24th August 2021
Once upon a time…
…there was a settled political narrative – a ‘sacred timeline’ – where the forces of Remain and Leave battled for the future of the United Kingdom in the wider world.
For a long period, the forces of Remain had the ascendancy, and those forces grew complacent.
Then suddenly, the forces Leave had the upper-hand and they took their rare opportunity.
And on 23 June 2016, there was ‘the Snap’ where about half the political universe (48.2% actually) were cast into the political void.
But unlike the Marvel adaptation of this political crisis, ‘the Snap’ has not been reversed, despite the spirited attempts of Remain campaigners to travel back in time and revoke various things.
Still the ‘sacred timeline’ has nonetheless shattered, and there are now various multiplying narratives about Brexit.
In a few of these narratives, Brexit is going well and the dire warnings of Remain were mere projected fears.
In other narratives, nothing much has changed and there is a wonder at what all the fuss was about.
Some even have managed to escape fully into the past, and they spend their lives in a make-believe world of the 1950s.
In Remain narratives, Brexit is a plain disaster and the destructive events unfold issue by issue.
But the one common feature of all these variant timelines – the ‘nexus’ belief – is that the narrative validates the views of each person.
And so we now have a shattered, fragmented polity where concurrently we have contrasting – even contradictory – political narratives.
Is this sustainable?
Well.
In the less fantastical world of superhero comics such a dislocation is eventually followed by a cross-over event where various divergent storylines are somehow synthesised back into a single continuity.
(And then after a while that continuity will disentangle again, and so on.)
In the world of Brexit, however, there is little sign of such a synthesis.
If anything, the Remain and the Leave narratives are diverging further and further.
Any real-world crisis – infinite or otherwise – may not be enough to shake the Leave narratives.
And any real-world success will not be enough to shake the Remain narratives.
At least the Marvel cinematic universe resolved their ‘snap’ story before commencing their ‘multiverse’ stories.
Post-Brexit United Kingdom, being yet more ambitious, is doing both at the same time.
Brace, brace, brace, brace & ∞∞∞∞∞
**
Thank you for reading.
Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Brexit is too big an issue to be properly understood by ANYONE – even topic specialists – right now I feel. Just think of its ramifications and which subject specialists deal with each of them …
– changes in international trade routes and the isolation of the UK (as the country is now but maybe won’t be in the future) from the essential trade routes connecting Ireland-UK-EU
– another big barrier to UK professionals and managers achieving the transnational posts which will drive worldwide business development and culture from now on
– disinvestment over time, making it harder for us to adapt to and mitigate climate change
Brexit is observed differently depending on where you stand in the space time continuum.
A remain observer, for example, might suggest that replacing the CE mark for electrical goods sold in the UK (likely to be delayed by a year now) will increase prices and reduce choice as all the test labs throughout the world have to do unique UK tests on new products. While a leave observer will say that having a unique UK safety mark will improve the quality and safety of the fewer and more expensive products available in the UK (whether it will or not).
Sums the whole mess up, really: facts that bear critical, logical analysis, versus magical, wishful thinking…
The fairy tale does indeed continue with the princess sound asleep and the brambles growing apace around the castle tower. The spell unlikely to be broken for many a year.
Just this morning received the following from a British Government trade employee overseas who I was shocked to learn some years back was a Brexiteer. Asking them their current views they said:
“I think much longer time is needed to assess the impact of Brexit. However, I’m not a fan of the EU, so yes, supportive of Brexit, hope it works out for the UK.“
Hope springs eternal from this East European national but really all I can do is despair at the level of analysis within Government circles.
No doubt a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…
UK agriculture is more affected than most by Brexit, but the effects are set to play out over a period of years.
For instance, UK farm subsidies still shadow EU payments (using the same format, systems and régime) and it will be interesting to see whether the Autumn Spending Review extends this, or not. When one raises with other farmers the ending of fam subsidies, their eyes glaze over; absolutely no one wants to talk about it. I have heard no one say they have planned to address this, and I come away with the impression that many farmers voted to end subsidies – but only for other people.
The ‘Leave’ narrative on social media has changed, though, from “grasping the opportunities of Brexit” to “it will be rough but it will, in the long term, be worth it”. To whom, I wonder?
But the realities are beginning to have a serious impact: I know of one Welsh farmer who killed himself, and know another very well who is facing foreclosure on his farm. Both had their business plans disrupted by Brexit.
Sheep exports to the EU (our main customer) have fallen by 25% even with the trade agreement, primarily due to trade friction. Prices have held up, so far, but I suppose there will be many early retirements as some down-size to mitigate their loss, whilst others will expand to try to overcome finacial difficulties by dint of scale.
The interesting thing is how like an article of faith is Brexit, at least for Tory voters: discussion doesn’t really come into it!
It’s all so Alice in Wonderland / Through the Looking Glass that if it was revealed that a malign force had put LSD in the drinking water I wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Certainly we’re living through an era of mass ensorcellement that indicates we puny humans are largely still failing in ethical rationality.
LSD in the drinking water? So that explains it. Man, it’s been a bad trip so far!
I’ve come to accept that Brexit was always going to be more of a process than an actual event. Therefore after 45 years of EEC/EC and finally EU entanglement my expectations of an easy exit and transition into some free trade Shangri-la was never on the cards.
My initial preference was an EFTA/EEA or quaisi Norway option route out but that option was poisoned by Cameron/Osborne during the referendum.
So, we’ve ended up with a harder Brexit that many leavers would have liked equally, it’s better than the BRINO that Mrs May and Robbins initially tried to fob off an unsuspecting UK public.
The trade and regulatory benefits of being out of the EU will take 7-10 years to play out – rather hoping that the political/demos benefits of being out of a remote/sclerotic entity happen rather sooner.
What are the trade and regulatory benefits?
So, had we signed May’s WA(1) we would have needed EUs permission to conclude trade deals with other 3rd countries – so with the UK being outside of the CU , we can at least look forward to creating trade deals with other countries. It will, of course take time to create new deals outside of the EU.
Being outside of the EUs regulatory orbit is a longer term project – two immediate benefits are being out of the disastrously expensive and inefficient Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. We now have the sovereign right to promote agricultural & fisheries policies better suited to our economic status.
One of the biggest prizes in terms of regulatory autonomy is not being constrained by a backwards looking and upcoming Digital Services Market. Here the EU is taking its usual precautionary approach to all things technical so that it can never compete with the likes of Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix Google et al. Unicorns don’t seem to fit the EU market model.
More relevantly, the UK, US and China need to create digital standards in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning that players in the EU can only dream of.
Brexit was /is a long term process.
The CAP is always an Aunt Sally, but the annual cost in the UK (£3bn) is hardly ‘disastrously expensive’.
Few recall that, had the UK not joined the EEC, our domestic ag policy would have shadowed the CAP’s main provisions (see White Paper ‘Food From Our Own Resources’).
What has occurred in the meantime in the UK is a shift to the Right, which views agricultural subsidies as bad per se. That hasn’t happened overnight, of course, the UK opposed CAP reform consistently since at least the mid 1990’s.
Ag support will, on present policy proposals, dwindle to insignificance.
I don’t quite buy the CAP as an aunt Sally.
It still represents c. 38% of all EU expenditure (down from 70%) but this still benefits both French and German farmers to produce expensive food in an inefficient way.
The key reason for the UK rebate was an understanding that the original CAP ‘ racket’ designed for French & German farmers was no longer acceptable.
Thank you for taking the time to write a considered reply. I agree with what you’ve said on May’s proposed deal.
Freeing ourselves to ally with the US and China on the areas mentioned concerns me greatly. It seems to me to be morally regressive to reject the EU standards (no, they’re far from perfect and yes, a large bureaucracy can be slow to adapt) in favour of countries that openly see little issue in employing slave labour, run for-profit prisons, have dire working regulations and little in the way of a real health & safety culture. Ruining our frictionless trade with our neighbour 11 miles away is catastrophic socioeconomic vandalism, it’s as if another country had placed sanctions on us. As usual it’s the little ordinary people that suffer most.
You do know what China is currently doing with facial recognition and social credit scoring, among other things? And you are hoping to agree digital standards with them? Those aren’t the digital standards we’re looking for.
Damn right that we should have a precautionary approach to implementing technology that not only could but is currently being employed in an oppressive manner.
As for the US, rather than propping up digital behemoths like Facebook, Amazon, and Google, we should be looking to dismantle anticompetitive monopolies and oligopolies just as the likes of Standard Oil and AT&T were broken up in previous generations.
“Not being constrained” versus proportionate and appropriate regulation of the kind that any effective market requires. Discuss.
Hopium isn’t a strategy. And it should never be governmental policy.
You’re right, hope is not a strategy , equally government’s are rarely in control as they would like to be.
As a simple example, the status quo post June 2016 was never on offer to the UK within the EU – over a number of years, the UKs veto on moves to ever greater integration & federalism were being steadily eroded , treaty after treaty and with much greater use of Qualified Majority Voting .
The added problem was caucusing by Eurozone countries which gave the UK less power within the overall EU.
Fundamentally the EU & UK were diverging culturally, economically and politically for a number of years ( I don’t know anyone who bought into the EU dream, apart from Tony Blair) .
Brexit merely formalises a rupture that was inevitable and corrects an historical anomaly that ought not to have occurred in the first instance ( leaving EFTA for to the then EEC).
Like Zhou Enlai asked in 1972 about the impact of the French revolution – although it seems he was referring to the riots in 1968, not 1789 – it is too early to say what the impact of Brexit will be, on the UK or on the EU, particularly as COVID has masked much of the effects in the last 18 months.
There are few uncontestable objective facts, particularly in history, economics or politics. People will see what they want to see, particularly if it in their own partisan or pecuniary interests. It will take a decade or two for any kind of consensus to emerge, and that consensus will be contested by the next generation, and so the wheel turns.
As much as I like Marvel.
This Brexit is not about Remain or Leave.
This is about the UK standing in the real World and
the World looks united in disbelieve what HMG will be pulling out of their Hat NEXT.
You may accept this John Jones, but we most certainly weren’t told that the benefits would take 7-10 years to play out. As for the Johnson Brexit being better than May’s BRINO, that is just your opinion, but May’s Brexit would have alleviated some of the problems now faced in N Ireland. This may make a reunited Ireland happen sooner or later. Is that the 7 – 10 years you were thinking of, or were you only thinking of England?
I could see no advantage at all in Brexit. In fact the more tightly handcuffed our government is the better – the less harm to do. But Brexit is done and I am too old to care much. Sad for the young though.
In my view there was a problem with the UK – low wages, not enough housing, no economic plan and a big divide between haves and have nots. In my view Brexit was a displacement activity to avoid having to face more fundamental problems. Problems the more advanced nations of the EU are/soon will be facing.
Brexit has I think improved nothing but added to Covid will reduce our GDP and make Leave and Remain voters a bit poorer. Although by a twist of fate Leave voters will probably feel the draught the more. As for the future I expect the more advanced nations of the EU to work out the low wage – housing – rich/poor divide in some sane way. For us Brits I expect the reductions imposed by Covid will push Brexit and the underlying problems to the background for a few years yet. For which reason Boris must be truly thankful and look forward to getting in again come 2024.
As for the plan – landowning is the thing and a rentier economy the outlook.
We can each live in our own alternate reality nowadays.
Brexit means Brexit.
I now think that it was and is a mistake for Remainers like me to have pressed Leavers to come up with practical plans for practical benefits.
After all, the only Leave programme that was large enough to make a difference commensurate with the upheaval, made sense in its own terms, actually required Brexit to achieve, and had majority support was ending freedom of movement; a restriction supported, alas, also by many Remainers.
Leavers just wish to be outside the EU (an EU that may or may not much resemble the EU that actually exists).
It’s a view as full and as empty of meaning as de Gaulle’s “une certaine idée de la France”.
Those who hold that view are happier simply as a result of the UK’s being outside the EU. The practical benefits are in a sense neither here nor there.
Some Leavers may think the practical harms were too a high a price to pay; others will think they were worth it, or don’t exist, or see as benefits what l would see as harms.
But l now believe that Theresa May’s truism reveals the truth about the policy. Some people just feel happier outside the EU. It accords with their idea of what the UK is or should be. And hence accords with their idea of themselves.
(We should not exaggerate the moral, rational or practical basis of Remain. Much of what l have said is applicable mutatis mutandis to Remainers.)
And where next? I suggest that we should stop arguing about Brexit and ask how we wish to relate to the big block with which we share a land frontier. If we forget Brexit the government, or the next government, might feel it no longer has to perform hostile or irritating acts to show how Brexit-y it is and can instead negotiate some practical benefits for UK citizens from closer relations with the EU.
Thank you Michael. Excellent observations, all of which are spot on in terms of practicalities. But I think Mr Greens point (which is being made in various distinct ways by many people) goes much, much deeper.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. In the long and even medium term, that ends in “failed state” – which can happen with breathtaking rapidity and with no particular warning. Against that reality exiting versus rejoining, and associated “benefits” of either or both, reduce to triviality.
Of course a crash-landing is better than a crash. It may yet be that for all the wrong reasons the methodology of Dominic Cummings, and of the US military forces in Vietnam alike, is appropriate
in this peculiar instance: we may have to “destroy the village in order to save it”.
When you sever links established between 1973 and 2016 and try to reopen issues from 1955 to 1972 things simply cannot continue as they were before June 2016.
You cannot year on year simply apply Eu kite marks to your goods because to put it politely you are not Eu members.
The Uk as it was in June 2016 no longer exists
This is the reality of your Brexit Referendum.
People have to accept this and be allowed to move on perhaps following different paths .
Concur. However I’d take it further. Here’s a paradox for you, expressed in a riddle: in what sense has “the UK” ever really “existed”?
“The UK” was always more of an idea than a defined concept, given its incommensurable:
– cultures;
– legal systems;
– political systems;
– institutions in each component (either absurdly centralized or incompatibly decentralized);
– educational systems; and even
– languages;
Plus:
– its failures to integrate its internal relationships which have never been legally codified except indirectly by reference to the centre;
– its territorial instability (evidenced by its continuously upgraded names);
– its inability to recognize its own geographical territorial boundaries or even those of England (cf everything from Brexit Secretaries’ notorious public views of the status of the Republic of Ireland the quiz question asked by Jon Humphreys “”), and
– its failure to recognize its general historical inability to operate independently of supranational political entities such as the Empire and the EU (the exception being 1945-1972, discounting NATO to give it the benefit of the doubt).
From an historian’s perspective, I suspect the true marvel of the UK will be remembered as its mind-boggling ability to survive at all for three centuries with just two unifying elements: a monarchy; and an uncodified constitution whose key strengths (dynamism and the four-century alliance between the monarch’s judiciary and the monarch’s parliament) increasingly are counterbalanced by its weakness (manipulation by every UK government du jour since the 1970s).
Hi David,
Ref your post:
From the first post-referendum times I’ve been struck that there has been no (significant) effort by Leavers to persuade Remainers onside. That seems very unusual to me, and perhaps a cause or symptom of the divergence you comment on. There’ve been various “you ought to align with us since we won the vote” comments, there’s been eg the Paul Marshall-led attempts to say what could be better post-Brexit (not convincing to me, since we could clearly have done all that while still in the EU), and apart from those it’s just all been “Remoaner” insults.
Very unusual and odd ! Something has changed.
As an Italian, and convinced European unionist, when Cameron first spoke of a Brexit referendum I thought he was playing with fire, given the very weak liaison of the British electorate and general public with Europe and their rather poor knowledge of European history.
What I find staggering is the fact that the entire debate in England is centered solely on the commercial side, as if the EU and its inderlying principles were only and solely based on free trade within its borders without an existential breath. And, what is more, this unbearable fixed idea of victimhood, with Bruxelles seen as the executioner Britain never being at fault. It’s a shame, really, for I never I read – with some extremely rare exceptions – any hint to the political, social, ethical importance of being a member of a Union amongst some of the richest, most liberal and civilized countries on this planet. It’s as if Britain preferred to perish on her own rather than to thrive together with fellow European countries. Is really Britain a nation of (petty) shopkeepers?
And what about «taking back control»? What about «global Britain»? What’s hindering Britain from at last again ruling the waves? Or will one day come when Britain shall realize the bare fact, the mere truth: that she is a somewhat small country and quite insignificant, very much like the other large European countries within the EU, if isolated from the rest of the Continent?
True story: I was chatting recently to a local workman where I live (Wales) and I mentioned the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
He asked me “what wall is that?” and when I explained about the Iron Curtain, etc. he said he had never heard of either.
Uninterest in history and current affairs is widespread. I suggest it is because the Uk has become an inward-looking and ego-centric. Selfish, even.
“There is no such thing as ‘society'”. (A famous quote of Margaret Thatcher).
This is an opportune moment to slay a few shibboleths, for which I give thanks.
Not at all clear to me that we’ve as bad a knowledge of European history per your assertion – sure, it’s different optic, but this view doesn’t make it wrong.
When UK joined what was called the ‘Common Market’ aka EEC , many people truely believed it to be a trading club ( entity) – unfortunately as the EEC morphed into the EC then, with Maastricht the EU , the Political and monetary Union came to the fore – which, we in tbe UK hadn’t ( as a nation) signed up to.
Many leavers viewed Maastricht as the real beginning of the rot between UK given the EU overt desire for monetary union ( despite our opt out) and deep regulatory & political integration. Maybe if an inner/outer ( trade only) geometry could have been designed matters would have been different too.
“..any hint to the political, social, ethical importance of being a member of a Union amongst some of the richest, most liberal and civilized countries on this planet. …”
Again, if we look at the history that has gone to make up the EU, the UK actually doesn’t have that European Identity – being the Island , we didn’t quite have the on going wars /crises that befell mainland Europe ( especially Germany, France, Spain).
This has led to quite large cultural, social and legal differences , that, over time, become harder to reconcile.
Maybe in 20-30 years the UK and EU ( if either survive in their current form) will learn to become better neighbours without the need for the homogenous, conformity of ‘one size fits all’ approach of the EU Regulatory Union.
To John Jones:
I would say that your defining “shibboleth” certain historical facts suggests that my impression of a general poor knowledge of European history in Britain – and yours in particular – is correct. You state that «we in the UK hadn’t (as a nation) signed up to» the political and monetary union that the Union had «morphed» into.
You seem to suggest that the British PM – Mr Heath, if I remember correctly – who signed the treaty that gave Britain access to the EEC had not read what he was signing up to, since the preamble of the 1957 Treaty of Rome that gave birth to the EEC and Euratom clearly stated that the signatories were determined to lay the foundation of an ever tighter Union between the European peoples for the functional construction of a political Europe.
Francis Bacon (your Francis Bacon) in his work De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum wrote in the lingua franca that was Latin at the time «Audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret» – (Slander without fear, something will always stick). Today we would say «lie without fear, something will always stick», as we hear and read every day from your Government.
I’ve heard the arguments you’ve put before … and they’ve made me ask why Brits seem so hostile to predictable organic development?
Is it because we like rules for every eventuality – or alternatively for there to be no change in the status quo?
All organisations change and develop (or die!) over time – the EU is no different.
Starting as a trading organisation, it was natural that such a body developed new arrangements and agreements that would help it become a more effective trader within its boundaries, minimise conflicts between partners and take advantage of any new opportunities going.
It’s likely a good time to read Monnet & Schumann early founders of the Le Project.
Their view, borne out of experience is that nation states create war, ergo by removing or obviating the nation state the threat of war is reduced – unfortunately, they didn’t bank on the Brit’s who, candidly are a proud, independent sovereign nation who aren’t much up for joint governance by the European Commission a proto/quaisi government.
The challenge that the UK had was accepting the increasing loss of national competencies in various areas of national life – the EU used ‘engrenage’ or the ratchet to remove competencies that never return to the member states – then came the concept of subsidiarity but that lost traction to the zealot integrationist.
Finally the EU lex based on a more Napoleonic codex was never really in alignment with the UK/anglo saxon common law of precedence.
Ultimately the elites knew of this non alignment of vision – the inevitable referendum just provided the vehicle to unhitch ourselves, albeit painfully from the EU bandwagon.
Oh, for sure, the UK has never properly understood the social, cultural and historical reasons for European states to become and remain members of the EU. The UK has always been an exception: some of that explains why we missed opportunities to join the EEC at the start.
Perhaps we are seeing a return to a balance of power in Europe. From the 1940s to 1990s, that was the US and NATO against the Soviet bloc, but Russia is much reduced, and the EU has become the European hegemon. For much of the last 500 years or so, the UK would ally itself to whoever was opposing the European hegemon, or play two or three leading powers off against each other – is that now Russia? China? Or the citizens of Airstrip One still wedded to the vaunted but largely mythical “special relationship” with the US?
Whatever benefits there may be have been forever poisoned by the person who assaulted me on a bus because they believed Brexit meant the likes of me, a brown person, would be “sent home”. It emboldened the racists and made me scared to go outside. I wasn’t the only one in my circle to experience this. I’m still not confident going out alone. I’m sick of being afraid in my own country.
I’m also tired of having to ask friends to pick up important bits of shopping that were missing from the delivery because empty shelves and allergies and multiple disabilities really don’t mix well.
I’ve pretty much given up on a hobby I loved because the price of components increased dramatically due to Brexit.
There are people who won’t think any of this is worth complaining about but it’s affecting me. Regardless of how it’s turning out for the rest of the country, it’s been a thoroughly negative experience for me.
I’m so sorry about how dreadfully you were treated and the impact it’s had on you.
I’m heartily ashamed of this country sometimes. It has got nastier.
“If anything, the Remain and the Leave narratives are diverging further and further…..”
It’s been interesting to see the views and, indeed, different multiverses that both leave and remain commentators on this blog come from.
The common unifying meme ( more trope even) that is appearing in many of the remain leaning posts ( ie. the majority) seems to be acceptance that the Brexit event ( process) has happened – I stress acceptance as any self respecting remainer cannot ( outwith the red mist) agree with Brexit as an agreeable outcome.
Until acceptance that the new reality ( at least in one multiverse) has occured , it’s very hard to see how these remainers ( in their multiverse) will make much progress going forward.
In fact my wife and i are among the very few farmers we know who have made plans for the post Brexit ag future. We have devoted time and effort, and are ready for the various scenarios we anticipate as possible.
But we are the exception.
Most farmers I know (who tended to vote ‘leave’, with the rest of their demographic cohort), remain in denial: either they believe that nothing much will change, or that the UK Government will continue to look after their interests notwithstanding their ideological predilection to the opposite.
The key differential, in my experience, is education and outlook.
“The key differential, in my experience, is education and outlook”
Like you, I know some very poorly educated EU citizens. I blame the parents.