13th September 2021
Like a bouncing ball we go from the high slogans to the low mundane – or grim – reality of Brexit.
Take, for example, this from businessman and former politician Archie Norman:
M&S chair Archie Norman has branded EU border rules "pointless".
Tells @NickFerrariLBC food products to France and Ireland delayed by day. "This is a pointless bureaucratic exercise", "these rules serve no purpose at all – our food standards are higher than the EU 1/— Lisa O'Carroll (@lisaocarroll) September 13, 2021
In translation:
– taking back control was and is ‘pointless’, and
– leaving the single market was and is ‘pointless’.
For what Norman here describes as “pointless” is the direct, natural and necessary consequence of both taking back control and leaving the single market.
What he describes is Brexit in its everyday reality.
This is what the slogans really meant when converted to actual practice.
*
Here is another example, for the great immigration law expert Colin Yeo:
The supposed “turn-around” policy for migrant boats is similar to previous reports of wave machines or floating fences. It sounds tough but will never be implemented, says @ColinYeo1. https://t.co/FXStug1Oy8
— Free Movement (@freemovementlaw) September 13, 2021
In essence: if the French don’t cooperate, then the home secretary’s’s ‘turn around’ migrant boat policy is not only vile and inhumane – it cannot actually work.
Again, this is the reality of taking back control.
*
Both the examples above are crash-courses in the value of multilateralism in a complex world – and of the banality of autarchy.
By taking back control the United Kingdom has lost the means of exercising control – whether it is the terms of trade, or its borders, and so on.
And this is not a surprise.
For taking back control exists on the plane of slogans and not on the messy plane of reality of the world in which we live.
**
Hello there – please do support this sceptical liberal constitutionalist 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.
You have hit the nail on the head.
Multilateralism is the reality which Brexit fails to accept.
The UK cannot exist in isolation.
There have to be agreements made with which we are prepared to abide.
Johnson does not appear to accept this reality.
Having your cake and eating it is NOT an option.
Yes and no.
The food inspections and documentation are a consequence of Brexit but at the same time it should be possible to agree that as one as UK standards are equivalent then they should be exempt. Grown ups could do this but after the incredibly childish and offensive behavior of Brexit Britain is it any wonder that the EU is un-inclined?
On illegal immigrants, not sure that “taking back control” has made much difference. France was and still is supposed to stop illegal immigrants rather than just pass them through. After all it makes the same complaint about Italy and Greece.
Long term the only solution is to process applications in country of origin, deny all but the most obvious asylum cases for illegals , and supply more aid to those who live there. It is impossible to have open borders for economic migrants and to reward illegal immigrants with residency is unfair to both UK residents and other refugees in the country and region of origin. Current law on asylum was never designed to address modern mobility and economic migrants.
If the UK were to agree to equivalence, ie ensuring that its standards remain in line with EU ones even if the EU standards change, then yes there would be no need for inspections. That is what was offered by the EU and rejected by the UK.
What the Tory Archie Norman is suggesting appears say that as currently standards are in line with each other, there should never be inspections, and that the EU should take the UK’s assertions that it will maintain and enforce its equivalent standards. Why on earth would the EU want to agree to that? It is magic cakeism.
To “deny all but the most obvious asylum cases” would be a gross injustice. Where else would you expect a well-founded case to be dismissed purely because it was not completely obvious?
And the point about region of origin is just an expression of great selfishness. We know that the UK has no adjoining countries whose natives have reason to seek asylum in large numbers, so such a sentiment is just a way for Britain to evade its global responsibility and let all the burden fall on a few countries which border the problem areas.
The original asylum conventions assumed that mist people would go to a neighboring country. Applications would be made before trying to enter the UK. Asylum cases would also be political or extreme cases of abuse. The ability to cross continents and oceans in large numbers has meant that the rules are out of date. Asylum was never meant to be for people who wanted a better life, however understandable. Nor was it intended that you could pick your country of asylum – the UK because it has better benefits (a common misconception). Indeed the UN’s refugee policy was and still is to resettle in the nearest country or, preferably, back in the country of origin.
We dont have a global responsibility. We have a self interest and a humanitarian interest. He;ping people in situ and their host countries is far more egalitarian and far more effective. You can help about 5x as many people for the same expenditure and you will help the people who cant afford the smugglers. You will also reduce trafficking. And people are far more likely to be absorbed quickly in their neighbouring country with aid and potentially return to their own country when conditions permit. By contrast migrants take at least a generation in much of Europe if not two, Sweden being a glaring example.
BTW the UK already sounds far more per capita on in situ refugee aid than the EU. Go figure.
I notice that more and more people are beginning to describe BREXIT as pointless – which of course it is ! This includes Jeremy Warner of the Daily Telegraph.
Norman says you are following the same rule book and there is no need for checks but you have left the single market and the ECJ.
Without checks in France and other Eu countries there are no enforcement safeguards for Eu citizens.
It is also your stated intention to deviate from Eu regulations in the future.
The Eu starting as it means to continue is not pointless from an Eu perspective.
Again and again and again the current Administration seems unable to acknowledge that as far as the EU is concerned, it now is a Third country. The aching emptiness of “Getting Brexit done”, “Taking back control”, and “global Britain” are becoming increasingly and blindingly obviously apparent. Never in British history has there been such a self-inflicted wound.
I don’t think that Brexit is a practical project. It should be judged as a project of the imagination.
There was a Polly Toynbee article in the Guardian at the time when it still looked as though Brexit might be stopped.
She described a Leave voter as saying that if Brexit did not go ahead she would be so disgusted with the UK that she would emigrate and live in Spain.
Toynbee did not report the woman’s reasoning. So what follows is my speculation which may be quite wrong.
But evidently the woman was not attracted by the practical benefits claimed for Brexit.
She clearly had no problem with the EU’s existence, was happy to live under EU laws, did not mind being amongst non-Britons and was willing to exercise EU citizen rights.
I suggest that for her Brexit was about her image of the UK and hence her self-image as a citizen of that UK.
(We all of course have an image of our country and for all of us our self-image is to greater or lesser extent wrapped up with that.)
I don’t know what her image of Britain was. Perhaps: too grand, too proud, too powerful, too global, possessed of too much glorious history and freedom ever to sit at a table and regard other European states as equals?
For those Leavers with those ideas the practical problems and lack of practical benefits of Brexit are not that important.
Though perhaps some find it bewildering that foreigners do not treat the UK as they feel it should be treated.
As other readers have pointed out, the UK’s standards may not yet have diverged from the EU’s, but this is the declared policy of the present UK government, ‘sovereignty’ to chase ephemeral trade deals with the US by lowering the UK’s standards. Furthermore, in order to maintain concordance, the UK would be obliged to raise its standards should the EU do so, which it regularly does. This is highly unlikely, because the present UK government refuses to ‘shackle’ itself to such high EU standards. So given the absolute lack of trust in the UK government by the EU after so many broken promises and endless renegotiations, Archie Norman cannot seriously expect the EU to overlook the strict controls on imports to the EU from the UK. As long as this UK government is in power, why should anyone in the EU make any concessions?
Some squabbling down at GB News and perhaps a hint the the meeja is getting ready to turn on Brexit.
I had thought what possible reason would intelligent people with a command of business have to promote Brexit. Never mind the silly posturing about sovereignty and free trade, I’m thinking what’s in it for a rich business elite. Such people are? bright enough to see there was no way sovereignty or free trade as per Brexit would yield even a euro.
Apart from the amusement of chasing a car for fun I could only think the intent might be to break the UK economy for profit. Turn the British into a compliant low wage workforce – making stuff and call centres. The real objective being to crash the mortgage market, buy up mass market property and turn the UK into a giant BTL portfolio.
A rather wild idea and probably wrong, which leaves chasing the car for fun. Now got fed up with the idea, move on and leave politicos to sort the mess. Interesting to see how it all evolves.
since the dididums from Cameron leaving no 10 after the referendum I have this to English proverbs (I hope that is the right word)
in my Head “foot in your mouth and then shoot your foot”
sorry totally off topic but what can one say in this situation
two not to sorry
A wonderful breakfast read which conjours up much irony that doesn’t even register with this Johnsonian Government because they don’t care
“Taking back Control” may prove to be one of the most influential ‘earworms’ ever since Kylie sang “I should be so lucky ” spouted by a Government but failed to deliver anything near to what it said on the tin.
Now we are left with the UK’s Ministers embarrassing themselves on a world stage stomping their feet making demands on the EU that l feel they should know can’t be met because ‘dem the rules’ that we helped make! But that is what this Billy no mates Government does for it’s audience, trying to deflect the blame for it’s “High slogans ” and wash responsibility away for its mistruths.
“For taking back control exists on the plane of slogans and not on the messy plane of reality of the world in which we live.”
In fact each time the negative consequences are highlighted, this reality check is presented as proof that we were right to leave the EU
The logical fallacy is irrelevant when used in populist rhetoric