4th November 2022
When I posted a correction yesterday, I got this comment in the moderation box:
Gosh.
Mistakes come in different forms: mistakes of attribution (such as the one corrected) are mistakes of fact, but there can also be mistakes of judgement and reasoning, and even mistakes of principle (either in their assertion or in their application).
And the mistake alleged here was one of those broader forms of mistake.
Should I recant?
Should I admit that I am wrong as alleged?
Well.
No.
The position remains (excuse the pun) that I have no ultimate objection to Brexit.
By which I mean I have no ultimate objection to the United Kingdom not being a member state of the European Union.
I do object – fundamentally – to the United Kingdom being outside of the Single Market.
But it is quite possible to be a member of the Single Market and not be a member of the European Union.
Indeed, a number of European countries are members of the Single Market but not members of the European Union.
I also object – and have done so consistently, and in detail – to the manner and speed of the departure.
(Departure should have been done slowly, gradually and methodically over a decade at least.)
So consistent and detailed have I been in this objection many regard me as pretty much a Remainer.
Some may say – perhaps fairly – that my view is of a Brexit in name only, where the substance of law and policy would not change, but with the United Kingdom formally outside the institutions of the European Union.
My preference would be for a close Association Agreement, with settled mechanisms for dialogue and consultation between the European Union and the United Kingdom on Single Market issues.
But since Maastricht I have not seen the case for the European Union to cover the non Single Market (once called) “pillars” of justice and home affairs, or of foreign and security policy.
Of course: cooperation on such topics is crucial – but there is no necessary reason why such cooperation should be through the European Union.
I also do not think a single currency is essential for a Single Market.
And the United Kingdom’s half-hearted opt-in-and-opt-out approach to the European Union on the other “pillars” and the single currency was a brake on what other member states wanted to do, and so I do think the European Union is better off without us if that is what they want to do.
So, I will not be issuing a correction post on my judgement call.
I realise that the view set out above is not widely shared – and perhaps nobody else has exactly the same view.
But it is my sincerely held view, and I cannot and will not pretend otherwise.
So this is my non-apology, and I hope you can accept it!
***
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.
The comments policy is here.
Fascinating, and good of you, David.
Two questions come from this:
– When you say single market, do you mean only the single market or the customs union as well? It is certainly possible to do either without the other, but the economics works much better with both, clearly.
– Given the regulatory requirements of the single market, how do you deal with the democratic deficit that SM (or SM+CU) / EEA membership would impose?
Thank-you,
– The customs union (ie, Common Commercial Policy) is not the Single Market – and had I meant to refer to the customs union I would have said so.
– On your second point, you will see my post refers to the joint bodies for consultation and dialogue.
By all accounts, the joint committees for ‘consultation and dialog’ consist of a junior EU civil servant handing over a copy of the new rules to the EU’s partners some 30 minutes before they are published.
There is no possible real ‘dialog’ when the EU decides what is in its vital interests or that of its members. My lot have found this out again and again. If you want to play in the European sandbox, you play by. Europe’s rules, as Musk is about to find out (the hard way).
The central problem with “joint committees for consultation and dialogue” is that – from an EU perspective – if they were on a genuinely equal footing, they would give the UK far more influence over SM policy than it would have as one of 28 Member States. So they can’t be on an equal footing.
They certainly cannot be seen to be on an equal footing, I agree.
But influence and transparency and consensus are interesting bedfellows, as the Council [of Ministers] has long shown.
I agree. An “association” with the “single market” simply does not exist. Neither, incidentally, does such a market. It has been used for decades as a term of convenience for (i) the internal market in goods and services and (ii) the carve-out from it in the EEA. But the experience of the non-EU members of the latter demonstrates irrefutably that the EU members are open only to such participation on the basis of the acceptance of the four freedoms. Including freedom of movement of persons!
As always a very thoughtful post David. As someone who ran a company working primarily with EU companies and often with research funding, I could only see negatives from Brexit so naturally opposed it. The ideological approach of the subsequent Tory governments has only made the situation worse.
It appears to me that the best we could do now is negotiate Single Market membership and work from there. That would of course require alignment with product and service regulations which, unless I misunderstand, would solve many of the Customs issues. However, where would that leave Freedom of Movement? I personally would be keen to see that reintroduced but that would be very contentious.
The first step might be to reintroduce reciprocal freedom of movement. Let’s get used to enjoying the privileges we used to have as Brits in Europe. And get on with working closely in the UK with local Europeans rather than flying people in from around the globe. Once we are back to normal on this reciprocal right, everything else is simple….
It is the key step. And major stumbling block. Insurmountable, in fact, in the present state of British politics.
The single market has no legal existence. It is nowhere to be found in the treaties. The internal market does and is precisely defined. The customs union is an integral part of the internal market.
“The Single Market Act”
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/single-market-act_en
This is too easy.
My earlier reply appears to have gone AWOL. In short; one cannot find a single reference to the “single market” in the treaties or ANY legislative act of the EU. The relevant article in the TFEU defining the internal market is Article 26 (ex TEC 14). The “Act” you quote is a political exercise and no more.
fair comment David, I too could have lived with being in the Single Market and not EU,. Though, I would prefer us to be in the EU, but I am not wedded to it. Unlike my son of course born and brought up knowing almost nothing else. At one time there was this massive Roman Empire – it came and went, as did the British Empire, as does every empire… mankind faces ever greater problems, we can only solve them in partnership, and if the EU is the way forward for that, and imperfect though it may be, I feel it is, then I am also not precious about retaining the “dis-United Kingdom” either.
Thank you David for highlighting something I have felt for a while. We had a (non-binding) referendum on leaving the EU (which did not pass any of the normal thresholds for a binding referendum) and then Theresa May made the purely political decision (for reasons that I suspect were more about staying in power than anything else) that the UK leave “everything”. Why has it become so toxic for politicians to consider reversing that political decision? It’s not like it never happens (the impending fiscal statement from Hunt is just going to be the latest). A proper discussion on Single Market (and Customs Union) is long overdue. And nothing to do with Brexit
While I am strongly opposed to Brexit, I freely admit that a country has the right to choose a course of action that will immiserate a large proportion of the population. However, for this to be legitimate, an open and honest debate is required – my premise is that any decision has to be informed. In this case, given the question posed could only lead to a blank cheque for any government that was enacting Brexit, my objection to the actual Brexit is that it was not given informed consent (and we shall not even go into the questions of industrial scale lying – and it is true that there were elements of the ‘remain’ camp that were attempting to use fear – by highlighting the worst possible outcomes – they were not lying in the sense that these outcomes were possible, even though it was unlikely that the worst possible outcomes would necessarily come to pass).
This is an incredibly well thought out explanation. Speaking for myself, no apology is required, not least because your position is precisely that which led me to vote to leave, a decision I now regret. With hindsight I have far more criticisms of the referendum and the post referencdum process than there is room or time for. Were there but world and time enough. But thank you for this presentation.
I read it several times. OK 20 times
” . . . no way that any Brexit would inevitably entail considerable costs.”
Should this read ” . . . no way that any Brexit would NOT entail considerable costs.”?
I also found this difficult to understand. Does (did) David believe that costs of ANY Brexit were inevitable, or not inevitable?
I first came across you David and developed a taste for your particular style of intellect and analysis in podcast called ‘Remainiacs’ which was dominated by the furious diatribes of characters like Ian Dunt who eloquently channelled my own rage, as someone who had been able to work freely in the EU, married a Dutch woman and still remain a brit. Brexit turned my life upside down (it still has). You were one of the very few Euro sceptical voices on the show. And it had the effect of showing me that rational nuanced arguments for Brexit were possible and that just maybe General de Gaulle had been right. Your presence took some of the toxins out of my blood. It still does and reminds me why I value your work so much.
« that rational nuanced arguments for Brexit were possible »
But these were never made during the referendum campaign as they would have necessitated an admission that Brexit would be costly – and by extension that not all the UK’s problems could be blamed on Johnny E Foreigner.
Brexit won because of ‘cake’, not ‘blood, sweat and tears’.
Er, Shirley, there’s an intended ‘not’ missing from that Comment you quote?
We all need to embrace your perspective, because it is too economically damaging to be outside of the single market but becoming a member of the EU is probably impossible for a generation. Persuading the member states would be beyond us.
Appreciating that this is a discussion to be approached with care, I read the commentator’s conclusion to have been that leaving the EU came at a heavy and inevitable cost – I read DAG’s reply as acknowledging that there has, in fact, been a heavy cost but that ineviable costs could and should have been mitigated by the approaches that he has regularly indicated in his blog and social media.
My position is that (such was the level of vituperation visited on the advocates for and against the question even before it was posed in the referendum) it was reasonably foreseeable that more extreme positions would be taken and followed whatever the result of the referendum. The entire process became gladiatorial and demanded the defenestration of the vanquished.
It can also be argued that this was or should have been wholly predictable to a democratic – and non-populist- politician.
This tragedy has turned out to have been at an extreme cost to the UK’s present and future. On this analysis, Brexit was Pandora’s Box and should never have been opened.
I am Irish, not a UK citizen, and would have been quite happy to see the UK adopt a Norway type relationship with the EU.
But I knew you wouldn’t, because it is obviously worse than membership. Once you decided to leave, it was Sunlit Uplands or bust.
No apology needed. However, those who voted for Brexit expecting the UK negotiators to retain or secure the benefits you list need to acknowledge their naivety.
I voted leave and remain convinced we could have made a success if it had it been handled in a non-ideological way. I object to the way it was handled and, with the benefit of hindsight, the outcome. During the process (partly as a result of your commentary I have to say), I did form the view that agreeing remaining in the single market would have been a good compromise, even if it proved to be temporary with a “full” Brexit in years to come.
We should have spent 5-10 years getting ready for a “no-deal” (preparing the statute book so people had an idea what would change / what they needed to prepare for, hiring customs agents, etc.). If we had then notified of an intention to leave, we would have a least been prepared if a satisfactory deal could not have been reached.
It became apparent very quickly after the vote that it was not going to be pursued in the measured way that such a massive upheaval needed and we are now stuck with it. I absolutely regret my vote knowing what I do now.
I certainly think that an association agreement where we are part of the single market would be an improvement. I also doubt given the current state of politics in this country they would let us back in if we asked.
I must say it is remarkably generous of you to answer the question as intended, and not as the questioner actually wrote it. I confess I would not have been able to resist firing a barrel at that typographical mistake.
I, too, can imagine a Brexit that I would support. For example, a rapid transition to net zero requires huge intervention by the government in many aspects of the economy that might well contravene the Single Market.
But I did not for one moment think that such a Brexit was on offer. All the evidence pointed to a very different kind of Brexit, driven by much more sinister forces that habitually relied on deceit and misinformation. It would have been very foolish of me to have voted for Brexit in such circumstances.
I recall one authority (I forget who it was) saying that for a referendum to work certain things have to be clear: first, it has to be clear what is on offer, such as a specific law or a change in the constitution, in which case there will be some text to scrutinise; second, the government has to be committed to accepting it.
Neither of these things applied in the Brexit referendum.
I could argue that I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the House of Lords ‘in principle’. But the devil is in the detail. If you are going to get rid of the House of Lords then you had better have a very clear statement of exactly what is on offer, and if it is not clear then it would be a very unwise move. Like Brexit.
The person making that comment has presumably made no effort to read (or maybe just understand) your commentary and opinions. You have mainly pointed out the appalling failure to plan for Brexit, failure to think through legislation and the failure to seriously negotiate with the EU.
It has always be “very clear” to me that you supported Brexit in principle, but despaired at the cack-handed approach taken by the pre-Brexit politicians.
Not only has leaving come at a considerable cost but the manner of our leaving will have an effect on any return. I suspect that our neighbours may require an all or nothing rejoin as we have wet the bed and royally pissed them all off. We had the best of all worlds when a member and that isn’t going to be available to UK if/when we return.
Thank you.
I appreciate hearing well argued opinions that I disagree with as it makes me question my opinions.
I’ve held a similar stance to you throughout. Single market was the reason we joined and still hugely valuable. Of course cooperation is mutually beneficial for both sides on all sorts of matters (policing, Erasmus etc).
Something I remain convinced to this day is that they could have made a (relative) success of Brexit, or at least made the calls to reverse it all but go away by going slowly. This was especially the case given Covid, and it should have been a no brainer to delay it amidst the pandemic. Firstly leave but stay in SM and CU, look almost nothing changes at border, you can claim project fear was overstatement. Set a timetable to leave CU in 2 years hence. The withdrawal treaty would have been easy and of course no issues with NIP until after CU exit. You then spend 2yrs negotiating new trade deals, and if you don’t get them, then review the decision/timing to leave. After exiting the CU then set timetable to leave SM if so desired after that point. That way any possible benefits from new trade deals would possibly be improving things at the point you make trade worse by leaving SM, at the least cushioning the blow. That’s of course if we still wanted to go about all this by then.
The problem, and why I voted remain, was that the people who would be making these decisions didn’t seem either honest or competent, and so many contradictory statements had been made, so it was clear it would be a faeces/fan interface. But given the vote went the way it did, I think a slow, cautious exit (maybe similar to outlined above) might have won enough of those who voted remain at least to give it a chance.
With you on quite a bit of this. Less so on being outside EU on defence / foreign affairs. (I’m almost a pacifist, but not quite).
Cooperation on these is of course possible without being part of the full range of EU institutions. And there is an obvious umbrella for defence cooperation in NATO. But tying defence cooperation to NATO makes us dependent on the US, not always a good thing. And you can’t have a joint defence policy apart from a joint foreign policy and framework of law.
I find it baffling that people don’t see the abandonment of sovereignty to the US (progressive since WWII) as more deleterious than joint sovereignty with the EU .. but that’s a whole other nest of wasps. And I agree, being outside the Single Market is inexcusable and was competely unnecessary.
I don’t think you need to apologise. Dare I say it perhaps this was a lesson we needed to learn that we couldn’t cherry pick what we wanted. Surely the medium term option is to align ala EEA/EFTA?
Two brief points:
1. Brexiteers are not entirely wrong when they point out that membership of the Single Market without EU membership is tantamount to some sort of ‘serfdom’. There is a clear democratic deficit in any arrangement whereby the UK must obey large chunks of EU law without any direct input.
2. SU/CU membership without membership is manageable for small economies like CH or No – not sure that would be possible for the UK. Britain is a comparatively large economy by European standards. Disobedience to common norms (or even disagreements over what the norms are) are likely to have disproportionately large effects. So any UK membership of the SM would have to incorporate a special regim of control and enforcement. Perhaps ‘serfdom’ might become an appropriate description.
3. The UK clearly negotiated its withdrawal agreements in bad faith. The assumption must be for the foreseeable future that no long term association is possible unless some equivalent to the Bastille occurs. Followed, I hope, by the widespread (metaphorical) use of the guillotine.
“1. Brexiteers are not entirely wrong when they point out that membership of the Single Market without EU membership is tantamount to some sort of ‘serfdom’”
Yes, they are.
We follow rules we personally do not make, in every single aspect of our lives, without giving this fact a second thought: it is objectionable “special pleading” to suggest that – uniquely – the rules we would need to follow in the SM would be some sort of subjugation – not least (but not only) because actual “serfdom” was and is never a voluntary condition.
But in any event, signing up to a beneficial situation which carries with it an obligation to play by the rules is not, by any definition, “serfdom”.
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” (2016, author unknown)
A somewhat fateful question, with some millions of interpretations, led us to where we are today.
“…it is quite possible to be a member of the Single Market and not be a member of the European Union.” (2022, DAG)
This position seems to offer multiple options/solutions for the SM, and an infinite number of possibilities for the scope of the EU and corresponding UK institutions.
Am I unreasonable to see your position as limited to the scope of SM, and that you are content to leave all other aspects covered by UK withdrawal as is?
To date it has not been your style to answer half the question.
Very gracious and cogent.
Indeed, had we acted sensibly and not acted in haste then Brexit could have been so much less damaging to our economy.
However, Brexit advocates knew full well that had they not acted in haste people would soon begin to realise that Brexit was not all things to all people and that the twin fantasies of sovereignty and the control of one’s borders simply wasn’t worth such damage to our economy, this is not to mention the denial of EU citizenship with its freedom of movement and all that entails which the majority of the younger generation coming through would almost certainly be, and have voted, against.
They acted in haste because what they were really trying to achieve was precisely nothing to do with what was best for the country, the economy, and the populace; and everything to do with their own narrow interests – always a strong motivation.
I don’t think you need to apologise. You set your position out pretty clearly and your opinions held more weight with me than whatever Vote Leave came up with. If anything, this is the kind of honest conversation we needed back then and still need today.
While I was, and am, a Remainer who didn’t object to our place in the EU before, your position is much the same as mine was after the result. I’m not sure losing our political representation would have been entirely worth it, but I was on board for something that kept us in the Single Market with options for closer cooperation without being politically tied to the EU. I was almost hopeful when that seemed to be the option we were going for after Theresa May was elected.
Oh well…
First, I am delighted to have been steered here via Mastodon. I have abandoned Twitter for now, possibly for good, and will gladly follow the author here.
While I have considerable regard for the author I also have a somewhat skeptical or at least unsympathetic view of his aversion to the Maastricht treaty and what it entails, which to me amounts to European solidarity and the very antithesis of national exceptionalism.
After she made her well known Bruges speech Mrs Thatcher travelled to The Hague and, after reprising some of her views was asked why the British are Europe’s “awkward squad”. Her reply was that it was because the British are “Europe’s island nation”. A suggestion that she advise the Irish was greeted with some amusement (and not because the Maltese, Icelanders or Cypriots might be put out).
The posture (or conceit) of being too different or special is tiresome exceptionalism born substantially of, in my view, post-imperial hubris. It is also hugely ironic that the English, and it is principally the English, cannot get along with others except on some privileged terms which they decline to offer the Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish (and previously the Irish). Regional parliaments in member states have more say in the EU than devolved nations in the UK.
On top, consider the transaction costs if every nation acted with the same exceptionalist aversion to any compromises on matters of “sovereignty” and the EU as a bloc reverted to an incoherent cacophony of “us first” interests. It would be very less than the sum of the parts.
The secret to willingness to cooperate as ordinary Europeans seems to be some folk memory of having been invaded, occupied and subjugated. Go on a walking tour of Maastricht and you’ll hear “when we were French” (or Spanish or Dutch). The British, who have invaded 122 other countries, have no clue about the instinct of other Europeans to leave all that behind permanently, while at same time exhibiting spectacular blindness, arrogance and ignorance, and worse, indifference*, of the potential consequences for peace on the island of Ireland arising from their “island nation” conceit.
*cf, eg, the “who cares if the Irish (sic) start shooting each other” attitude of Stanley Johnson, likely speaking for many of his class.
Among my reel-to-reel tapes is a talk by John Holloway of Queen’s College, Cambridge, broadcast in 1969 and entitled “TheMyth of England”. He analyses an attitude to England’s history whose origin can be dated to the Victorian era, and which was instilled into public schoolboys and thence into popular culture for many decades thereafter. England’s two points of pride are Greatness and Liberty which, when pursued to their logical conclusion, are irreconcilable.
Themes touched upon include “Saxon and Norman and Dane are we…”, “Our England is a garden”, (but Kent is “the Garden of England”), “Our Liberties and our Laws” (closely guarded and not casually shared).
Holloway concludes that the Myth died of a surfeit: there was just too much of it. Too many of its heroes are praised for rebelling against overlords who very soon become the Establishment, whose great achievements in the name of England must perforce, in turn, earn them the adulation of a grateful nation. Only twice in its history was England successfully invaded, he says, and it was so long ago that “on both occasions you could say we did it ourselves.” (I’m not sure which two. Normans, yes, but were the others the Romans or the Dutch?)
Several times, between the mid-70s and now, I have heard both British and European observers comment that our [then] respect for rules was an excellent model of good behaviour which might inspire the occupants of the Nazi-occupied countries to believe that they too could — eventually — shake off their deeply-ingrained, trauma-induced hatred and contempt for Authority.
H’mm.
it appears there are many who don’t / didn’t realise that Sellar & Yeatman’s “1066 and that” was satire.
David’s views on Brexit have always appeared to me to be clear and consistent even though I do not agree with them .
“Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too.” (Voltaire)
Having lived outside the Uk for 20 years my main observation from this blog is that the UK is failing to accept the consequences of Brexit and doing little or nothing to change.
Again from Voltaire:
“The longer we dwell on our misfortunes , the greater is their power to harm us.”
It reminds me of when I had to fight to save jobs and promote people while simultaneously make people redundant or in some cases fired.
My boss said:
You can do “bad things” well and “good things” badly. Try to get the order right!
It was a shitty situation but the phrase stuck with me.
Brexit is a bad thing done badly…
Dear DAG, elegantly said as ever, tho’ to my mind never a need to apologise for holding a reasoned view, whether or not I agree. One of my biggest sadnesses about Brexit is that it has taken away rights of British people, in particular their EU citizenship which was a big part of many people’s identity and sense of self. To me this is a tragedy. I don’t say this aspect couldn’t have been approached differently under the TCA, but that ship has sailed – EU citizenship and its attendant rights are gone. Still not something for you to apologise for, obvs, or even comment on. (And I’m an Aussie citizen / ex-Yanq living in the UK so doesn’t affect me personally but) it makes me sad for my British friends. All the best as always, Liz
Possibly the most perfect reply to one of your blogs David.
It would be interesting if London, South West, Midlands, Northern West, etc had their own currency. Would you call that a single market?
Reading through these well argued comments especially from those who voted to Leave still leaves me with the one constant – how on earth did you think that anything championed by such characters as Johnson/ Gove / Farage / ERG etc could result in anything but complete disaster?
A bit puzzled by the comment but enjoyed the detailed presentation of views and the comments that followed.
But I am still puzzled by the thought – what was Brexit for, what problem(s) was it meant to solve and how would we notice the difference?
I thought for a while Brexit was some sort of displacement activity. Or possibly a long pent up pressure from some group whose purpose had long since vanished.
I fear Brexit has achieved nothing and never could achieve anything useful, the real problems are just as they were in 2016. The wrong solution to the wrong problem. We have merely thrown away time and money.
David the Brexit question put to you and your ‘non-apology’ reply was about the costs of leaving which you did not address at all in your otherwise well constructed reply.
Changing the UK’s position in the EU would inevitably have entailed some costs. It is also possible that there would be savings. It would be interesting to see an accounting of the two.
The UK could have chosen a form of Brexit that minimised the disruption and cost. Leaving the EU and joining the EEA for example.
But the terms of the debate changed rapidly after the 52-48 vote and the political decisions of the new May administration made that sort of “soft” Brexit impossible.
We are where we are. There are no “remainers” now. We have left. The question now is to determine what our future relationships will look like vis-à-vis our nearest neighbouring countries and their economic, social and political club of 450 million people that we decided the leave.
For what it is worth, I expect over a period of a decade or two, we will slowly rediscover why we joined the EEC 50 years ago, and conclude that that we would be better off back within the EU again that outside it. I don’t think anyone should be embarrassed to be a “rejoiner” – any more than Farage would have stopped campaigning to leave if the vote had gone 52-48 the other way. But we will never recover the favourable position that we had within the EU before we left.
What tends to get overlooked in all this is how fundamental EU membership of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland has been to peace in Northern Ireland. It is multi-layered. Common membership of the EEC paved the way to detente between London and Dublin, which itself provided the essential precursor to a political settlement in Northern Ireland itself. The common saying was that London and Dublin sang out of the same hymn-sheet. Without their co-operation (institutionalised through the Anglo-Irish Agreement of November 1985), it is very unlikely we would have had ceasefires by the paramilitaries or the Good Friday Agreement. Continuing peace in Northern Ireland still depends on co-operation between London and Dublin. That is much more difficult to achieve unless both countries are members of the EU. It is worth underlining that prior to the 2016 referendum, support even in the nationalist community in NI for a united Ireland had fallen to such low levels as to assuage unionist fears on the issue of the border. That has changed dramatically and as a consequence, tensions between the two communities have risen to dangerous levels. It is naive to imagine that leaving the EU was ever NOT going put the survival of the UK at risk and along with that, peace in these islands or that Brexit was ever likely to proceed on the basis of Norway’s relationship with the EU.
Unfortunately opinions are so entrenched that most people outside this blog are still “arguing from different premises”.
I am not hopeful that there will be any rapprochement with the EU in my lifetime – I am aged 81.
I wondered if you would respond to that post! Because, like David Frew, “It has always be” (sic) “very clear” to me that you supported Brexit in principle, but despaired at the cack-handed approach taken by the pre-Brexit politicians,” I found your following comment helpful – “My preference would be for a close Association Agreement, with settled mechanisms for dialogue and consultation between the European Union and the United Kingdom on Single Market issues”. Although I do have sympathy with Elizabeth Lambert’s “how on earth did you think that anything championed by such characters as Johnson/ Gove / Farage / ERG etc could result in anything but complete disaster?”
My sincerely held view* is that Brexit is inconsistent with (if not an explicit breach of) the Good Friday Agreement, so whilst it was theoretically possible to implement the result of the foolish 2016 referendum, that should have been put on hold until such time as Northern Ireland has left the UK (via the mechanism set out in the GFA of a border poll).
*I don’t see any working political institutions currently in NI that dissuade me from that viewpoint.
As a supporter of Irish unification (by consent) I think you have a good point
Thank you for revisiting the topic.
I think your line of thinking is clear and easy to follow.
It has one “flaw”. It is nuanced.
I remember the debate in the run-up to the referendum as broad, sweeping, muddled, inconsistent. No space for nuance.
And I think that is what made it impossible for Brexit to work.
Some wanted simply nothing to do with the EU, some wanted control over who gets to live in the UK, some wanted to get rid of all EU legislation and create their own legal framework in their pet area of the law.
That mix made it impossible to be nuanced and precise since any such discussion would have revealed the different aspirations and that such different aspirations could never be put into practice at the same time.
Now, the consequences of such nuance-free approach is getting clearer and clearer.
I agree with you David. I expect that mist if my large family do so as well.
“(Departure should have been done slowly, gradually and methodically over a decade at least.)”
I would have eagerly welcomed reading the promise of this prospect on the side of a bus.
“I would have eagerly welcomed reading the promise of this prospect on the side of a bus.”
I think we’re gonna need a longer bus…
Apologies for being late in commenting, but I wanted to add some thoughts in relation to the view (a view) in Scotland: My own view is that I’d like to see Scotland as a full member of the EU as soon as it can be achieved. Ideally, independence will take place on the 1st January and EU membership on the 2nd January!
My opinion is not only based on economic reasons, but also on the geopolitical situation of Scotland as a small country in the north west of Europe: We cannot succeed by being on our own or doing things on our own, we need allies, we need friends, we need to be in a gang. Our neighbours are our kin, we share traditions; we have long-standing relations with other countries and areas across Europe.
I have observed that many of my friends and contacts have moved their opinion on the basis of the 2016 referendum results, many were against independence in 2014 but are now in favour as this is the fastest if not the only route back into the EU. There is a recognition that independence will bring greater upheaval than it would have done before Brexit, but that’s just the way things are and we now need to deal with this. We need to deal with the world as it is and not as we would like it to be.
Thank you, Mr Green, for your very informative posts!