Brexit and Britain’s chaos and declinism No one can look at the events of recent days in Westminster and feel pride at what is happening to our country. It became clear that Liz Truss simply did not have what it took to be the prime minister and she mercifully resigned. This went beyond any ideological considerations; she just did not have the necessary skills to do the job at anywhere near the required level.
A good article but you've become incredibly dismissive of the Lib Dems recently. Your reasoning for not wanting a hung parliament is weak - it relies on the hoary old chestnut about coalition being unstable (Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, always has coalition). You say that you want us to rejoin the Single Market and I agree. But I can't see Labour doing this alone, having expressly ruled this out. But if we don't rejoin the SM, as you've said in an earlier article, it's difficult to see how they could make Brexit "work" as they've promised to do.
Also - let's move forward say 6 or 7 years; Labour had won a GE in 2023, they didn't join the SM, they didn't bring forward electoral reform and the country is still not where it needs to be. Labour are now unpopular, both with their members and the country at large, for having promised change in 2023 but having failed to deliver improvements - let's be honest, we're looking at then returning the Tories to power and all the changes Britain needs are put on hold once more. In an alternative history, with Labour relying on the Lib Dems for power in 2023, Britain has then moved electoral reform forward and has rejoined the SM. I know which version of history I prefer.
Nick's right. Some of us want a hung parliament. We want PR and we want to join the Single Market as a minimum demand and we don't have time to wait years. As a real world example. I've just sold a vintage Dinky Toy on Ebay. It's been bought by someone in the Netherlands. I wouldn't sell outside the UK now because it's too complicated to make worthwhile. Fortunately Ebay takes care of that, but at cost to buyer. The buyer in the Netherlands tells me he's looking forward to getting it but knows he'll have to wait as it will take a week to get through customs these days. All this points to further economic decline.
Electoral reform is something the next government can do on its own schedule and can, preferably, be done relatively quickly.
However, joining the Single Market, no matter how preferable, will need several electoral cycles.
Not just because it might be slightly taboo to talk about in the UK at the moment, but mainly because both EFTA and the EU will need to witness a re-election of a pro-Single-Market parliament/government before contemplating acceptance of a membership bid.
The best the next government can achieve is to return to a neutral position, rebuilding some of the bridges burnt since 2016.
The election thereafter can then be fought on a pro position and the government of the election after that might be able to "get SM membership done".
Ironically the fate of the Brexiteers will determine the timeline and potentially even the outcome of a membership bid.
If they appear to regain strength after their inevitable demise at the upcoming GE, the established Single Market members might just not consider it worth the trouble to have the UK back
Can you reference your comments about SM member states refusing to countenance a UK application? The timetable you suggest in my view leaves the UK destroyed.
I see nothing that says UK could not apply shortly for SM membership and lots of other organisation like the European Movement appear to agree. I believe waiting as you say will lead to much more poverty and dislocation.
I did not advocate any waiting or saying the UK couldn't apply.
I am just pointing out that the timeline of that process will span multiple parliamentary cycles.
Even a less hostile approach toward European cooperation would already help a lot, so I am pretty sure the next government will immediately start doing that.
We are in full agreement that any form of waiting would be rather harmful
I agree we agree apart from timeline. The FT has on 18 October on Youtube got an interesting video on the damage brexit is causing and Labour/Tory unwillingness to act in countries interest Recommend.
I still believer we need to apply asap and that with will it can happen quickly
And I admire your optimism, but I simply don't think the necessary trust and political stability can be rebuilt within one parliamentary term.
However, even the TCA, as limited as it is right now, allows for a much closer relationship.
Which should mitigate some of the issues and provide the government with enough confidence to go into the re-election with a much more explicit pro-SM agenda.
One of the main failures of the May government was to rush into Article 50 invocation without first securing a third tier for EEA membership.
So any membership bid now would either imply EFTA or EU membership bid or negotiating such a third tier from the outside.
I don't think either organisation will consider the UK reliable enough for respective membership until either the Tories fail to regain strength at the election following their defeat or have purged all the Brexiteers and returned to being a reasonable conservative party.
In this scenario we are talking about at least two election cycles.
Creating the option of EEA membership without being either EFTA or EU member will take a lot of time as it would be something completely new.
However, this third tier might also be of interest to other countries, so the UK would not necessarily have to negotiate this alone.
This scenario is less dependent on reform or demise of the Tory party as its framework agreement could include options such as membership suspension or expulsion with pre-negotiated rules for when that should happen.
Still, I cannot see such an agreement to be finalized before the negotiating UK government has demonstrated it can be re-elected and this new sense of cooperation is not just a blip after a decade of increasingly hostile behaviour.
However, even if I consider both scenarios to take much longer than a single parliamentary cycle, I would still be optimistic that even moving along either path would already improve the UK's position, both economically and politically.
There are signs of this "third way" already coming to pass with Macron supporting the European consultation, and the Truss government being willing to attend those meetings after Johnson had been totally dismissive of them. Other countries, like Switzerland, might have their own reasons for wanting a wider consultative body outside the EU to be successful too.
Just like this approach for the political cooperation, a similar approach could be found for economic cooperation.
I consider it the biggest fail of the Brexit leaders to not prepare that while still being an EU member.
Even if the new tier had only been available to ex-members of either EU or EFTA, i.e. continuation of EEA membership without continuation of membership in either organisation.
At Brexit the UK could have automatically transitioned to that.
Either as a first step towards even looser relationship or as a base from which to develop a new form of relationship.
Couldn't remember what it was called - it was the "European Political Community" and I found this link to its first meeting, which the United Kingdom did attend in the end among many other players.
Labour look about to repeat a historic mistake they made in '97. At that time they appeared to offer PR voting via the unique hybrid AV+ in the manifesto, albeit without certainty. Nonetheless it appeared the direction of travel. Part of the landslide was likely to have been votes gained for PR voting, which had been a fiercely fought internal Labour battle in the media, apparently won by PR.
As soon as Labour had secured it's landslide, the dinosaurs came out of their lairs to say no to PR, with such brief finality, you wonder whether the whole thing was just a trap set to draw in centrists and reformers. Beckett and Prescott were foremost on noes and that was it for PR for decades ahead.
It would have been easy for Labour to have delayed PR's introduction, given the time it would have taken to implement. Say it was brought in for the 2005 election, there would have been a gradual transition to a multi party democracy that mattered. Germany is an obvious example with similar parties, long stable periods of centre left or centre right led government happen but the extremes are normally out of the picture and they have a stable, successful economy and strong welfare state.
Under a PR system with coalitions, there would be no ERG bullied or led hard right wing governments, few or no backstabbing factions attempting to capture other party factions, no narrowly based inexperienced or ideological leaders coming through and messing things up, Truss style, as they would not have a broad enough support. Also, there would never have been enough support in Parliament to get the EU referendum through. If there had been such a referendum, it could and should have been framed as in Switzerland, where campaigns are held to their claims and court action can and does annul results for misleading information and lies.
While UKIP managed 12%, their best ever result in 2015, they might have damaged the other right wing party, but on a General Election turnout, they were never going to lead a government. Their sole purpose was to be funded by old Tory Money in a play book copied from the Reform Party of Canada, who were there to hammer Canada's then Progressive Conservatives to the right under FPTP voting and in their case, eventually merge with them. In the UK, UKIP and the Brexits used £25 entryism into the Tories and voted for Liz Truss. Now the Brexit party has morphed into.....ReformUK. Some co-incidence?
Apart from in 2015, where the forces of the right got a slightly higher vote share than those of the centre and left, at every General election since the early 50's, the right have been outvoted by the left + centre. Yet between 2/3 to 3/4 of elections are won by the right. Of course re-alignments would happen, but not to a one sided basis, as now.
Without a PR system offering some degree of greater continuity, no Labour or Labour led Government can ever leave much economically, which can sustain in time. Any body taken into public ownership would represent a honeypot for the Tories to sell off, from which they can offer the electorate tax cut bribes.
The version of Toryism that FPTP sustains now offers more extreme cuts and extreme deregulation, far beyond anything requested by normal business. This kind of government just would not be possible under a proper PR system and again Labour's leadership looks like missing the boat, allowing the future of the country to be trashed into further decline. Because the Tories or something worse that might replace them, would like political gravity return for unwarranted monopoly power under FPTP would put Labour back into opposition.
A good article but you've become incredibly dismissive of the Lib Dems recently. Your reasoning for not wanting a hung parliament is weak - it relies on the hoary old chestnut about coalition being unstable (Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, always has coalition). You say that you want us to rejoin the Single Market and I agree. But I can't see Labour doing this alone, having expressly ruled this out. But if we don't rejoin the SM, as you've said in an earlier article, it's difficult to see how they could make Brexit "work" as they've promised to do.
Also - let's move forward say 6 or 7 years; Labour had won a GE in 2023, they didn't join the SM, they didn't bring forward electoral reform and the country is still not where it needs to be. Labour are now unpopular, both with their members and the country at large, for having promised change in 2023 but having failed to deliver improvements - let's be honest, we're looking at then returning the Tories to power and all the changes Britain needs are put on hold once more. In an alternative history, with Labour relying on the Lib Dems for power in 2023, Britain has then moved electoral reform forward and has rejoined the SM. I know which version of history I prefer.
Nick's right. Some of us want a hung parliament. We want PR and we want to join the Single Market as a minimum demand and we don't have time to wait years. As a real world example. I've just sold a vintage Dinky Toy on Ebay. It's been bought by someone in the Netherlands. I wouldn't sell outside the UK now because it's too complicated to make worthwhile. Fortunately Ebay takes care of that, but at cost to buyer. The buyer in the Netherlands tells me he's looking forward to getting it but knows he'll have to wait as it will take a week to get through customs these days. All this points to further economic decline.
Electoral reform is something the next government can do on its own schedule and can, preferably, be done relatively quickly.
However, joining the Single Market, no matter how preferable, will need several electoral cycles.
Not just because it might be slightly taboo to talk about in the UK at the moment, but mainly because both EFTA and the EU will need to witness a re-election of a pro-Single-Market parliament/government before contemplating acceptance of a membership bid.
The best the next government can achieve is to return to a neutral position, rebuilding some of the bridges burnt since 2016.
The election thereafter can then be fought on a pro position and the government of the election after that might be able to "get SM membership done".
Ironically the fate of the Brexiteers will determine the timeline and potentially even the outcome of a membership bid.
If they appear to regain strength after their inevitable demise at the upcoming GE, the established Single Market members might just not consider it worth the trouble to have the UK back
Can you reference your comments about SM member states refusing to countenance a UK application? The timetable you suggest in my view leaves the UK destroyed.
I see nothing that says UK could not apply shortly for SM membership and lots of other organisation like the European Movement appear to agree. I believe waiting as you say will lead to much more poverty and dislocation.
We obviously have a misunderstanding.
I did not advocate any waiting or saying the UK couldn't apply.
I am just pointing out that the timeline of that process will span multiple parliamentary cycles.
Even a less hostile approach toward European cooperation would already help a lot, so I am pretty sure the next government will immediately start doing that.
We are in full agreement that any form of waiting would be rather harmful
I agree we agree apart from timeline. The FT has on 18 October on Youtube got an interesting video on the damage brexit is causing and Labour/Tory unwillingness to act in countries interest Recommend.
I still believer we need to apply asap and that with will it can happen quickly
I've seen that video and its is excellent!
And I admire your optimism, but I simply don't think the necessary trust and political stability can be rebuilt within one parliamentary term.
However, even the TCA, as limited as it is right now, allows for a much closer relationship.
Which should mitigate some of the issues and provide the government with enough confidence to go into the re-election with a much more explicit pro-SM agenda.
One of the main failures of the May government was to rush into Article 50 invocation without first securing a third tier for EEA membership.
So any membership bid now would either imply EFTA or EU membership bid or negotiating such a third tier from the outside.
I don't think either organisation will consider the UK reliable enough for respective membership until either the Tories fail to regain strength at the election following their defeat or have purged all the Brexiteers and returned to being a reasonable conservative party.
In this scenario we are talking about at least two election cycles.
Creating the option of EEA membership without being either EFTA or EU member will take a lot of time as it would be something completely new.
However, this third tier might also be of interest to other countries, so the UK would not necessarily have to negotiate this alone.
This scenario is less dependent on reform or demise of the Tory party as its framework agreement could include options such as membership suspension or expulsion with pre-negotiated rules for when that should happen.
Still, I cannot see such an agreement to be finalized before the negotiating UK government has demonstrated it can be re-elected and this new sense of cooperation is not just a blip after a decade of increasingly hostile behaviour.
However, even if I consider both scenarios to take much longer than a single parliamentary cycle, I would still be optimistic that even moving along either path would already improve the UK's position, both economically and politically.
There are signs of this "third way" already coming to pass with Macron supporting the European consultation, and the Truss government being willing to attend those meetings after Johnson had been totally dismissive of them. Other countries, like Switzerland, might have their own reasons for wanting a wider consultative body outside the EU to be successful too.
Exactly!
Just like this approach for the political cooperation, a similar approach could be found for economic cooperation.
I consider it the biggest fail of the Brexit leaders to not prepare that while still being an EU member.
Even if the new tier had only been available to ex-members of either EU or EFTA, i.e. continuation of EEA membership without continuation of membership in either organisation.
At Brexit the UK could have automatically transitioned to that.
Either as a first step towards even looser relationship or as a base from which to develop a new form of relationship.
Couldn't remember what it was called - it was the "European Political Community" and I found this link to its first meeting, which the United Kingdom did attend in the end among many other players.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-summit/2022/10/06/
I had read a newspaper article about this meeting somewhere a couple of weeks back, probably in the Guardian?
Labour look about to repeat a historic mistake they made in '97. At that time they appeared to offer PR voting via the unique hybrid AV+ in the manifesto, albeit without certainty. Nonetheless it appeared the direction of travel. Part of the landslide was likely to have been votes gained for PR voting, which had been a fiercely fought internal Labour battle in the media, apparently won by PR.
As soon as Labour had secured it's landslide, the dinosaurs came out of their lairs to say no to PR, with such brief finality, you wonder whether the whole thing was just a trap set to draw in centrists and reformers. Beckett and Prescott were foremost on noes and that was it for PR for decades ahead.
It would have been easy for Labour to have delayed PR's introduction, given the time it would have taken to implement. Say it was brought in for the 2005 election, there would have been a gradual transition to a multi party democracy that mattered. Germany is an obvious example with similar parties, long stable periods of centre left or centre right led government happen but the extremes are normally out of the picture and they have a stable, successful economy and strong welfare state.
Under a PR system with coalitions, there would be no ERG bullied or led hard right wing governments, few or no backstabbing factions attempting to capture other party factions, no narrowly based inexperienced or ideological leaders coming through and messing things up, Truss style, as they would not have a broad enough support. Also, there would never have been enough support in Parliament to get the EU referendum through. If there had been such a referendum, it could and should have been framed as in Switzerland, where campaigns are held to their claims and court action can and does annul results for misleading information and lies.
While UKIP managed 12%, their best ever result in 2015, they might have damaged the other right wing party, but on a General Election turnout, they were never going to lead a government. Their sole purpose was to be funded by old Tory Money in a play book copied from the Reform Party of Canada, who were there to hammer Canada's then Progressive Conservatives to the right under FPTP voting and in their case, eventually merge with them. In the UK, UKIP and the Brexits used £25 entryism into the Tories and voted for Liz Truss. Now the Brexit party has morphed into.....ReformUK. Some co-incidence?
Apart from in 2015, where the forces of the right got a slightly higher vote share than those of the centre and left, at every General election since the early 50's, the right have been outvoted by the left + centre. Yet between 2/3 to 3/4 of elections are won by the right. Of course re-alignments would happen, but not to a one sided basis, as now.
Without a PR system offering some degree of greater continuity, no Labour or Labour led Government can ever leave much economically, which can sustain in time. Any body taken into public ownership would represent a honeypot for the Tories to sell off, from which they can offer the electorate tax cut bribes.
The version of Toryism that FPTP sustains now offers more extreme cuts and extreme deregulation, far beyond anything requested by normal business. This kind of government just would not be possible under a proper PR system and again Labour's leadership looks like missing the boat, allowing the future of the country to be trashed into further decline. Because the Tories or something worse that might replace them, would like political gravity return for unwarranted monopoly power under FPTP would put Labour back into opposition.
Excellent article this week. Thanks.
Spot-on article, yet again.