13th May 2022
The multiverse is a concept well known to superhero comics fans.
A multiverse, in essence, allows the same characters and places to exist in a number of alternative realities.
For the storyteller and the reader this allows different stories to be told about say, Batman and Gotham City, unconstrained by the hobgoblins of continuity or consistency.
For the publishers and film-makers it allows deployment and exploitation of valuable intellectual property in a number of different contexts, unconstrained by those same two hobgoblins.
And there is the added advantage that, every so often, you can have crossover and ‘crisis’ events where universes collide.
Everyone is a winner.
*
Brexit is a multiverse.
In one continuity, Brexit-I, you have the official position – as illustrated by treaties signed and legislation passed, and by economic data.
This is the version of the Brexit story that a historian working only from official and business records would tell.
In another continuity, Brexit-II, you have the excited briefings and front-page newspaper splashes that spill over from the soap opera of Westminster politics.
The weekly event of the United Kingdom government about to do something rather dramatic and plainly stupid, in return for claps and cheers from the easily impressed.
Often this second continuity crosses over to the first continuity and there is a crisis event.
And there is a third continuity, Brexit-III, which are the same events as set out above but as seen with bemusement and/or horror from Dublin, Washington, Brussels and elsewhere.
This is the world of Brexit-III – the story of outside entities who are affected by but cannot directly intervene in the worlds of Brexit-I and Brexit-II.
Those in Brexit-III are conscious of the propensity of Brexit-II in particular to create crisis events.
Yet Brexit-III is stuck in its own external continuity, with its own norms and values unknown in Brexit-II.
*
Every so often in comics you will get a bright and ambitious executive who directs that the separate universes in the multiverse be fused, because it is all getting too complicated for new readers.
And we then get stories where characters in different universes are confronted with their counterparts, knowing only one version of themselves will survive.
This can be all great fun – but such grand fusions rarely last long, and the universes again multiply because that is the way of superhero comics, as it suits the respective interests of readers, storytellers, and businesses.
Some may think it is a good thing for a multiverse to be fused, but nobody really likes it for long.
And the same can be said for the Brexit multiverse of madness.
Brexit-I is best kept as far as possible from Brexit-II.
Those invested in Brexit-II will never understand Brexit-III, and vice versa.
Trying to unify Brexit so there is a single continuity and narrative that can be shared by all is pointless and futile.
There will not be a single Brexit story, at least for a political generation.
And so we will have, at least for a political generation, crisis events where these Brexit universes collide.
Brace, brace.
**
Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.
These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
You can also become an email subscriber.
***
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 and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
Really nice ‘explanation’ of the weird world we live in, so far as Brexit – and some other divisive topics – are concerned.
Concerning the current issues with the NI Protocol, it may be John Crace who said he is eagerly awaiting the confrontation between Lord Frost and whichever dunderhead it was who negotiated the said Protocol (rumoured to be one Sir David Frost). Could be a real singularity, in the Black Hole sense!
That would be like the final episode of The Prisoner…
(Does this count as a spoiler after 54 years?)
I like to think of Brexit-Prime as the timeline where the promises of the Leave contingent were observed, we left Europe but stayed within the Single Market and the Customs Union. Sadly the authors of the universe decided that this new reality, Brexit-May, if you will, would be more exciting so the promises were ditched and the hardest Brexit imaginable enacted. It’s a shame we can’t put it back on the shelf, shake our heads sadly, and opine that we’ll wait for the authors to come to their senses before starting to read it again.
This is pure genius.
What a great analogy!
Perhaps Superman could fly rapidly round and round the world, turning time back to before the Brexit referendum, which could then be taken with real insight into the real and imagined benefits and its drawbacks.
If only!
The Prime Minister refuses to operate in the realm of your Brexit I. He is loathed in Brussels because he will only operate in Brexit II, pretending that Brexit I never existed. It would likely be possible to reach reasonable, compromise settlements on the operation of the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP) were he to admit that the NIP involves a border in the Irish Sea, and tell the DUP that this was (in his view) the only way to secure Brexit. The truth is there for all to see, but …
… He will not say it. He has never admitted that his assurances of “no checks” between GB and NI was false. Until he (or a successor UK PM) does this, Brussels’ policy will remain the same. No trust, no progress.
Boris will not change. His approach to the truth on the NIP is the same as his approach to the truth over lockdown parties, the funding of No 10 flat redecorations, proroguing Parliament, fast-track PPE procurements and much else. His approach to the truth is the central issue. It is the only issue, really. Which is why partygate really matters.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there is zero chance of a solution to the NIP (nor progress in any other Brexit/border challenge that needs new solutions – from fishing to financial services to channel crossings to the operation of import checks) until there is both a change of government in the UK, and also a new Commission in Brussels …
… because the Brexit multiverse game can be extended and played in any number of parallel dimensions, but with the same actors playing the same untruths, there can be no progress, no winner.
I do like multiverse’s not least because they align with my early training and profession in mathematics.
If we accept Brexit-I, II & III then EU Before Ukraine ( let’s define as EU -I) & EU post Ukraine ( say EU-II) is another multiverse just ‘around the corner’.
I’m really intrigued by EU-II.
It’s really got it’s work cut out as its already significantly changed from EU-I.
Indeed it’s very very hard to see EU-II having much sustainability – the tensions with the member states are now very visible and the old supposed cohesiveness of EU-I is in tatters especially, Germany’s relationship with member states & indeed Russia.
Combine Brexit-III and EU-II.
If Brexit was madness then EU-II is chaos.
Oh, what a multiverse we live in .
Thanks to twitter I have discovered a new word.
Whataboutery.
The EU I and EU II are in fact the exact same thing. They are only perceived as different by those observing from Brexit II, who remain convinced EU I did not allow its members to act as individuals, imposing rigid control. The Covid and Ukraine crises showed states can and do act independently and are, amazingly, able to exercise their Sovrin-T with little inhibition. It turns out The Bastards, (c) J Major, made it all up.
And then you have part of the Brexit-III universe (Washington) that may suddenly elide into being a Brexit-II universe.
I think that the third and fourth words in your title are redundant.
Whilst we may, or may not, be in a multiverse (and as an empirical scientist, I tend to the latter choice), the act of “fusion” is likely to be delayed until after the next election restores a degree of political normalcy to Westminster.
The problems of NI can be resolved if the UK seeks practical membership of the single market and agrees to follow EU trading rules (and “Norms”) and once more abide by phytosanitory requirements in name and deed. Whilst Labour is not (yet?) ready to call out the folly of Brexit, claiming that we must make the best of a bad job, it does recognise that the nation must adopt one set of trading standards – and that the obvious choice is that of the EU.
Once Johnson (a simple opportunist “Eurosceptic”) and the Brexit Taliban are swept from power, the new administration, be it Labour or a coalition, can set about fence mending (as opposed to the sitting, so favoured by its previous leadership) with the EU. As an ardent remainer, I would say that rejoining the EU is in the interest of all parties, but even the more pesimistic amongst us must surely agree that removing many of the barriers to trade (let’s call it Blue tape, in honour of those that imposed it!) is in our mutual interest.
Manifestly, in the current tragic circumstances, it is obvious that Europe is better speaking from a single geopolitical point (where possible) vis a vis Russia, but also more generally on the world stage.
There is no reason to allow a political mistake to fester for a generation before righting it – particularly when younger members of society largely opposed it in the first place. The European Movement is actively seeking the re-entry of the UK into the EU in the quickest timeframe possible and is hungry for new members!
I think that there is a plan to arrange the stand off to get a trade deal with the US.
Lord Frost (a super villain name if ever there was one) seems to exist each universe but slips between them with no awareness of where he is.
That explains how his agreement can both be a huge victory and need to be ripped up. He’s obviously crossed over at some point and is unaware of his past actions.
It cannot be excluded, yet, that the toxic extremes of heat and light emitted by those inhabiting Brexit II are little more than the types of radiation emitted by objects just before they fall into a supermassive black hole…
Meanwhile, people stuck in the real world of Brexit I who have lost their freedoms and rights, or businesses facing higher costs and lost opportunities would be well advised, if they cannot teleport to Brexit III, to move away at light speed from the frenzied, but doomed, Brexit II.
At Warp Factor 12…
This might be a bad analogy (wish me luck), but I find Brexit (perhaps, more accurately, the question of Britain’s EU membership) to be another example of what I call the “Tea or Coffee?” problem.
It works like this.
Imagine that we’re acquaintances and that circumstances emerge in which you find yourself visiting me at home. After welcoming you in, exchanging pleasantries, ushering you to a comfortable seat, I turn to you and inquire, “Tea or coffee?”
This is a polite, harmless question, is it not? Well, actually, now I come to think about it, it isn’t. Not even close. With the utterance of those three words I’ve managed something really quite unpleasant. First, I’ve assumed that you’re going to be drinking, like it or not. I did not, after all, begin with, “May I offer you anything to drink?” Instead, I assumed that you were going to answer in the affirmative. Next, irrespective of the choice of beverages I have on offer, I’ve also decided that I am going to limit you to select from just two of them: tea and coffee. Your only choices will be from a shortlist that I and I alone control. Lastly, I’ve decided that even if you accept my (un)gracious invitation and make selection, I’m not going to ask you how you take your beverage. Oh no. I shall decide, not you, whether you partake of milk, or cream, or sugar. I shall decide which blend of tea or coffee you may have.
This is the question (“tea or coffee”) that David Cameron presented the nation with the referendum, but, in large part, it is also the decision that the EU presents its membership. In Cameron’s case, perhaps the question was too simplistic and rejected at least in part on that basis.
We see similar complexity in the real world. What started out as an economic free trade area has been progressively morphing, through treaty after treaty, to be something completely different. Most importantly, it is the only beverage on the menu: EU membership is “all in”. You’re getting Earl Grey, with no milk, no sugar and a thin slice of lemon, whether you like it or not…
The thing is, no matter how much the EU might like the world to be the equivalent of a cup of Earl Grey with a slice of lemon, the real world isn’t like that. In fact, for the mathematicians out there, it’s probably a lot closer to a “complex system”.
Here is where we find the dichotomy that lives at the heart of the EU project. Not in the realm of, “To Brexit or Not”, but in the realm of “How does the EU continue to be all things to all people and remain both relevant and beneficial?”
To try and close the loop and bring my alternate perspective to David’s original post… “EU 1” would be the “EEC”, an economic community, a foundation based on simplifying trade”. Note that versions of “EU 1” operate with brilliant success all over the world – USMCA (formerly NAFTA), as well as trade partnerships in the Pacific, Latin America, etc. By keeping the scope of content simple – trade – it’s a lot easier to build a consensus that keeps all members happy.
“EU 2”, extending the analogy, would be what happened when the basic trading framework gradually bloated out to include somewhat interconnected matters – things like tax harmonisation, movement of people, etc. None of these are directly *necessary* for a free trade agreement, but, done right, can undeniably help.
“EU 3” adds, if not an order of magnitude more complexity, then certainly sufficiently additional complexity so as to make the result extremely fragile. For example, by adopting the Euro as the single European currency, with the ECB setting interest rates block-wide, the EU created a very significant problem for itself. The so-called PIGS – Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain – have economies that are seasonal, are driven by tourism, and which are far less robust or developed than, say, those of France or Germany. Yet the ECB is basically “Bundesbank 2” – look at the internal structure and note the 1:1 similarities – and wasn’t designed to support such diverse economies. (Try setting a single interest rate that simultaneously copes with an economically over-heating north and a struggling south and see how you get on).
We’re not quite in “Star Wars” territory (“The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers…”) but we might as well be.
And all this *before* we come to some of the weightier questions we know to be on the minds of European leaders – for example the creation of a standing “European Army”. How would Britain react, for example, if Brussels decided to send a large contingent of that army to Ukraine, including, say, British artillery and tanks? Suppose that Britain’s contribution to that EU Army made up 90% of the armoured contingent, meaning that the UK was proportionally putting far more forces personnel in mortal danger than the other nations?
These are the sorts of challenges that will emerge as the EU pushes for more and more integration. The UK was, clearly, the first nation to find itself at the nexus of competing stress points and to find the “balance of the deal” to be unfavourable, but if the EU continues to push forward in the way her leaders say they wish to move, we may not [likely will not] be the last.
So whilst there is absolutely and undeniably elements of Brexit 1, 2 and 3 happening around us today, we have to view them against the broader backdrop of what was and wasn’t working in EU-land. Perhaps equally importantly, we have to consider them from the perspective of what the broader EU were and were not willing to try and work towards solving.
It’s undeniable that our current government has made an almost total lash-up of navigating us through choppy Brexit waters. It’s also true to say that our experience on this journey is down entirely to their mis-management, with a little help from predecessors-in-interest.
But it’s also worth keeping a weather eye on mainland Europe – and in so doing noting that none of the issues or concerns that caused the UK to speak up and to begin the Brexit journey have yet been addressed. So whilst (the implementation of) Brexit continues to be an undeniable madness, it doesn’t automatically follow that the alternative would have been materially better.
“ments of Brexit 1, 2 and 3 happening around us today, we have to view them against the broader backdrop of what was and wasn’t working in EU-land…”
My view exactly.
EU-II or EU (post Ukraine+Covid hangover) makes for a very different environment. However, I suspect that EU-II hasn’t quite worked out that World II ( post Brexit & Ukraine+ COVID) has altered the calculus somewhat.
I guess part of the problem was that EU I or EEC with just trade couldn’t ,in all honesty, deal with EU ( trade + politics + social gig) – it was always a big ask – not a surprise that EU I didn’t go to plan with 28 members, now 27.
“… not a surprise that EU I didn’t go to plan with 28 members, now 27…”
This is where I think the question gets interesting. This isn’t a rhetorical question and I most certainly don’t mean to come across as rude, but do we know this for fact?
I’ll admit to being too young to have personal recollections of the migration from EEC to EC to EU… but does the record indeed show that the EEC was dysfunctional in some way?
Perhaps more interestingly, if you’ll permit me a follow-up question… if EEC (I) hit trouble, then on what planet did the architects think that pushing further (towards EC (II)) would make sense? Surely you’d want to pause and solve the instant problem? … You can tell that I’ll never make it in politics, can’t you?
“..but does the record indeed show that the EEC was dysfunctional in some way?..”
DAG blog,has, to an extent, addressed this point -EU-I fundamentally changed with the Maastricht Treaty – it unashamedly moved from what was a trading block to an embryonic political and monetary uinon. Brexit, proper started from here – with EU-I having a different direction ftom EEC. For the UK it became even more dysfunctional.
Over 45 years of membership of EU-I , UK learned to its cost ( around demos & voting) that EU-I was all about can- kicking down the road – this is best exemplified by the half baked monetary and economic union that causes so many dsyfunctional issues with the EuroZone to this day.
“..You can tell that I’ll never make it in politics, can’t you?..”
Probably but it’s a dirty game – probably best out of it.
What interests me about this history is that when you step back and look at some of the decisions being made, you realise that it wasn’t that some failed to make sense, but that they were cloud-cuckoo-land bonkers.
For example, we have abundant evidence that free trade agreements work the world over with different currencies in use across the trade area. OK, banks make money exchanging funds, but that can be covered by regulation if things get out of hand. The EU chose to go a different route – the ERM or Exchange Rate Mechanism… an attempt to retain different currencies but put artificial restrictions on exchange rates themselves, to stop “circular speculative trading”. What happened, financiers like George Soros looked for the runt of the litter, decided it was Sterling – and sold it short. Norman Lament stepped in and declared that the Bank of England would underwrite the pound… and George Soros said, “Thank you very much,” took the UK to the cleaners and became a billionaire several times over.
How did the EU respond to this? They decided the solution was to eliminate different currencies all together and the Euro was born. But through this “genius” the plan mandated a single central bank, that set interest rates in one place… which meant that where two or more Eurozone economies fell out of sync with each other – as happened with Greece, Italy and Spain – the result was the cratering of those economies when monetary policy became less favourable. The Eurozone, which seemed to have turned a blind eye to admission requirements for e.g. Greece, suddenly found itself with a huge bailout on their hands, funded by the wealthier north.
So hang on. Sign up to the Eurozone, lose control of your currency, lose control over your ability to set interest rates to support your national businesses and citizens… watch while a neighbour and fellow member behaves very irresponsibly… and *then* discover that you’re going to fund their bailout?
The EU has done so much good, especially with their willingness to protect citizens through e.g. ECHR, regulation like the GDPR, etc. Yet at the same time, at their core, they seem to have lost sight of “getting the basics right” in a mad rush to pile more and more on top of things that are no longer working or have never worked.
OK, the UK are just the same. I’m not observing this to “throw stones”. What interests me is the fact that the EU is closer to a “clean sheet” than the economic/legal/social framework of any member nation… yet members seem so keen to not just make a mess of things, but compound those errors as they go.
I can sort-of understand when the UK makes decisions concerning e.g. economic policy, or the law, or similar… that I find to be ill-conceived – we carry a lot of historic baggage and are beset with often-toxic politics. But the EU was supposed to rise above all of that. Instead, it seems intent on making the same or similar mistakes, just at a much larger scale…
Of course a single currency is not required for free trade agreements. However the EU was aiming for a single market. Trading in a common currency is a desirable feature. It means businesses do not have to be concerned about currency fluctuations and conversion costs. Anyone who has traded internationally will know the risks currency fluctuations can introduce to their business.
The challenge the current euro common currency is legion – it’s called a non optimal Currency Union for good reason.
Currency value & fluctuations and transaction costs are all part of business – transaction costs, sure important, but currency value is determined by multiple factors including a) money supply, interest rates, member currency bond rates, taxation, member state money market borrowing, nation banking exposure , confidence in government of the day – the list is endless.
Added to the abovementioned are money transfers from rich to poor countries , no Banking union or deposit insurance and no realistic plans for full sovereign mutual debt issuance – apart from small amount provided under northern nations duress post Covid epidemic.
Until a full on EU Treasury is defined, mutual debt limits agreed including the necessary governance procedures for a full on political & economic & monetary union are for the fairy’s.
Oh, never mind the demos – the Greek’s know all about defaulting on their debts.
It’s amazing how the Euro has survived 20 years with all these alleged defects. You put too much faith in economics, a so called science based on several false hypotheses. Politics, another false science, sometimes trumps economics, as it seems to have done in the survival of the Euro.
Some of the arguments used against the Euro could also be applied to the dollar, or even to the pound sterling.
Greece should never have been allowed to join the Euro in the first place. It was nowhere near meeting the required criteria but the economic figures were massaged and accepted. Had the UK been a member of the eurozone we’d have been the first country demanding Greece pay its own way, not need repeated bailouts.
Creating a currency union between independent states was a huge risk and a major undertaking. One I’m glad the UK never joined because I think we were too divergent too. That being said the Euro works well for the member countries and it certainly works well for businesses trading with the eurozone as it makes things so much simpler.
The ERM certainly was, as Alan Walters famously said, half baked, but the Euro is a solid foundation.
“Greece should never have been allowed to join the Euro in the first place.”
Should/could/would – most overly used phrases in the language.
The challenge you face with this argument is that Greece was allowed into the euro – in the sense that one has to deal with Life as it actually is, not how you’d like in your particular multiverse.
“businesses trading with the eurozone as it makes things so much simpler.”
This is , frankly, trivial in the scheme of things.
You miss the point. Yes Greece was admitted to the eurozone and when things turned bad it suffered the consequences. But that wasn’t a failure of the euro as a currency. It was a consequence of the rules for entry that were in place being broken.
Yes the ease of using the Eurozone by businesses isn’t the most important thing in itself, but it is part of the convenience which surely increases trade. That is not trivial.
It’s pretty evident that both you and I have very different interpretations of the use, efficacy and sustainability of the euro in its present incarnation.
Let’s leave it at that.
If only you would.
“The euro can’t possibly work” fundamentalists never miss an opportunity to “explain” how it is always just about to fail.
“Over 45 years of membership of EU-I , UK learned to its cost ( around demos & voting) that EU-I was all about can- kicking down the road – this is best exemplified by the half baked monetary and economic union that causes so many dsyfunctional issues with the EuroZone to this day.”
The UK learned no such lesson. The EU may be slow at implementing decisions but if anyone kicks the can it’s the UK. Anything awkward is delayed until it is no one cares any more and it’s quietly forgotten.
What the UK government did learn was that it could blame any intractable difficulty on the EU and the public would swallow it. However this contributed immeasurably to the perception that the EU was the cause of our problems and that Brexit would solve that.
As for the eurozone, that isn’t an example of can kicking. Most EU members decided to adopt the euro and went ahead with it seeing the clear advantages. The difficulties that have arisen have been managed. That isn’t can kicking, it’s pragmatism. The alternative would be to allow an otherwise very successful monetary system to collapse into chaos.
“but does the record indeed show that the EEC was dysfunctional in some way?”
I am (sadly) not too young to remember the evolution, at least since 1970. So here is a potted lesson on how economics and politics pulled the EEC into the EU.
1) (Almost) all economists agreed, at least until the 1970s and probably still, that reducing barriers to trade improves economic well-being of both parties;
2) Free trade areas were an attempt to gain these benefits, at least within the members of the area;
3) However, every move to reduce tarifs came up against defenders arguing that the tarifs were needed on quality/
social/security/environmental grounds;
4) In most free trade areas this led to a stalling, and often abandonment, of the free trade goal. The then EEC chose a different approach;
5) Starting (roughly) in 1972 – the Brandt-Giscard and later Mitterand years – the EEC chose a different approach: instead of abandoning efforts towards free trade it decided to address the other issues so that social/environmental/quality concerns could all be addressed in the context of the evolving Union. This was the inspiration behind ‘Ever Closer Union’ and the logical result was a not just tarif-free but also border-free space and, to a very large extent, a common regulatory area – the Single Market.
6) For some parties this went too far, and unable to stop the bus they (we in the UK) decided to get off.
7) Some of those still on the bus heaved a sigh of relief at the loss of the UK burden and wanted (still want) to accelerate; others now wonder if they should get off too.
8) The result is …
“..5) Starting (roughly) in 1972 – the Brandt-Giscard and later Mitterand years – the EEC chose a different approach: instead of abandoning efforts towards free trade it decided to address the other issues so that social/environmental/quality concerns could all be addressed in the context of the evolving Union. This was the inspiration behind ‘Ever Closer Union’ and the logical result was a not just tarif-free but also border-free space and, to a very large extent, a common regulatory area – the Single Market…”
These other issues of social/environmental/quality concerns turned political pretty quickly given their impact on national states – Douglas Hurd, one time Foreign Secretary called them the nooks & crannies which many in the UK didn’t like the EUs perceived ( or otherwise,) meddling in national affairs.
The “ever closer union” of was, I recall, in the Treaty of Rome which was 1957. Very inspiring so many years later.
The common market or single market is allegedly more down to Sir Arthur Cockfield who was Mrs Thatcher’s advisor around c. 1985-92.
Apart from that , jobs a good-un.
I wish you luck.
But it is a bad analogy.
The referendum was, as far as the EU was concerned, about “Tea or no tea”.
You chose “No tea”. Fair. No tea it is.
Ofcourse, feel free to reflect on what the EU is, what it was, what it is to be. It is necessary too. But “none of the issues or concerns that caused the UK to leave the EU and begin the Brexit journey have been addressed”?
That makes me think of the day after the referendum, when “What is the EU?” was topping the Google search results in Britain.
So forgive me for thinking that the majority of Leave-voters may not have thought things completely true the day before. Neither the issues and concerns in relation to their own country, nor the ins and outs of the EU’s workings.
I’ve come across a John Jones on a different blog some time ago who found it pretty funny to imagine that the EU would patrol the NI/Ireland border with EU uniforms. A good laugh, innit.
I am a Dutch citizen and my heart bleeds both for the Brits who lost pretty essential rights over night and the Irish who may have a very difficult time coming. Brace brace indeed
“pretty funny to imagine that the EU would patrol the NI/Ireland border with EU uniforms. A good laugh, innit…”
Oh, I laughed.
With all the talk of ripping up the NIP or even invocation of Article 16 of the NIP ( Which seems to be now sending shivers down the EU -II spine) & possible retaliation by the EU, the likely certainty is that there really will be a hard border between RoI/NI.
Now, given the RoI, doesn’t have a real Army, it’s highly likely that an EU Army ( let’s call it Corps-de-Macron) or Frontex will be the new border guards in Blue & Yellow star’s.
The laughing stops in Metaverse EU-II when said Frontex guards have their smart uniforms used as target practice.
No one puts troops on a customs border. Especially troops that only exist in your imagination.
Ireland has customs officers and a police force, which would be much more appropriate. Assuming you think any border patrols would be appropriate in Ireland under the GFA the UK government and the DUP claim to be protecting.
And Referendum question also like “Literature/history/philosophy/science/etc. Yes or no?”
We need Wanda to utter the immortal words: no more Brexit.
Time is linear in Brexit-I and Brexit-III, circular in Brexit-II. This timeloop quality of Brexit-II has been observed by commentators such as Chris Grey, who calls it a Moebius strip, and Fintan O’Toole, who compared it to the nightmarish eternal-return plot of The Third Policeman by Flann O’Brien. In Brexit-II Anglo-British intransigence and fantasy expand until they collide with the limits imposed by Brexit-I and Brexit-III, which leads to collapse and the start of the next cycle.
If only we had a hero trotting between the worlds and resolving the crises, like Doctor Who, or like Chrestomanci in the Diana Wynne-Jones novels. I fear their only available power would be to advise UK voters to throw the Conservatives out at the next general election, in the hope of ending the crisis cycle and bringing Brexit-II into a more stable alignment with I & III.
The Story of Brexit is already out there with regular even weekly updates.
In future it will be probably be the equivalent of a Hilary Mantel ‘novel’ with a cast of characters based on real people.
The poor sods who are trying to make it work are blamed for its ‘imperfections’. Meanwhile a cast of incompetents play at government.
It is a rich area for creative writing but not the comic superhero.
To pick up the John Crace reference, imagine the Lord Frost of today meeting both the Sir David Frost who negotiated the detail of Brexit and the earlier Frost of the Scotch Whisky Association who was pro-Remain.
In response to Sproggit – 14th May at 22.01 when he/she writes:
“..So hang on. Sign up to the Eurozone, lose control of your currency, lose control over your ability to set interest rates to support your national businesses and citizens… watch while a neighbour and fellow member behaves very irresponsibly… and *then* discover that you’re going to fund their bailout?..”
Signing up to the eurozone is really, really bad unless you’re Germany – but then, that is how EMU and Target 2 was designed .
The Eurozone is very much half baked – sure you lose control over your currency /interest rates/ability to print money – what eurozone doesn’t give ECB is the ability to manage full on economic and monetary union. To do this, you really need full political union – going this far is a massive step because it effectively means a member state abrogates its tax and expenditure policy – this calles into question the need for national parliaments as, effectively all monetary & economic decisions will be outwith any member states control.
The other major challenges are, of course transfer union of money from rich to poor states and full on debt mutualisation when smaller eurozone counties effectively become protectorates /fiefdoms of the bigger states.
I can see Germany and possibly France wanting this level of control & power – whether it would be acceptable to NL & Italy is another matter.
One of the reasons that some of voted for Brexit was the inevitable route the eurozone was taking as an inner core thereby making decisions (and caucusing using QMV) for their own gratification /interests over and above the need of the EU.
EU-II metaverse.
What a cynical view of a project that was based on the idealism of the EU’s founding fathers and was signed up to by the member states of the eurozone with various and different balances between idealism and realism. I wonder if the writer is an idealist or realist about the UK’s economic prospects outside the EU.
“…I wonder if the writer is an idealist or realist about the UK’s economic prospects outside the EU…”
It matters not what I am.
In the multiverse, the EU is whatever its supported want it to be.
A slight adaption*,with thanks to Lewis Carol, from Alice through the Looking Glass.
*When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“In the multiverse, the EU is whatever its supported want it to be.”
Equally the EU is whatever its opponents want it to be too. And therein lies the Brexit conundrum. However I would argue that the negative claims of its opponents tend to be disproved by the actuality of EU membership. Now the UK is no longer a member the actuality of that will over time prove who was right and who was wrong.
The Brexit argument seems to have been an echo of Margaret Thatcher’s logic – when something is not working perfectly, e.g. Nationalised Industries, get rid of them (in this case via privatisation). With Europe, the EU is not working perfectly, so leave.
In both cases, nothing useful was proposed to replace what was being got rid of.
What we have seen in the time since the Brexit referendum day is that the British political is very far from perfect, indeed it has numerous flaws. The elephant in the room is not Brexit (which is truly terrible, but the failings in the UK political and legal system that we have. The two that I know, Germany and Switzerland, do things very much better. As much power as possible is devolved as much as possible. Knee-jerk reactions are almost impossible with several layers of government to go through, BUT Ukraine has shown that the German model can be pretty agile (huge decisions within a week or two) despite not being a virtual dictatorship.
While the EU is not perfect, it is much more likely to survive than the current UK political system.
All systems have weaknesses in principle, but Germany and Finland and Sweden in the last months have shown that where there is a lot of grass roots support, problems can be solved.
Multiverse?
Am I the only one sitting chilled with terror at the prospect of ‘Ministerman: no way home’ featuring three – count’em, three – Michael Goves?
No, you’re not.
Interesting article, but I would disagree with one point.
There are plenty of people in Brexit III who understand Brexit II. They just think it is stupid and pointless; or, to be more charitable, that it will not (and cannot) deliver what Brexit II proponents believe.
It’s rather like saying that atheists don’t understand religion. They do; they just don’t agree with it.
The EU, for better or worse, is undoubtedly the very definition of a complex system in which short and long range interactions over fast and slow timescales bring about unpredictable emergent behaviours, Brexit being just one of them.
In seeking “ever closer union” in Europe one might observe that, noble though the intentions were, I wouldn’t start from here. Up until recently we might also have looked enviously at another close union of similar but different states (the USA) and thought “well, that seems to work”, conveniently forgetting the long and painful path it took to create that union and make it work (I did say, until recently).
It was commented above that: “I can sort-of understand when the UK makes decisions concerning e.g. economic policy, or the law, or similar… that I find to be ill-conceived – we carry a lot of historic baggage and are beset with often-toxic politics. But the EU was supposed to rise above all of that. Instead, it seems intent on making the same or similar mistakes, just at a much larger scale…”
One of the challenges in seeking ever closer union between the nation states of Europe is that they ALL “carry a lot of historic baggage and are beset with often-toxic politics”. Still, it was worth a try.
One tthing about the multiverse that doesn’t apply here: in the multiverse you can always find a world where such a such an event never happened. Unfortunately our world is irreversible. We can undo Brexit and rejoin EU-2, or watch EU-2 unravel or even transform into a more unified and coherent EU-3 as the current geopolitical tidal forces play out.
But in all those futures Brexit will have happened and we cannot possibly go back to the way things were.
Our choices will determine which future we get, so thank goodness we have a wise and thoughtful government to guide …
Oh, bugger.
Re: Brexit-I, Brexit-II, Brexit-III and others.
Elsewhere in the science fiction universe there is an Ice-9 (a phase of water ice) the main feature of which is that it destroys everything it comes into contact with. Perhaps we are waiting for a Brexit-IX of similar potency, before we get to see widespread replacement of wishful thinking by realism.
This is assuming Brexit is still called Brexit by then. Another popular ploy with politicians is to change the name of something that’s going badly. If “take back control” means bringing things back to where they’re local, perhaps it would be called “local Britain”. Then, like in the shop in The League of Gentleman, it will mean
This is a local country for local people.
There’s nothing for you here.
That seems to have about the right zeitgeist.
Do we therefore need Lord Asriel and Dust?
Btw genius blog David!