisation, equivalence and mutual recognition. Harmonisation agrees the exact same standards and how to reach them. Equivalence is slightly different. It means you have the same standards, but allow for different ways of reaching them. Mutual recognition is a much less significant tool. These are agreements, usually between government bodies, which basically say that they trust each other to do the tests for their respective countries.

Here’s the problem. Brits have been told for nearly two years now that they can have everything: total control and total free trade. They can’t. Britain will have to make important decisions about these approaches, representing different levels of control for different levels of free trade. Mutual recognition hardly gives up any control, but then it hardly gets you any trade. Harmonisation gets you lots of trade, but gives up lots of control. There is no total control, outside perhaps of North Korea.

The truth is Britain is pretty much alone in the direction it is taking. The rest of the world is consolidating regulatory arrangements, not severing them.

Brexiters love talking about the World Trade Organisation, which they see as a free trade paradise. But when we sit there independently, we will be presented with two monstrous infringements on sovereignty: The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. These two documents commit WTO members to basing their national regulations on relevant international standards.

All trade deals involve a similar loss of sovereignty. If we manage to maintain frictionless trade with Europe, it will be because we signed up to their regulations. Or we can turn our backs on Europe and sign a free trade agreement with the US. But as US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross made clear earlier this month, that involves signing up to their regulations.

If we really are intent on Brexit, we need to start talking realistically. How much control do we want and what kind of control should it be? How many jobs are we prepared to lose as a result? Will we sign up to European standards or American ones?

But these conversations are not happening. They are not happening among the public, who are barely aware of any of this. They are not happening in TV or radio studios, where producers run away from technical discussions. They are not happening in parliament, where MPs seem to be mostly motivated by tribal hysteria. They are not happening in cabinet, where Theresa May has literally banned discussion of them. And they are not happening in the prime minister’s head, given that she does not appear to understand them.

Britain should be concerned by the possibility of moving onto the next stage of Brexit talks. Because when we do, EU negotiators will ask: “What do you want?” And the truth is, we don’t know.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...oing-badly-its-about-to-get-a-whole-lot-worse
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top