Examining the Liz Truss claim that Brexit hasn’t caused any “disruption”
If you’re into British politics, that means you are currently either being treated or cursed, depending how you want to look at it, with an interminable series of debates between the two candidates to be the next prime minister. One of them this week was in Cardiff, where denizens of the Welsh capital were treated to an example of this genre that was as dire as all the rest of them have been. Sunak and Truss are both terrible applicants for the position of leader of the Conservative party - worse, this has been known for sometime and it was one of the main reasons the parliamentary party held onto Boris Johnson long after it was clear he was nowhere close to up to the job of leading the country.
In Cardiff, Truss was asked about her Damascene conversation to Brexit at one point, a fair question. She’s never fully explained precisely why she changed her mind on this subject, so it was good to have it finally described by Truss.
"I was concerned about some of the disruption... the fact is that disruption didn't happen.”
This is a remarkable answer on many levels. First of all, you could look at the disruption the vote to Leave alone brought to the country, particularly what it did to parliament. But Liz can write that off as the fault of the Remainers - if only they’d rolled over from June 24, 2016 onward and just accepted that the referendum result meant anything the leadership of the Conservative party wanted it to mean at any given moment, everything would have been hunky dory on this front. So, let’s pass this one by for argument’s sake.
Then there is the disruption to trade as a result of Brexit, with large barriers to entry now in place for British businesses who want to sell their goods and services into the single market. There is also the difficulty for British tourists wanting to holiday in the EU to consider, with new entry requirements for British only passport holders buggering things up and Dover becoming a hellpit as a result. But you know, “F**k business” and blame the French.
Yet there is one bit of disruption that Truss cannot weasel out of that has been caused by Brexit, even within the current boundaries of the Brexit faith. She has championed the NI Protocol Bill, describing it as “necessary”. But if Brexit has caused no disruption whatsoever, why is this Bill needed? If there was no disruption caused by the terms of the Brexit that the government Truss was a senior member of signed up to, then why the need for a Bill to deal with a non-existent problem? There is no way out of this from a logical perspective: either Brexit caused no disruption and there is no need for further legislation to deal with anything, or disruption has been caused, meaning the NI Protocol Bill at least makes some contextual sense (even if it’s still a bonkers idea for loads of other reasons).
One could argue that I am asking for way too much here - I want the candidates for the Tory leadership to mean the things they say. I don’t want them to claim something doesn’t exist, even though they are championing a Bill that will deal with this problem that they themselves have just said is imaginary. The doublethink involved here is too much to bear.
I suppose I did ask for Liz Truss to explain what her conversion to the Brexit religion consisted of, so I shouldn’t complain when the answer doesn’t make logical sense. How very 20th century of me to expect anything better of those who wish to lead us.
2. Jacob Rees-Mogg admits he got something about Brexit wrong…..sort of
While Liz Truss has claimed that there has been no Brexit disruption despite heavy evidence to the contrary, Jacob Rees-Mogg owned up to the fact that Brexit has caused the delays in Dover. Amazing, yes? Well, let’s look at what he actually said.
“Yes, of course I got it wrong, but I got it wrong for the right reason, if I may put it that way. The point I was making was that the only delays would be caused by the French if they decided not to allow British people to pass through freely. They have decided to do that.”
To summarise his comments, if I may: yes, I was wrong when I said there would be no delays at Dover because of Brexit but only because of the French being mean to us. So, when we said that Brexit would mean taking back control, deciding our own destiny and we held all the cards, what we meant was all of that would only be true if the French decided to play along. Otherwise, as you can plainly see, we are sort of in their hands, really.
The idea that Brexit would have worked if only France and other EU countries had done everything we could have wished them to is possibly the stupidest thing about Brexit, and that is against some stiff competition. It’s like punching a stranger in the face in a bar and then blaming them when they get upset about it. Perhaps we might have thought about what the actual consequences of Brexit could be before we went ahead with it?
And yet, again, I am forced to give Rees-Mogg some credit here for at least admitting that there are in fact delays at Dover at all and that the MSM haven’t just made them up. Doing so, even while pathetically blaming the French, puts him one step above Liz Truss. Who, just to remind you all, is very likely to be prime minster exactly one month from today.
Thanks for reading. Please subscribe if you haven’t already and I’ll be back next week with more of the worst of Brexit.
MissTrust claims there have been no disruptions. A total lie of course as highlighted by Nick above. Brexiters all too often claim ''project fear'' and suggest Remainiers ''over egged'' their predictions of ''doom and gloom''.
What MissTrust and other leading brexiters fail to address is whether Brexit has actually made things BETTER as promised in 2016. Had it done so, we'd not have the ghoulish child catcher that is Rees-Mogg stating that we may not see the benefits of Brexit for another FIVE DECADES!
Absolutely spot-on comments.