28th August 2021
The strongest argument for Brexit, if not the only one, was that it would enable the United Kingdom to have laws and policies regardless of our obligations under the treaties of the European Union.
Many – including you – will probably not think of that as much of an argument – and, indeed, it is not much of an argument.
But at least it is an argument which is internally coherent: as a member of the European Union the United Kingdom was subject to its European Union treaty obligations, and as a non-member, we are not.
To get from [x] to [y] could only be done by the means of Brexit.
The other arguments do not even make sense as a matter of internal logic.
For example, the argument from sovereignty did not make sense: the United Kingdom had sovereignty all along, else it would not have been able to make an Article 50 notification and repeal the European Communities Act.
And the argument of practicality also does not make sense, for even though we are no longer subject to its European Union treaty obligations, it appears that there is not any advantage to having this new freedom.
For example: we are now free of the CE regulatory regime – but our businesses need for us to continue.
And, as this blog recently averred, there is no good reason for the United Kingdom to diverge from the European Union data protection regimes – and many good reasons for us not to do so.
So the United Kingdom did not need to do Brexit to regain sovereignty (as we already had it and never lost it) nor did United Kingdom need to do Brexit to make any substantial policy changes, as we do not seem to need to change policies.
As is often said, the post-Brexit United Kingdom really is the dog that caught the bus.
Yes: the United Kingdom can now have laws and policies regardless of obligations under the treaties of the European Union.
But there does not seem much point.
What a pointless thing to have done.
**
Hello there – please do support this sceptical Brexit blog – and 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.
There’s profit in them thar pointless policy changes.
(Apologies to Twain’s Mulberry Sellers)
just to let you know there are a couple of typos
mot = not?
– and, indeed, it is mot much of an argument.
no or not any advantage?
it appears that there is any advantage to having this new freedom.
Thankfully both typos had already been fixed before your comment!
The real meanings were obvious in the first place.
Pointless and very wastefully expensive for businesses.
“So the United Kingdom did not need to do Brexit to regain sovereignty (as we already had it and never lost it) nor did United Kingdom need to do Brexit to make any substantial policy changes, as we do not seem to need to change policies….”
This neatly encapsulates the one dimensional thinking of the remainer tribe. Forgive my bluntness.
The projenitors of the EEC/EU all had a vision or at least a direction of travel – one can debate the final destination but for many, preventing war, integrating nation states into a much more integrated federal based Europe , possiblity of a type known as the USofE was and still is feasible.
The big assumption being that all members of the EU had to buy into this direction of travel – I would argue that the UK didn’t much buy into this vision albeit certain members of the UK establishment like Ted Heath and one Tony Blair didn’t do much to hide their ambitions in this respect.
One of the problems with temporarily lending sovereignty is that there comes a point that,even if it is, in theory regained, the power to use the resultant sovereignty has elapsed.
By virtue of Monetary Union and increasing Eurozone caucusing the UK was slowly becoming enmeshed ( or more deeply inveigaled) into the EU economic & political Union that seems to be inevitable.
Many of us Leavers saw 2016 as the UKs last chance saloon to regain or retake our sovereignty – not least because David Cameron’s Dodgy dossier of the failed February 2016 renegotiations came to naught. Add this to the on going democratic deficit at EP, Commission and Council of Ministers meetings and the time was ripe to leave the EU
There is a good question – what do we now do with our newly regained overt sovereignty – how do we use the new power, including rights and obligations which go with such power?
Only time will tell – in the interim I remain convinced that we’ll still end up trading with the EU but at an arms length transactional level.
There is no word “projenitors” in English: however there is a word “progenitors”. Similarly ” inveigaled”: surely this should be “inveigled”. Even leavers should use the spellchecker.
Ian Cuthbert
And, your point is that I’m typing on my phone not PC – I note, with interest that my substantive points are not challenged.
But “overt” sovereignty is not a thing.
We had sovereignty already, which is why we could Brexit.
Sovereignty in itself worthless – it’s what you do with the power that sovereignty enables.
Most /all countries within the Eurozone have ceded so much sovereignty by virtue of losing their national currency – they’ve effectively lost their monetary sovereignty in perpetuity. Draghi was right, the euro has to be irreversible else its a busted flush.
The damage of undoing the EU Currency Union ( to the EMS) would be too dangerous to contemplate – ergo, with it, the ability to reclaim the sovereignty loaned or , effectively lost.
You makes your bed and all that.
A man waxes lyrical.
Every paragraph, an unfinished thought.
Try finishing the thought.
It is always interesting to read an intelligent and reasoned justification for Brexit. Sadly it is also rare. Mr Jones is right to challenge the assertion that the UK was always sovereign as evidenced by the application of Article 50. It’s like saying a man can demonstrate his free will by committing suicide.
I think it is wrong to attribute one-dimensional thinking to the remainer tribe. Yes there may have been some remainers who would have supported the EU direction of travel but there will also have been some – indeed I would say many – who recognised that the EU is not perfect, that the UK with its derogations from much of EU dogma had an ideal semi-detached relationship, that with a swat at he EU tabke ghe UK is in a much better position to play a global role and who thought it would be insane to pour the benefits of membership down the toilet.
Unfortunately the last two paragraphs spoil the post. As DAG wrote, having caught up with the bus, what is the dog going to do? No-one seems to know.
And “in the interim …. [we can always trade] with the EU but at an arm’s length transactional level” How is that going to make anyone better off?
The EU is /was always a political project.
Some of us never thought we’d be better off ( notionally) being outside of the EU.
Demos has its price.
The best way to oppose a United States of Europe is by being a member of the EU and refusing to allow it. If all countris which oppose it leave the EU, then it becomes inevitable.
“There is a good question – what do we now do with our newly regained overt sovereignty – how do we use the new power, including rights and obligations which go with such power? ”
That would have been a very good question before we left the EU so that we could see if the price of leaving was worth paying. The fact that this is still a question shows that we left on the basis of fantasy, lies, and deceit.
History ,well at least the UK’s 45 years – plus the “more Europe, more integration” espoused by A Merkel doesn’t seem to be on your side of the ‘ change from within agenda’.
Ohh please leave Mutti out of this.
you seam to know your enemy really well, but do you have anything to offer what the dog should do, now that it has catched the car.
And please not the JRM in the long term we will be fine.
As you may have heard once or twice in the long term we all are going to be dead.So any Idea what the UK should do NOW
I think a more honest account of European level decision making would recognise that the UK frequently achieved its objectives.
We nixed limited CAP reform in the 2000s, defeated the federalists in the 1990s successfully pushing for expansion before deepening, and successfully introduced the very state aid rules we are now trying to get out of.
Failure to recognise British diplomatic successes – which frequently were not announced publicly – is a common Brexiter shortcoming.
Some accounts like to rely on official publications – it’s easier than talking to foreigners! It’s like trying to understand the UK’s process of developing bills using Hansard.
There isn’t much “sovereignty” for any single country in a world that trades globally and relies on international arrangements (financial, legal and professional / product standards) to facilitate that trade.
The only practical option – even for the big countries which the UK is not – is to be part of big blocs like the EU and Asian and American equivalents. These big blocs inter-link to some extent already … because that approach is easier, cheaper, safer and more practical for everyone (whether they’re trading, customers or regulators).
Exiting from the EU doesn’t mean the UK is “sovereign” and independent. It just means that the UK will now have to pool its sovereignty under worse conditions for worse rewards with different trading blocs.
Alignment with the EU and its direction of travel , necessarily dictated by the Eurozone ( crazy experiment by the way, given that one of its objectives to ‘level up/converge diverging economies) cannot feasibly happen) meant and led to Brexit – ok, EFTA/EEA was also a potential option but both UK ( & EU) squandered that opportunity.
EU has reached its likely maximum size and has declining long term population and relative wealth versus the RoW outside of EU.
Sure, UK might be in ‘choppy’ waters a while yet ( c.5- 10 years) but the future isn’t, by definition the EU – It’s Asia/Pacific Rim .
Let’s agree to leave your assumptions unchallenged.
The gaping hole in your thesis is that we are taking back control in order to reorganise our society and economy without AT ANY POINT giving the people of this country a voice in the new direction in which you want to direct the country. (Unless you consider the country’s rejection of Corbyn in 2019 a vote for a root and branch Britannia Unchained style reorganisation).
So much for jejune theories of democratic accountability. Trust us and it’ll all come out in the wash isn’t a manifesto anybody should be getting in front of in 2021.
Alas, if I were prone to believe in conspiracies, I might think that key people and entities might want to ensure that they could operate outside EU regulation in areas of their concern. These might be, without limitation, corporate or wealth taxation, carbon taxes or similar, constraints on bribery and other matters. A change in these would not be noticed by the bulk of the electorate, who might be persuaded to take back control as a general principle in the hope that their lives, devoid of autonomy because of financial or working conditions, would improve. As we can see, changes in regulation that directly affect the population are generally appearing negative. The ones that we don’t generally see may benefit the initiators of this nonsense, but not us. Remember the Boris saying, ‘F… business’. This shows how small the constiuency really being served is.
I think you are entirely correct. Brexit was never about improving British trade, since it has, and was always known to have, inserted extra layers of complexity and restrictions. It was fortunate for the Brexit cause that the exodus from Syria heightened the anxiety about immigration. The plotters who masterminded Brexit wanted to avoid or circumvent EU rules to restrict runaway capital movements, off shore trusts etc. (Not so erudite as you but I think you are the first to outline the real reasons for Brexit
I had read elsewhere, that the UK has not altered its standards for manufactured goods from what was required to gain the CE (EU) certificate. The starting date for the UKCA certificate has been put back at least a year and the CE certificate is and will be valid in the UK for that period. Many other countries in the world respect the CE certification and accept goods with it.
When the UK finally publishes and applies the UKCA standards, goods for sale in the UK will need that certification. The EU (and others) will still require the CE certificate. If the UKCA and the CE standards are the same, all well and good you might think. Goods to the same standards, the EU and other countries should just accept UKCA. I wish it would work that way, but there is no legal requirement on the UK to either keep to those standards (they can be changed unilaterally) or for the UK to adopt changes the EU makes in their standards. This means, of course, that all goods manufactured in the UK will have to have the UKCA certificate for UK sales and also the CE certificate for EU (and others) sales.
This may not be much at the start but if (when) they diverge – it will be a big deal for businesses. As this divergence was sold to us as a positive benefit of Brexit, it makes me wonder if anyone really knew what they were doing.
These are two examples of the needless complications and bureaucracy of Brexit.
There were, apparently, some sensible politicians who realised that Brexit and all it meant was simply nonsense. And yet they felt obliged to honour the referendum result while knowing that it was pointless, unnecessary, and damaging.
Rather than democracy, isn’t this ochlocracy?
Many of the regulations and technical standards associated with CE marking do not come from the EU – they are global standards derived from ISO/IEC etc. who spend their time harmonising international standards.
So we can leave the EU and introduce UKCA, but our industries will still be implementing the same standards.
I wrote about the process and why it occurs here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brexit-technical-standards-what-happens-now-peter-whitworth
Agreed.
Most of the single market of the EU is dictated by global inter-gover mental standards per WTO, WCO, UNECE, ICAO et al.
The EU is mostly a rule-taker from these organisations. Perhaps, over time the UK will remain aligned with these organisations and possibly parts of the SM.
To see the benefit of a common approach to privacy and data protection, just look @the USA.There the Congress was incapable of passing a nation-wide law,even though many tech firms made clear they would prefer one-and were OK with EU GPDR because it provided a common standard. Instead,individual states such as California have brought out their own laws so the overall picture is totally confused.Another needless Brexit folly for the UK!
Now that Raab has introduced the hindsight defence to excuse govt actions/inactions it is interesting to compare and contrast the arguements through that lens of those who were in favour of Brexit and those who were not. To the untrained eye, the Remainers seem to require zero latitude to present their worst fears as having become fact. The Brexiters, however, appear to be scrabbling around for the slightest hint of a benefit whilst totally ignoring the road crash.
“the on going democratic deficit at EP, Commission and Council of Ministers meetings”
That is the European Parliament directly elected under a system of proportional representation so that it is broadly representative (unlike the UK’s first past the post system, which in practice makes most voters’ participation in an election ornamental).
Further, unlike the UK where in practice a government with a majority that retains the confidence of its back benchers controls Parliament, the European Parliament is not controlled by an organ of the European Union.
The Council of Ministers is made up of the representatives of the elected governments of member states.
The Commission needs the approval of Parliament to start work which is given only after hearings have been held with each candidate; after some of these hearings candidates have withdrawn. Parliament can dismiss the Commission and has done so in the past.
In the UK the government has a majority of 80 with 43% of the popular vote. Of the three entities needed to approve a law, only the House of Commons is elected; neither the House of Lords nor the Monarch is.
If one worries about democratic deficits there are opportunities closer to home.
Some valid points.
It would be good if more flesh could be put on the bones of just how the Council of Ministers make their decisions in hoc with the Commission.
This sheds some unwelcome light:
https://corporateeurope.org/en/2019/10/reform-council-transparency-stalemate
Forgive my cynicism of the diqule regime, regular use of passerelle clauses and enhanced cooperation clauses.
Best still are the closed minutes and opaque decision making rules of the European Central Bank , where the President only needs to report to the European Parliament and the organisation that is effectively self regulating with no formal Treaty oversight – yet, this undemocratic institution can wreak havoc on a nations finances.
To mention ECB & democracy is, in itself, an oxymoron.
Of all the muddled arguments for leaving he EU, only the argument that there is a democratic deficit from which we must liberate ourselves had any credibility. So why was it not the first and foremost argument: there was no clear comparison drawn: here are the deficits, here is why they will not change, here is where we want to be, here is how we will get there, here is why we will be the better for it. Cameron’s 2016 European tour was of pleading and wheedling for more opt outs, not a presentation of pro-accountability arguments. Ask yourself whether leavers’ purported quest for democracy has inspired Belarusians, Hong Kongers, Putin, Xi or 68% of the Scottish electorate- they have not voted tory in over 46 years. If a better application of democracy was the aim, why has the current so-called government sought to further centralise powers in a democratic state where they are already the most centralised? Why did they not first try to adapt the EU with positive suggestions, leading by example, instead of girning from the back of the bus?
Built to avoid WW III in Europe, the EU has achieved its founders’ aim. It now needs to look forward and adapt to a world very different to that of 1945. But you did not propose any such thing. It was anathema to be an integrated part of Europe. You simply could not imagine it. Being a part of a group was beneath you. You could not see or did not care that the ever closer union argument has run into the mud. Polls show that a majority of Europeans see the EU as whole as a good thing because they can imagine themselves as Danes/ Dutch/ French and Europeans. In October 2019, Pew recorded that 68% of EU voters thought positively of relations between their nation and other members. Macron may run with the flag towards the benefits of “Ever Closer Union”, but his people are not following. I attended a wedding anniversary party in the Vexin near Paris on Saturday 25th June 2016. It is they say, the richest arable farmland anywhere. Our friends had retired there. Philip came from French industry and Jane (originally from Morningside, Edinburgh) had just retired from UNESCO. Her ex-colleagues were tearing their hair and bewailing the fall of civilization, his farmer friends to a man pumped my arm with hearty congratulations, “Well done you Brits- we are next- don’t you worry about that – we are next!”. French farmers voting for Brexit. Who would have thought it? Certainly not the dozy Brits. They could even have led the looser grouping of a two-tier Europe, but Cameron could not imagine being in what he regarded as a second-class carriage.
Your yearning is not for democracy; it is more primal: it is for identity.
At uni in the seventies, I felt sorry for some Welsh nats being so anti-English (the days of “Come home to a real fire” – “…buy a cottage in Wales”). How luckier the Jocks seemed to be- we had kilts, whisky & shortbread and so were more readily recognized. But years later, many Jocks followed a similar anti-English line. To ask why, is instructive.
“See they English? ah hate they English!” And why is that?
“Coz Ah do!” Do you ken any English?
“…. Er… Aye, a ken twa” Who are they?
“A lassie who serves behind the bar in ma pub and the faither of a lad in ma boys fitba’ team”.
D’ye hate them?
“Don’t be daft! She’s a nice wee lassie, works hard and aye smilin. He and I like a good laugh over a pint”.
Have ye ever been to England?
“Aye loads o’ times. Ah’ve been doon there for the odd match and for a couple o’ holidays”.
Did you get robbed? Beaten up? Did they spit on you?
“Whit?! Naw it was fine- had a great time in the pubs”.
But ye hate the English?
“…… Er…. But I’m no’ English!!”
What he in fact hates, is being subsumed by English culture and so loosing his; his sense of identity. It is messing up his idea of who he is.
Born in Bannockburn, but I loved the restrained English nationalism which had no need of flags and bluster; the English knew who they were and could even be self deprecating. What admirable quiet confidence! Where has it gone?
I have aye cautioned these wee nationalists to define themselves by what they are; not by what they are not. So now it is England’s turn, “See yon Europe?”………
Wanna play Russian Roulette?
What’s in it for me ?
Sovereignty, taking back control….
Yeah! Count me in. What are the rules?
Six chambers…one bullet.
So, good odds eh?
Wanna play Brexit Roulette?
Eh?
For sovereignty and taking back control and stuff.
Yeah! …and the rules?
Six chambers..
Ok, ok…and bullets though?
Bullets…kinda depends, no one really knows but OBVIOUSLY there can’t be any more than six.
So, six is absolute worst case scenario…?
Definitely. Categorically. Guaranteed
I love your confidence and quite inspired by your certainty , but…the actual number of bullets again?
Time will tell.
I think David Cutts is close to the reason.
The UK has always had an affinity for the USA and the UK has always been located somewhere mid-Atlantic from a business culture perspective. And of course the US has saved our bacon twice in recent history – from the truly serious business of losing land ownership. The potential takers – why our EU neighbours. Before that William the Bastard really did take the land off of ‘us’ but that was Saxit and we now can’t remember who was ‘we’ and who was ‘them’. Except that the land deeds remind us.
Now the main business drivers are the softer skills of service and design (and finance) and property. Property being the easiest. Service and design and property require education (in a wide sense). Where are those school trips to Greece and Rome and Beijing. Where are the theatre and art gallery and outward bound courses and ski trips for every child. Failure to invest will result in failure of dividends. Except for the few who do receive these ‘investments’.
The deep question is who to cosy up to. The USA or the Asian bloc? Nations do not have allies, they have interests. Who are the rising stars, who the problem children, who are the dogs and are we the question mark?