1st March 2023
Over at the Guardian, the perceptive commentator Rafael Behr contends that although Brexit will be never-ending, this week may have seen the end of “Brexitism”:
“Brexit, in its most ideological conception, is a zero-sum game in which the European Commission is only happy if Britain has been diddled out of sovereignty.
“That attitude still prevails among many Tory MPs but it competes with fatigue and an instinct for electoral self-preservation.
“There is no appetite among voters for the re-enactment of Brexit wars, especially when the terrain of battle is so small – a scrap of European court jurisdiction under a mound of procedural safeguards in Northern Ireland. […]
“Brexit as management of a relationship is, by definition, never done. But Brexitism as the doctrine of national renaissance through conflict with Brussels is dying.”
*
If so, good.
Good, good, brilliant, wonderful, superlatively superlative.
What this blog has long wanted is for our post-Brexit relationship with the European Union to become a question of practical politics.
I had hoped that this would be when the mandate of the referendum was discharged on our actual departure. That was far too optimistic.
And as recently as this January I have written (perhaps with more hope than experience) that there was evidence that we were moving into post-Brexit politics:
Two weeks ago I did a post, with my tongue-slightly-in-cheek, about what would happen if the Northern Irish protocol issue was resolved (at least in the short- to medium-term):
*
All this is not only good, it means we can maybe start some interesting new conversations about how we should shape our relationship with the European Union.
All this said, it is important that we do not get carried away, with this euphoria.
Yes, it is cathartic – especially to see certain hardliners silenced.
But certain fundamental problems are still there, and we are just one flashpoint away from another political row.
In the meantime, let us take this, as a good moment.
There are now potentially fascinating and wide-ranging discussions ahead as we work out what our long-term relationship is with the European Union.
Brace, brace – in a nicer way.
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
The ‘good moment’may have to wait until your next election.
But, based on the last few days it might, just might, be worth waiting for.
Unity of some kind might be on its way. As a commenter in the Guardian pointed out – Rishi Sunak is an anagram of “An Irish UK”
How refreshing to hear the UK Prime Minister, a Brexiteer by all accounts, enthusiastically saying as a positive that Northern Ireland will have the best of both worlds; freetrade with the rest of the UK and freetrade with the EU.
A great pity that England, Wales and Scotland will not also have this. At least not for the immediate future. Common sense seems to return slowly, but surely.
It will be interesting to see how Jacob Rees-Mog, Suella Braverman and last but not least Boris Johnson accepts the new reality.
When Brits have to pay seven euros and give their fingerprints to enter the Schengen area later this year Brexit fatigue will be replaced by fresh Brexit indignation .
Brits refused entry under the new scheme(s) might even think they are being punished .
“Brexitism” is still a long way from its sell by date.
As I understand it, the implementation of ETIAS has been pushed back again from late 2023 into 2024. It was meant to start in 2021, but it has been more difficult to set up than expected.
Is there any evidence that ESTA has deterred many people from visiting the US?
I hope that your description of the description of the advisory 2016 Referendum as a “mandate” was not intended to be accurate. I raise this because the Government continue to pretend that it was a mandate, as illustrated in a Number 10’s press release (Feb 28 13:20) explaining why England, Scotland, and Wales are not entitled to the same EU Single Market access that Northern Ireland has.
In its explanation, Number 10 claims “The British people made a decision in 2016” as if the Referendum was binding and as if it had been made clear before the Referendum that leaving the EU would mean leaving the EU Single Market except for Northern Ireland.
It was Theresa May who made the decision that the UK must leave the EU. Her excuse implied that the Referendum was binding (which further implied that the campaign had been legitimately funded).
I am not with you in this line of argument. It may not be a mandate you agree with, but it is a mandate. And a mandate does not need to be legally binding to be a mandate: indeed, mandates from general election victories are not binding.
The 2016 referendum was a dedicated referendum, with a national UK campaign, on a specific question. The result is not liked by many, but it is a mandate.
The entire electorate was asked if the UK should depart the EU or remain in the EU, and the majority voted for the UK to leave the EU.
That is a mandate; and had the result been to remain, that would have been a mandate too. I suspect many who dispute the 2016 referendum result was a mandate would argue differently had remain won.
I agree that mandates from general election victories are not binding. David Cameron had a mandate to pursue a binding referendum on EU membership. Instead, he asked Parliament to legislate for an advisory referendum – an opinion poll – which Parliament did.
I do not see how the fact that the Referendum was dedicated, with a national campaign, on a specific question, is relevant here.
It is a shame that the ‘entire electorate’ did not include some groups that were likely to be affected more by a vote to leave – EU nationals resident in the UK for example (who could have made a significant difference to the outcome). Government/Parliament should have taken this into account in a debate which should have followed the Referendum as the Referendum was only advisory. That debate never happened.
A majority of the electorate did not vote Leave. (About 37% did.) Of those who did not vote, some felt that they did not have sufficient knowledge and, given that the Referendum was advisory, would leave it to Parliament to debate the issue.
Where is the mandate in that? There is a message: a flawed referendum appeared to suggest that the UK was roughly equally divided. That was the ‘result’ of the Referendum. Maybe that could be interpreted as a mandate to have an honest and thorough debate before doing anything drastic.
I agree with Donald. The referendum was a vote on a very simple question of whether to remain in the European Union or to leave it. It did not formulate anything about what it means to leave the EU, that was intended to come later. The No result, which unfortunately the government expected, would have meant it wasn’t taken any further.
It would have always been possible, after investigating what it would mean in practice to leave the EU, to decide that it wasn’t worth it. There was never any mandate to leave the EU on terms which would appear to be arbitrary. The referendum bill would not have passed if it had been made binding on Parliament. It was always a political question. The Yes should have been followed by another general election.
My above comment is a little muddled, so let me clarify it. The referendum was a vote on one simple question: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
The possible answers were Leave or Remain. A narrow majority voted to Leave. There was nothing in the question or in the bill about what would happen if Leave prevailed. It was implicitly obvious what should happen if Remain prevailed.
There was absolutely nothing in that question to indicate what sort of relationship the UK should have if Leave prevailed. It’s pretty clear that was meant to be decided later.
Since the withdrawal depends on a negotiated agreement, it should be obvious that it might not be possible to negotiate a favourable agreement, whatever that might mean (which is another political question).
Parliament wasn’t bound to accept just any agreement (or no agreement). Parliament wasn’t bound at all. We always had the option to do nothing.
HMG thought it had the power to decide to leave and to decide the terms. The courts ruled in favour of Parliament.
There was never any mandate to leave the single market. I know you agree with this, so I don’t understand why you’ve picked on this comment. This is exactly the point he raises. He says “I raise this because the Government continue to pretend that it was a mandate, as illustrated in a Number 10’s press release (Feb 28 13:20) explaining why England, Scotland, and Wales are not entitled to the same EU Single Market access that Northern Ireland has.”
Parliament’s elected representatives were unable to agree what sort of relationship we should have with the EU until another general election created a new Parliament. This disagreement was nowhere sharper than within the governing party’s own rank and file.
As far as the decision to leave is concerned (whatever the terms), the governing party couldn’t even agree on that. A sizeable group risked their careers for the national interest, lost the whip, and effectively gave up their seats. What mandate?
I’ve had Brexit Fatigue since 24th June 2016.
From a Scott the answer is a no from me regarding Brexit and now even more furious than ever with the Fiasco we’ve been put through
The Windsor Deal (not the exploded Ready Meal one) proves that the Westminster Government could have withdrawn from the EU and negotiated to let Scotland remain in the Single Market/Erasmus/Horizon since there was no Blueprint how to leave but sadly no Political Will on behalf of Johnson’s Government to agree to this more Democratic proposal on Scotland’s behalf whilst simultaneously sorting out a proper Deal for NI.
The Scottish Government produced a lengthy Document in 2016 with various options to stay part of the SM and l feel that Sunak’s Negotiators have had a sneaky peak at it..
Wish all the best to NI because that’s one Country that deserves it and that’s how it should be.
Goodnight from Scotland. I’m going to rage some more tomorrow somewhere.
The situation in Scotland is very different from the one in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement has meant that the people of Northern Ireland are both British and Irish. That needs to be respected. Since they are Irish, they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. That’s why they cannot be removed from the single market without breaching the agreement.
Absolutely a hopeful moment and at least it appears the adults are back in the room.
Ok, we got our lovely new Brexit and we have unwrapped the tissue paper and put it on the table. But what to do with it?
The difficulty is economics. The UK now has more lawyers and accountants/capita than even the USA. Certainly more than our EU neighbours. Excellent for a service economy and amply supported by baristas, sandwich makers, hairdressers and pie deliverers. But any sane service company will make sure as little as possible of its profits accrue to the UK government. That’s economics.
What about those folk who don’t wish to or can’t be lawyers and accountants and bankers? We can’t all be brain surgeons or property doer-uppers or designers of software apps. Which brings us to those good old standbys of steel works, car factories and coal mines and semiconductor making. But other folk do those things cheaper, so what is left – all things Green – that’s what, there is very little else that employs large numbers. Windmills, leccy cars, batteries – that sort of thing.
Snag is others have the same problems and see Green as a way out. They are offering massive subsidies – to do it on their patch with their people. They were quick off the mark, the Brexit brigade are still fiddling with the tissue paper and box and have missed the boat entirely. Brexit is done for, left behind by events, neither use nor ornament.
You say “certain fundamental problems are still there, and we are just one flashpoint away from another political row”.
The most obvious flashpoint in the near term is the grotesque EU Retained Law Bill. Charles Grant has argued that having upset the Brexitists with the Windsor Framework, Sunak will be reluctant to annoy them further. I am hoping that it will be the reverse. Realising that the Brexitists are not the force they were, and having gained huge public approval for facing them down, Sunak (who knows the EU Retained Law Bill is damaging to UK business and likely to cause problems of performative divergence) will pluck up the courage to face them down on this too – ideally by dropping the legislation entirely.