Here’s the Brexiters greatest weapon against rejoin I think most people who have regularly read this Substack would agree, I am pretty firmly against Brexit. I still regard it as the single greatest mistake the United Kingdom has ever made. I care about this so much, I have dedicated hundreds of thousands of words to the idea by now, maybe even more than a million (I’m not going to count them all, that would be mad).
A bleak piece, but I think this was always one of the biggest dangers and biggest disasters of Brexit - that it would be so disruptive that it would be difficult to reverse, despite being so obviously the wrong thing for the country and something that was opposed by a higher and higher proportion of the electorate the younger you get.
But at risk of making you feel worse, I think you should re-consider Proportional Representation. I personally think it's vital to the country on its own terms, nothing to do with Brexit, but put that to one side. I think it's actually almost a pre-condition for rejoining the EU.
For one thing, the EU will be far more resistant to (re)admitting a country that could leave again with only minority support. That remains a real danger, and despite the obvious disaster that is Brexit, it's probably now a bigger danger than before. Trump's possible return to power shows that bad ideas can be proven bad and make a comeback in the right circumstances. PR makes it much less likely that a minority can hijack our political institutions.
Secondly, the logic of First Past the Post forces political parties to focus their efforts on a relatively small number of constituencies AND to remove or downplay policies that might upset voters everywhere else. The Lib Dems (my party) are instructive. A PR election in 2019 gave the party an opportunity to go all out on its pro-Europeanism, and it was politically rewarded for doing so. There are many reasons why the party did badly in the following general election, and you might argue that the party learned the wrong lessons, but regardless the party is back to targeting a small number of 'winnable' constituencies rather than seeking a broader mandate for its pro-European policies. FPTP makes pro-European campaigning look politically suicidal for any party that has aspirations to win more than a handful of seats. It's a vicious circle.
And thirdly, this country has a lot of problems, at least some of which are caused by political short-termism. PR is no panacea and no guarantee of better government. But I don't think supporters of FPTP can any longer credibly say that it provides stable or predictable government - at a local or national level. The EU does not require aspiring member states to use any particular form of democracy, but it does require them to meet various criteria. Arguably we don't need to change as much as post-Communist Estonia, Poland or Romania... But I think it would be complacent to assume that our road to becoming a state that meets the accession criteria will be a short one. Our problems mostly pre-date, though have been exacerbated by, Brexit. And they are serious, and are likely to make the journey to rejoining longer and harder than many of us are perhaps prepared for.
If you're against PR, I understand why you'd see this as a distraction (although I don't think you need to worry about Labour introducing it). But I think there's a strong case to be made that PR is one of the steps back to rejoining.
Back in the day I was quite active in the NO2ID campaign. One of the most interesting aspects of that was for me, a former Labour footsoldier who had quit that party over Iraq and then joined the Greens, was working with the local Tories. Some of them I found a bit arrogant, whilst others were quite funny and personable, but the point was that it was a bit of an eye-opened for me to have to see what the view from another side was. And again, Rejoin needs to work with views across the political spectrum. Over and over again I pick up people on sites like the 48% for conflating being pro-Europe with being anti-Tory. To carry on with NT's argument, this conflation is one of the Brexies' secret weapons - whilst the Rejoin Movement of Judea and the Judean Rejoin Movement slug it out the Brexies are laughing up their well-tailored sleeves. I have never backed the Tories in any way, but frankly i feel that I have more in common with the likes of Dominic Grieve or even Michael Heseltine, whom I despised back in my CND days, than I do with Lexies like Corbyn or Mick Lynch.
The thought of Brexiters winning is just intolerable. That's what keeps my flames of anger burning. It also gives me great pleasure to think that Farage etc. will go to their graves, gnashing their teeth because we are back in the EU. You have an amazing battery, Nick. You just need to recharge it! Don't give up. There are lots of us with you.
Wait until we see the makeup of the next parliament, you could have 80% remainer MP's.
Also the EU is evolving as is NATO, the US is not the partner it was with the Republican Party now, Brexiter MPs, some anyway, praise Trump but if he does turn his back on Europe where do they go then ?
There's a whole lot to play for in the next few years.......8 years on this project has been an abject failure if all the Brexiters have left is our boredom on the subject they are losing the case faster than I thought.
I fully agree with 'Marcus' below and urge you and all fellow campaigners for EU membership to stay the course. I have chaired two local 'for EU' groups and recognise the inertia you speak of. It's a malaise which is much more widely general in this and perhaps other countries. We need to maintain longrun commitment to this and to some other fundamental causes
Perhaps if the people on the centre-right who know Brexit is a disaster were more outspoken about their views then the pro-Rejoin camp could become more politically balanced. The reticence of pro-European Conservatives has long been a self-perpetuating problem.
I think that a lot of "traditional" centre-right Tories value loyalty highly, and find it hard to break out of the habit of not rocking the boat. This doesn't apply to the extreme-right nutters, of course, who are quite happy to be fractious and essentially blackmail the whole Tory party into moving towards their position.
Pro-European Conservatives knew that their loyalty would never be reciprocated by the Europhobes. It was extraordinary that they were so passive for so long.
Just to say: please, please, please, please don't give up. Your diagnosis of the problem is obviously right. In particular, you are obviously right that Brexit is an obvious disaster, and all those people on the left who think it is a mere side issue are obviously wrong. But just for that reason, the disaster can obviously be reversed *provided* we don't give up.
To my mind the next election is key here. It increasingly looks as though it is going to be an extinction-level event for the Tories. It's not guaranteed of course. But there are grounds for hope.
Suppose that does in fact happen. Then there is going to be space for a completely new centre-right party. One that is explicitly pro-rejoin. Preferably one that has the word "Europe" in the name. For that to happen there must be people to promote the project. Push it forward. Who would those people be? Well, you for example.
Whatever. I am not myself either committedly left or committedly right. Or, to put it differently, I vary. Life is complicated. On the other hand I strongly and unreservedly believe in truth and fairness, and I think Gina Miller is great. But that is all beside the point.
What is the point is a question of practical politics. There is a positive need in British politics for a centre right party which is pro-Europe, doesn't go in for culture wars, is firmly committed to the welfare state, etc etc. There is also a strong constituency for such a party. Currently that chunk of the electorate is politically homeless. That is a situation which badly needs to end. In particular, the project of rejoining the EU depends on its ending.
The project of rejoining EU depends on the main party of the centre left, and the main party of the centre right agreeing on the need for it. Labour will naturally come round to this position as soon as their opposition on the right is pro EU. So that is what we need to aim for. And that is true irrespective of whether we ourselves are left or right, and irrespective of our feelings about Gina Miller (feelings which in my case are strongly favourable).
I was a Remainer and, like the rest of you, have been utterly dismayed by the horlicks the Tories have made of governing for the past 14 years. However, while I understand the desire to rejoin and regain our European citizenship, I am doubtful that it will happen in my lifetime (I'm 67). The membership conditions will not be as favourable as those we previously enjoyed. Once the conditions are negotiated, there will have to be a referendum. There will be no rebate, we'll have to commit to joining the euro and then there's the CAP, which no one can pretend is A Good Thing (not that the Brexit version is any better, despite Brexiter promises). The right will also go in hard on the immigration issue and invent any amount of false narratives to prove rejoining will Sell Britain Out (Copyright herds of client media). The EU will also want guarantees the Brexiters won't drag the country straight back out in a subsequent parliament.
Rejoiners must confront these questions or they will end up like the SNP, denying the reality of a north-south border and unable to say what currency an independent Scotland will use. That just opens the door for opponents to argue that the whole thing is incoherent.
This leads me to conclude that the best approach is to ensure relations with the EU are as close as is sensible for both sides. This is a process that can take place in stages, ensuring that each stage is shaped in a way that makes backing out far more difficult than staying in. Case in point, the ECHR -- dump that and the Good Friday Agreement has to be renegotiated, as does the TCA, and there are probably other accords that will be damaged. One day, this might mean the UK finding itself a member in all but name and at that point it might as well rejoin. However, I doubt I'll be around to see it.
It's interesting that you mention the SNP. I live and work and Scotland and as far as I can see the prevailing political mood, even amongst those who don't necessarily back Independence, is a quiet fury that the country was tricked in 2014 into voting to stay inside the UK precisely because a majority of voters were worried about Scotland's place in the EU were it to leave the UK. And then in 2016 Scotland was dragged out of the EU against its will. Remember that the Act of Union was a treaty between two sovereign countries, and yet Scotland is now treated as a mere appendage of England and what English wanted (ie Brexit). Yes there are issues around the border and currency, but demographic changes in Scotland (70% of under 30's want it - I am 65 so I may or may not hang on for it) mean that Indy is coming. Westminster is acting like a controlling and gas-lighting partner -- isolating Scotland from its natural friends and partners in Europe and then saying "no you can't go back to them because I've got the keys to the house and you're locked in". It's not going to end well if England insists on remaining in a hard Brexit outside the EU with an increasing majority of Scotland's population refusing to accept this.
I don't that people in England are aware enough of what's going on North of the Border.
I totally understand your anger and sympathise. I am of the mind that the Tories deserve to be the agents of the break-up of the UK, in spite of the practical inconveniences involved, given all their efforts to bring it about. However, that doesn't change the fact that there have been no clear acknowledgements from the Indy side of the argument of the difficulties involved, nor have there been any concrete proposals for solutions that I have seen. Look at NI for some of the issues with a border on an island; carry on using the pound, sure, but the BoE isn't going to offer an independent Scotland a seat on the MPC and will set monetary policy without any regard at all for Scottish needs.
A few comments - let's start with the Bank of England and its monetary policy committee: As its currently constituted, does Scotland have got representation there? The answer is no. Does it set monetary policy with regard to Scottish needs? Be real, the interests/needs of the economy of the rest of the UK (and especially Greater London) will always outweigh any considerations of Scotland.
Second - the border: The ROI/NI border is particularly 'difficult' inasmuch that there are lots and lots and lots of crossings, sometimes the border is in the middle of a road or cuts through a field or even a building. The Scottish-English border is of a very different character with considerably fewer crossings. I.e. they could be controlled so much more easily. As another point, the SC-EN border is 'settled'; what I mean by that there are no great passions over the issue unlike in NI.
One other aspect as regards the border: The EN-SC border would become a customs and regulatory border after Indy-Scotland has joined the EU. However at the same time the border to the rest of the EU countries (and NI) would open, which would be beneficial to European trade for Scotland. It could even be the case that the landbridge with used to link Ireland to the continent via Holyhead and Dover could then be re-established as a link between Cairnryan/Stranraer and Rosyth.
And one other aspect as regards the border. In my view - and it is my opinion - controls on that border would be lopsided. Rather strict controls on the Northern directions mainly as the single market would want to protect itself from importing of dodgy goods. In the other directions the controls would be rather lax i.e. comparable to the rather lax regime in Dover.
Yes, Scotland would take a hit as regards the rump-GB trade but that won't be as big as some people imply. And on the fllpside, we'd gain completely open trade of goods, services, people and capital with all of the EU!
I think the idea that the UK had exceptionally good membership conditions will need to be reinvestigated.
Yes, various opt-outs, exceptions and exemption were sold as "victories", resonating well with the confrontational culture in British politics.
If one looks closer, they were not good at all. In fact quite the opposite.
Often failures of the UK government of the time to achieve certain criteria, repackages, spun and sold as an achievement.
Every time excluding the British public from having access to the actual advancement resulting from the improved cooperation between EU countries.
Sometimes it even seem to have been done on purpose, to ensure the UK citizen would not experience these improvements first hand and in the day to day lives.
The most obvious example being the failure to join the Schengen agreement.
A massive simplification for citizens of all signatory countries, whether they are traveling for personal or professional reasons, whether they cross borders infrequently or several times a day.
So popular with voters that several countries which aren't even EU members have joined it and that countries which are unfairly blocked (most recently Bulgaria and Romania) are pretty upset about that.
On the UK side the government did sign up to all aspects that made its work easier, like access to shared databases or collaboration between signatories' law enforcement agency.
And somehow they managed to sell the need to queue at passport control when leaving and re-entering the country as something good. Something any other European would consider at least annoying, if not outright undesirable.
The opt-out of the Euro was just needed to hide the government's epic failure to address Pound Sterling's stability issues. Which continues to be a problem which no longer need addressing because it was already bought as a good thing.
The rebate was a convenient way to hide successive governments' failure to tap into many EU funding pools. Partially due to incompetence but mostly due to unwillingness to provide matching national funding and/or having additional spending oversight.
So while several other countries used that to boost investment, help less well off regions or upgrade infrastructure, the UK just didn't get any.
Any rejoin movement will have to point this out, these eurosceptic lies that got repackaged as positives
I regard this regular piece as cutting edge, or a tiny halo hovering over the the mass of the media. I hope Nick can keep this up, forever cutting through what is a sad, hobbled subject.
I follow the geopoliticist Peter Zeihan on youtube. He believes it is almost inevitable that that the UK will need to humble itself and jump into be with USA and NAFTA ( free trade including Canada and Mexico), which we could not do and remain in the European domain, because of contradictory standards. Needless to say, the European standards are much higher. May and Johnson have also tried and failed because they knew that unless disguised and conned, the British public would never accept what USA are asking, which would be 95% in it's favour.
Whole areas of the public sector would need to be open for bidding for them to take over, notably areas of the NHS, including purchasing. This would mean an end to bulk purchasing of U.S drugs at knock down prices, as we receive at present, but to pay four times as much or many times that in some cases.
Food and farming would be the other area USA are most keen on taking over. The bans on routine dosing of farm animals with anti-biotics and hormones would end, as would the ban on chemical washing of chicken. Pesticide and herbicide residues would be legal on foods at at last 10 times the present amounts and insect parts would be legal in foodstuffs.
As more food would be flying or sailing the Atlantic and some would be coming from the pacific coast, food miles would be going through the roof. Are we not supposed to cut those right down?
It seems to me that in turning healthcare into more of a business, it would gain plenty of new trade for that business by making more people more sick from the stuff in the foods. For UK farmers to try to compete, they would need to adopt those practices and only organic would avoid it, if you can afford to go organic?
The big one for people like Sunak would be to allow UK finance and Insurance access to the U.S market but that was specifically forbidden. We would get duty removed from most products, which is usually just 2% off manufactured goods. So whoop-ti-doo!
An american trade deal is worse than a hard sell. It's a waiting disaster, whose only possibility is in the wish of a Truss, Kemi or Rishi, to want to get the credit from the Daily Express or Mail for misrepresenting it, then buggering off before the effects kick in, which is where we've been with the Aus/NZ deal now starting to severely annoy farmers. Meanwhile the Canada deal, thought to be the gold standard, has been withdrawn by Canada because they want the nutty version everyone else is getting and the brexiter's favourite near collapsed WTO, makes it easy for Canada to claim the same terms.
Brexit, the half arsed fake revolution that nonetheless takes down it's revolutionaries and consumes it's footsoldiers, after they've swallowed pills, taken injections and had a lovely chemical wash.
Please don't give up, for all the reasons already mentioned, and more.
We need your balanced view of the impacts of Brexit-as-implemented, and sadly will need it more through the next decade. There are further, diversionary arguments/options to be explored (EFTA, EEA, NAFTA, “Norway”, “Switzerland”, “True Brexit” etc.), but in a normal world they will all fall away in time due to gravity and trade friction, but only if we have proper scrutiny.
FWIW, my read is that Labour will not in any way prioritise reversing the decision made, but will tactically work to remediate the most politically pressing issues, some caused by Brexit. Despite our howls of protest, this may make sense, given the basket-case left behind the current government NHS, Social Services, Cost of Living, Education, Housing crisis, Council funding, Productivity, Devolution, corruption and fraud, to name but a few). As we see every day, those who voted for Brexit will fight tooth and nail in the face of any argument, and this is largely a waste of time and effort all round.
So what should then be the next Great Crusade? Whatever it is, it should ensure the UK doesn't repeat the offence (!!). It should also focus on better behaviours: competency, honesty, transparency, accountability for a start. It may not be too difficult to persuade the next Labour to put some teeth into existing compliance mechanisms, and set up public review processes, on the back of the shit show we've just had. This might neatly sidestep the "Brexit" tag, giving focus to issues more tangible and less "political".
In parallel to this, I'm increasingly convinced we should move from FPTP, to some flavour of PR. Much of today's Re-join dialogue assumes the EU acceptance criteria will be unchanged in 10 years - I think they will have moved on, and moving our democracy on from the Feudal base we have today might be a sensible step on the "glide path" to re-join.
Apologies for the length of post. All this to say, “Do NOT give up!”
The re-approximation of the UK to the EU is a thing of small steps. Regulatory re-alignment with the EU does not require grand gestures, and FOM changes such as Erasmus, Visa changes for musicians and those engaged in providing services can be arranged with minimal fuss. The larger changes probably have to come in Term II of Labour, and ideally once PR and Devolution (including the use of Citizens Assemblies) have been enacted. The UK must be made safe for 'enlightened centrism' to enable regions of the Uk to re-engage with their Continental equivalents, and for the necessary changes to be made to education (ignorance of the Continent in a major feature of contemporary life outside the SE. This allows for the changes underway in the EU induced by the Russo-Ukrainian War to work through (Ukraine and Balkans will absorb energy): for the UK to recover the ability and expertise to operate a mixed economy. Shorn of nostalgia there is nothing to prevent the rise of a Centre-Right Party - whether this Party calls itself Conservative looks unlikely
A bleak piece, but I think this was always one of the biggest dangers and biggest disasters of Brexit - that it would be so disruptive that it would be difficult to reverse, despite being so obviously the wrong thing for the country and something that was opposed by a higher and higher proportion of the electorate the younger you get.
But at risk of making you feel worse, I think you should re-consider Proportional Representation. I personally think it's vital to the country on its own terms, nothing to do with Brexit, but put that to one side. I think it's actually almost a pre-condition for rejoining the EU.
For one thing, the EU will be far more resistant to (re)admitting a country that could leave again with only minority support. That remains a real danger, and despite the obvious disaster that is Brexit, it's probably now a bigger danger than before. Trump's possible return to power shows that bad ideas can be proven bad and make a comeback in the right circumstances. PR makes it much less likely that a minority can hijack our political institutions.
Secondly, the logic of First Past the Post forces political parties to focus their efforts on a relatively small number of constituencies AND to remove or downplay policies that might upset voters everywhere else. The Lib Dems (my party) are instructive. A PR election in 2019 gave the party an opportunity to go all out on its pro-Europeanism, and it was politically rewarded for doing so. There are many reasons why the party did badly in the following general election, and you might argue that the party learned the wrong lessons, but regardless the party is back to targeting a small number of 'winnable' constituencies rather than seeking a broader mandate for its pro-European policies. FPTP makes pro-European campaigning look politically suicidal for any party that has aspirations to win more than a handful of seats. It's a vicious circle.
And thirdly, this country has a lot of problems, at least some of which are caused by political short-termism. PR is no panacea and no guarantee of better government. But I don't think supporters of FPTP can any longer credibly say that it provides stable or predictable government - at a local or national level. The EU does not require aspiring member states to use any particular form of democracy, but it does require them to meet various criteria. Arguably we don't need to change as much as post-Communist Estonia, Poland or Romania... But I think it would be complacent to assume that our road to becoming a state that meets the accession criteria will be a short one. Our problems mostly pre-date, though have been exacerbated by, Brexit. And they are serious, and are likely to make the journey to rejoining longer and harder than many of us are perhaps prepared for.
If you're against PR, I understand why you'd see this as a distraction (although I don't think you need to worry about Labour introducing it). But I think there's a strong case to be made that PR is one of the steps back to rejoining.
Back in the day I was quite active in the NO2ID campaign. One of the most interesting aspects of that was for me, a former Labour footsoldier who had quit that party over Iraq and then joined the Greens, was working with the local Tories. Some of them I found a bit arrogant, whilst others were quite funny and personable, but the point was that it was a bit of an eye-opened for me to have to see what the view from another side was. And again, Rejoin needs to work with views across the political spectrum. Over and over again I pick up people on sites like the 48% for conflating being pro-Europe with being anti-Tory. To carry on with NT's argument, this conflation is one of the Brexies' secret weapons - whilst the Rejoin Movement of Judea and the Judean Rejoin Movement slug it out the Brexies are laughing up their well-tailored sleeves. I have never backed the Tories in any way, but frankly i feel that I have more in common with the likes of Dominic Grieve or even Michael Heseltine, whom I despised back in my CND days, than I do with Lexies like Corbyn or Mick Lynch.
The thought of Brexiters winning is just intolerable. That's what keeps my flames of anger burning. It also gives me great pleasure to think that Farage etc. will go to their graves, gnashing their teeth because we are back in the EU. You have an amazing battery, Nick. You just need to recharge it! Don't give up. There are lots of us with you.
Wait until we see the makeup of the next parliament, you could have 80% remainer MP's.
Also the EU is evolving as is NATO, the US is not the partner it was with the Republican Party now, Brexiter MPs, some anyway, praise Trump but if he does turn his back on Europe where do they go then ?
There's a whole lot to play for in the next few years.......8 years on this project has been an abject failure if all the Brexiters have left is our boredom on the subject they are losing the case faster than I thought.
I fully agree with 'Marcus' below and urge you and all fellow campaigners for EU membership to stay the course. I have chaired two local 'for EU' groups and recognise the inertia you speak of. It's a malaise which is much more widely general in this and perhaps other countries. We need to maintain longrun commitment to this and to some other fundamental causes
Perhaps if the people on the centre-right who know Brexit is a disaster were more outspoken about their views then the pro-Rejoin camp could become more politically balanced. The reticence of pro-European Conservatives has long been a self-perpetuating problem.
I think that a lot of "traditional" centre-right Tories value loyalty highly, and find it hard to break out of the habit of not rocking the boat. This doesn't apply to the extreme-right nutters, of course, who are quite happy to be fractious and essentially blackmail the whole Tory party into moving towards their position.
Pro-European Conservatives knew that their loyalty would never be reciprocated by the Europhobes. It was extraordinary that they were so passive for so long.
Just to say: please, please, please, please don't give up. Your diagnosis of the problem is obviously right. In particular, you are obviously right that Brexit is an obvious disaster, and all those people on the left who think it is a mere side issue are obviously wrong. But just for that reason, the disaster can obviously be reversed *provided* we don't give up.
To my mind the next election is key here. It increasingly looks as though it is going to be an extinction-level event for the Tories. It's not guaranteed of course. But there are grounds for hope.
Suppose that does in fact happen. Then there is going to be space for a completely new centre-right party. One that is explicitly pro-rejoin. Preferably one that has the word "Europe" in the name. For that to happen there must be people to promote the project. Push it forward. Who would those people be? Well, you for example.
Gina Miller’s True and Fair party?
Whatever. I am not myself either committedly left or committedly right. Or, to put it differently, I vary. Life is complicated. On the other hand I strongly and unreservedly believe in truth and fairness, and I think Gina Miller is great. But that is all beside the point.
What is the point is a question of practical politics. There is a positive need in British politics for a centre right party which is pro-Europe, doesn't go in for culture wars, is firmly committed to the welfare state, etc etc. There is also a strong constituency for such a party. Currently that chunk of the electorate is politically homeless. That is a situation which badly needs to end. In particular, the project of rejoining the EU depends on its ending.
The project of rejoining EU depends on the main party of the centre left, and the main party of the centre right agreeing on the need for it. Labour will naturally come round to this position as soon as their opposition on the right is pro EU. So that is what we need to aim for. And that is true irrespective of whether we ourselves are left or right, and irrespective of our feelings about Gina Miller (feelings which in my case are strongly favourable).
I was a Remainer and, like the rest of you, have been utterly dismayed by the horlicks the Tories have made of governing for the past 14 years. However, while I understand the desire to rejoin and regain our European citizenship, I am doubtful that it will happen in my lifetime (I'm 67). The membership conditions will not be as favourable as those we previously enjoyed. Once the conditions are negotiated, there will have to be a referendum. There will be no rebate, we'll have to commit to joining the euro and then there's the CAP, which no one can pretend is A Good Thing (not that the Brexit version is any better, despite Brexiter promises). The right will also go in hard on the immigration issue and invent any amount of false narratives to prove rejoining will Sell Britain Out (Copyright herds of client media). The EU will also want guarantees the Brexiters won't drag the country straight back out in a subsequent parliament.
Rejoiners must confront these questions or they will end up like the SNP, denying the reality of a north-south border and unable to say what currency an independent Scotland will use. That just opens the door for opponents to argue that the whole thing is incoherent.
This leads me to conclude that the best approach is to ensure relations with the EU are as close as is sensible for both sides. This is a process that can take place in stages, ensuring that each stage is shaped in a way that makes backing out far more difficult than staying in. Case in point, the ECHR -- dump that and the Good Friday Agreement has to be renegotiated, as does the TCA, and there are probably other accords that will be damaged. One day, this might mean the UK finding itself a member in all but name and at that point it might as well rejoin. However, I doubt I'll be around to see it.
It's interesting that you mention the SNP. I live and work and Scotland and as far as I can see the prevailing political mood, even amongst those who don't necessarily back Independence, is a quiet fury that the country was tricked in 2014 into voting to stay inside the UK precisely because a majority of voters were worried about Scotland's place in the EU were it to leave the UK. And then in 2016 Scotland was dragged out of the EU against its will. Remember that the Act of Union was a treaty between two sovereign countries, and yet Scotland is now treated as a mere appendage of England and what English wanted (ie Brexit). Yes there are issues around the border and currency, but demographic changes in Scotland (70% of under 30's want it - I am 65 so I may or may not hang on for it) mean that Indy is coming. Westminster is acting like a controlling and gas-lighting partner -- isolating Scotland from its natural friends and partners in Europe and then saying "no you can't go back to them because I've got the keys to the house and you're locked in". It's not going to end well if England insists on remaining in a hard Brexit outside the EU with an increasing majority of Scotland's population refusing to accept this.
I don't that people in England are aware enough of what's going on North of the Border.
I totally understand your anger and sympathise. I am of the mind that the Tories deserve to be the agents of the break-up of the UK, in spite of the practical inconveniences involved, given all their efforts to bring it about. However, that doesn't change the fact that there have been no clear acknowledgements from the Indy side of the argument of the difficulties involved, nor have there been any concrete proposals for solutions that I have seen. Look at NI for some of the issues with a border on an island; carry on using the pound, sure, but the BoE isn't going to offer an independent Scotland a seat on the MPC and will set monetary policy without any regard at all for Scottish needs.
A few comments - let's start with the Bank of England and its monetary policy committee: As its currently constituted, does Scotland have got representation there? The answer is no. Does it set monetary policy with regard to Scottish needs? Be real, the interests/needs of the economy of the rest of the UK (and especially Greater London) will always outweigh any considerations of Scotland.
Second - the border: The ROI/NI border is particularly 'difficult' inasmuch that there are lots and lots and lots of crossings, sometimes the border is in the middle of a road or cuts through a field or even a building. The Scottish-English border is of a very different character with considerably fewer crossings. I.e. they could be controlled so much more easily. As another point, the SC-EN border is 'settled'; what I mean by that there are no great passions over the issue unlike in NI.
One other aspect as regards the border: The EN-SC border would become a customs and regulatory border after Indy-Scotland has joined the EU. However at the same time the border to the rest of the EU countries (and NI) would open, which would be beneficial to European trade for Scotland. It could even be the case that the landbridge with used to link Ireland to the continent via Holyhead and Dover could then be re-established as a link between Cairnryan/Stranraer and Rosyth.
And one other aspect as regards the border. In my view - and it is my opinion - controls on that border would be lopsided. Rather strict controls on the Northern directions mainly as the single market would want to protect itself from importing of dodgy goods. In the other directions the controls would be rather lax i.e. comparable to the rather lax regime in Dover.
Yes, Scotland would take a hit as regards the rump-GB trade but that won't be as big as some people imply. And on the fllpside, we'd gain completely open trade of goods, services, people and capital with all of the EU!
I think the idea that the UK had exceptionally good membership conditions will need to be reinvestigated.
Yes, various opt-outs, exceptions and exemption were sold as "victories", resonating well with the confrontational culture in British politics.
If one looks closer, they were not good at all. In fact quite the opposite.
Often failures of the UK government of the time to achieve certain criteria, repackages, spun and sold as an achievement.
Every time excluding the British public from having access to the actual advancement resulting from the improved cooperation between EU countries.
Sometimes it even seem to have been done on purpose, to ensure the UK citizen would not experience these improvements first hand and in the day to day lives.
The most obvious example being the failure to join the Schengen agreement.
A massive simplification for citizens of all signatory countries, whether they are traveling for personal or professional reasons, whether they cross borders infrequently or several times a day.
So popular with voters that several countries which aren't even EU members have joined it and that countries which are unfairly blocked (most recently Bulgaria and Romania) are pretty upset about that.
On the UK side the government did sign up to all aspects that made its work easier, like access to shared databases or collaboration between signatories' law enforcement agency.
And somehow they managed to sell the need to queue at passport control when leaving and re-entering the country as something good. Something any other European would consider at least annoying, if not outright undesirable.
The opt-out of the Euro was just needed to hide the government's epic failure to address Pound Sterling's stability issues. Which continues to be a problem which no longer need addressing because it was already bought as a good thing.
The rebate was a convenient way to hide successive governments' failure to tap into many EU funding pools. Partially due to incompetence but mostly due to unwillingness to provide matching national funding and/or having additional spending oversight.
So while several other countries used that to boost investment, help less well off regions or upgrade infrastructure, the UK just didn't get any.
Any rejoin movement will have to point this out, these eurosceptic lies that got repackaged as positives
I regard this regular piece as cutting edge, or a tiny halo hovering over the the mass of the media. I hope Nick can keep this up, forever cutting through what is a sad, hobbled subject.
I follow the geopoliticist Peter Zeihan on youtube. He believes it is almost inevitable that that the UK will need to humble itself and jump into be with USA and NAFTA ( free trade including Canada and Mexico), which we could not do and remain in the European domain, because of contradictory standards. Needless to say, the European standards are much higher. May and Johnson have also tried and failed because they knew that unless disguised and conned, the British public would never accept what USA are asking, which would be 95% in it's favour.
Whole areas of the public sector would need to be open for bidding for them to take over, notably areas of the NHS, including purchasing. This would mean an end to bulk purchasing of U.S drugs at knock down prices, as we receive at present, but to pay four times as much or many times that in some cases.
Food and farming would be the other area USA are most keen on taking over. The bans on routine dosing of farm animals with anti-biotics and hormones would end, as would the ban on chemical washing of chicken. Pesticide and herbicide residues would be legal on foods at at last 10 times the present amounts and insect parts would be legal in foodstuffs.
As more food would be flying or sailing the Atlantic and some would be coming from the pacific coast, food miles would be going through the roof. Are we not supposed to cut those right down?
It seems to me that in turning healthcare into more of a business, it would gain plenty of new trade for that business by making more people more sick from the stuff in the foods. For UK farmers to try to compete, they would need to adopt those practices and only organic would avoid it, if you can afford to go organic?
The big one for people like Sunak would be to allow UK finance and Insurance access to the U.S market but that was specifically forbidden. We would get duty removed from most products, which is usually just 2% off manufactured goods. So whoop-ti-doo!
An american trade deal is worse than a hard sell. It's a waiting disaster, whose only possibility is in the wish of a Truss, Kemi or Rishi, to want to get the credit from the Daily Express or Mail for misrepresenting it, then buggering off before the effects kick in, which is where we've been with the Aus/NZ deal now starting to severely annoy farmers. Meanwhile the Canada deal, thought to be the gold standard, has been withdrawn by Canada because they want the nutty version everyone else is getting and the brexiter's favourite near collapsed WTO, makes it easy for Canada to claim the same terms.
Brexit, the half arsed fake revolution that nonetheless takes down it's revolutionaries and consumes it's footsoldiers, after they've swallowed pills, taken injections and had a lovely chemical wash.
Rishi’s dream of autonomous Charter Cities is another policy that needs to be scrutinised - these are a libertarian wet dream.
And like Enterprise zones, very convenient for smugglers, drug dealers and criminals
Nick,
Please don't give up, for all the reasons already mentioned, and more.
We need your balanced view of the impacts of Brexit-as-implemented, and sadly will need it more through the next decade. There are further, diversionary arguments/options to be explored (EFTA, EEA, NAFTA, “Norway”, “Switzerland”, “True Brexit” etc.), but in a normal world they will all fall away in time due to gravity and trade friction, but only if we have proper scrutiny.
FWIW, my read is that Labour will not in any way prioritise reversing the decision made, but will tactically work to remediate the most politically pressing issues, some caused by Brexit. Despite our howls of protest, this may make sense, given the basket-case left behind the current government NHS, Social Services, Cost of Living, Education, Housing crisis, Council funding, Productivity, Devolution, corruption and fraud, to name but a few). As we see every day, those who voted for Brexit will fight tooth and nail in the face of any argument, and this is largely a waste of time and effort all round.
So what should then be the next Great Crusade? Whatever it is, it should ensure the UK doesn't repeat the offence (!!). It should also focus on better behaviours: competency, honesty, transparency, accountability for a start. It may not be too difficult to persuade the next Labour to put some teeth into existing compliance mechanisms, and set up public review processes, on the back of the shit show we've just had. This might neatly sidestep the "Brexit" tag, giving focus to issues more tangible and less "political".
In parallel to this, I'm increasingly convinced we should move from FPTP, to some flavour of PR. Much of today's Re-join dialogue assumes the EU acceptance criteria will be unchanged in 10 years - I think they will have moved on, and moving our democracy on from the Feudal base we have today might be a sensible step on the "glide path" to re-join.
Apologies for the length of post. All this to say, “Do NOT give up!”
The re-approximation of the UK to the EU is a thing of small steps. Regulatory re-alignment with the EU does not require grand gestures, and FOM changes such as Erasmus, Visa changes for musicians and those engaged in providing services can be arranged with minimal fuss. The larger changes probably have to come in Term II of Labour, and ideally once PR and Devolution (including the use of Citizens Assemblies) have been enacted. The UK must be made safe for 'enlightened centrism' to enable regions of the Uk to re-engage with their Continental equivalents, and for the necessary changes to be made to education (ignorance of the Continent in a major feature of contemporary life outside the SE. This allows for the changes underway in the EU induced by the Russo-Ukrainian War to work through (Ukraine and Balkans will absorb energy): for the UK to recover the ability and expertise to operate a mixed economy. Shorn of nostalgia there is nothing to prevent the rise of a Centre-Right Party - whether this Party calls itself Conservative looks unlikely