This has been a quite normal week in Brexit news terms, in the sense that it was characterised by a steady stream of news of mostly low-level impacts of Brexit in all sorts of areas, that cumulatively will still fundamentally transform the British economy, politics, and society. For instance, there are signs that the relative limited impact Brexit has had on jobs in the City of London – which has been triumphantly proclaimed by the pro-Brexit media as proof that ‘Project Fear’ was wrong – may not be the end of the story. The Financial Times reports that the ECB is now starting to pushe UK-based banks to relocate more staff to the offices they set up inside the EU after Brexit.
Remainers and Rejoiners to face reality
On the other hand, there were also the now customary calls from Brexiters and people resigned to Brexit because they are ‘truly sick of the subject’ telling us (Rejoiners strictly speaking, but as a Remainer I feel targeted) that we should ‘face reality’ and ‘move on.’ That’s an interesting proposition, because it is not clear to me what we can move on from and what we will move on to.
What is that reality we need to face? The reality is that Brexit is not going to go away and that it will never be ‘over’ or ‘done.’ Brexit is not an event, it is a permanent process. A state of permanent negotiations with the EU and its member states in all areas that were previously regulated by EU law.
Of course, the negotiations do not have to take place in an atmosphere of aggressive nationalist rhetoric, lack of realism, and bad faith. And alternatives to membership – such as joining the EEA or joining the single market in some other way – would mean that negotiations would be less permanent. Certain things would be settled in a more extensive agreement than the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Also, moving on from the spiteful rhetoric that brought us the Brexit vote and then Brexit itself is certainly important to start building a more positive and cooperative relationship with the EU. But it is hardly the Remainers’ (or Rejoiners’) fault that the UK-EU relationship is currently moving in the opposite direction.
The claim that we all need to move on from Brexit is a cheap way for Leavers and Brexiters to deflect any criticism of ‘actually existing Brexit’ (‘Yes we messed up. But let’s talk about something else now!’). The reality is that advocating re-joining is at least a proposition that would solve many of the problems Britain is currently facing. The Brexiters’ plan for post-Brexit Britain, on the other hand, still seems to cause more than it solves.
I personally do not think re-joining is a realistic solution for at least a decade. So, in the short- medium term, the focus should be on other things. But the fact that Remainers/Rejoiners are accused of preventing the country from moving forward is rich. If anyone needs to move on from Brexit, it is the Brexiters.
Brexit: Milking it or moving on?
For Boris Johnson, Brexit has never been a goal in itself, but rather a means to an end. Namely, his life-long goal of becoming Prime Minister. His strategy of sitting on the fence on Brexit, before choosing which side to join during the referendum campaign illustrates that to perfection. Johnson did not think Brexit was good for the country. He thought it will help his political career. He will milk it as long as it is electorally interesting to do so, but then will want to move on to other issues that will allow him to posture in front of cameras pretending to be a great statesman or a ‘man of the people.’
The point where Brexit is becoming an electoral liability, rather than an instrument for electoral success, may be drawing closer. A recent Ipsos-Mori poll shows that half of the people surveyed think that leaving the EU is having a negative impact on the UK. That is a remarkable increase of 7% within a month. It indicates that Brexiter’s best attempts to portray the recent variety of crises as being unrelated to Brexit may not convince everyone. Indeed, even 24% of Leave voters share the opinion that Brexit is having a negative impact on the country.
What is interesting though, is that if people are asked how they would vote in a re-run of the Brexit referendum of 2016, the vast majority states that they would vote the exact same way. This seems contradictory at first glance but indicates the persistent divide between reality and ideology. The two different poll results suggest that people who now feel Brexit did not deliver the promised positive outcomes, still consider it was the right decision. The key to interpreting this contradictory results may be that these people feel like they have ‘taken back control’ and – just like our fish – are now ‘better and happier for it’ regardless of material consequences.
Yet, as Brexit-induced problems continue to pile up and Brexit dividends remain evasive, people may remain pro-Brexit in principle or in theory, but they will start blaming the government for having made a mess of it.
The PM is hence in a tricky position where keeping the Brexit divide alive can provide him with a welcome target for his scapegoating strategy of blaming everything that’s not going well on the EU. On this blog, I have often argued that keeping relationships with the EU tense helps Johnson using his jingoistic politics of symbols to garner support amongst the pro-Brexit English public.
If Brexit reality gets too dire, this strategy may stand in the way of solving the actually existing Brexit-related problems, of which there are many: Most obvious is the unresolved situation of the Irish Sea border, but also visa- and immigration rules (which according to the director of the Road Haulage Association currently are ‘designed to fail’), still to-be-introduced additional border checks, fishing rights, an agreement on trade in services, visa rules for touring musicians etc. etc. etc.
Without any clear Brexit dividends on the horizon and a large number of Brexit wounds, eventually Johnson will have to start addressing these real-world issues. As the need for realism becomes increasingly urgent, Johnson will be dragged off his home turf of symbolism onto the turf of competent problem-solving. It is an open question how the public will judge his performance on that criterion.
Good news – muted reactions
Another sign that Brexit may lose some of its political potential is the remarkable change the way pro-Brexit media outlets report on positive news.
For instance, Ford’s announcement this week to invest £230m in its Merseyside plant in Halewood was hardly picked up by the pro-Brexit press. The Sun did not mention Brexit in its report on the announcement and the Express only mentioned in the sub-heading that Ford ‘has shown faith in post-Brexit Britain.’ This contrasts quite starkly with the typical headlines that would have accompanied such an announcement a few months ago when undoubtedly a big, fat headline would have read ‘Project Fear smashed!’ or something to that effect.
The recent government decision to rename the planned ‘Festival of Brexit’ into Unboxed, further lends credence to the hypothesis that Brexiters are slowly losing confidence. Brexit ultras like ERG deputy chair David Jones – who sees Brexit as “rebirth of the UK as an independent nation” – were of course outraged by the decision. But outside the circle of Brexit ultras, calls to celebrate Brexit may sound increasingly hollow.
The return of FTAs: The UK-NZ trade deal
The hypothesis that even amongst pretty staunch Brexiters jubilation about having won the Brexit battle is giving way to the hangover of Brexit reality, seems hence plausible. Another piece of evidence supporting it comes from the announcement of an agreement in principle on – yet another ‘historic’ – trade deal with New Zealand.
During the first months of actually existing Brexit Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) were probably the most important symbol brandished by the tabloid press and the government to illustrate the benefits of the new-found freedom of post-Brexit ‘Global Britain.’ ‘Super Liz’ Truss’s promotion to Foreign Secretary in the recent cabinet reshuffle and her popularity are very closly related to her claim to have concluded 68 FTAs in her time as Trade Secretary.
In the last few months, however, it went a bit quiet around FTAs. Presumably because the low hanging fruits – i.e. the simple roll-over of trade deals that the UK were part of as a EU member – had been reaped and the more ambitious deals promised as Brexit dividends morphed into very underwhelming investment partnerships (with India) or are all but dead in the water (with the USA).
Then this week, the new Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan could announce a deal in principle with New Zealand. Interestingly, though, this time round the announcement did not make many of the front pages. Perhaps this is due to the fact that UK-NZ trade really is small beer even by the government’s own standards: A report by the Department for International Trade estimates the impact of the deal to be virtually negligible (of the order of +/- 0.01% of GDP). A finding that the Mirror brilliantly summarises as “New Zealand trade deal could boost UK economy by between 0.01% and minus 0.01%.”
The relative silence around the agreement could also be due to the fact that it comes shortly after another ‘Brexit dividend’ is failing to materialise, namely the FTA with Australia. Despite an agreement in principle with Australia back in June, negotiations about the final legal text seem to progress more slowly than expected. The Australian trade minister Dan Tehan left the UK last week having failed to secure a deal. Politico reports that the deal is now likely to be signed only in the summer of 2022.
Still, the government continues its reckless approach to trade deals agreeing to very far-reaching liberalisation – for ideological reasons or to prove that ‘Brexit works’ – without any regard for UK farmers or businesses.
In the NZ case, the best Brits can hope for is to get a bottle of NZ Sauvignon blanc 20p cheaper. But that diffuse benefit for consumers is offset by very concentrated losses for UK farmers. Indeed, beef and sheep farmers will face – in 10 and 15 years’ time respectively – stiff, tariff-free competition from a country producing at a larger scale and to lower standards than Britain. Even the DIT’s own report expects a decrease in the output and employment in farming in the UK as a result of a NZ tariff-free deal.
Unsurprisingly, farmers especially in Scottland and Wales are worried. The Scottish Herald quotes SNP MP Deidre Brock’s as pointing out the fundamental contradiction in the government’s talk about “high food and environmental standards” while ignoring “that farmers will be forced to reduce those standards when they're competing against tariff-free goods produced to lower standards from countries like Australia, New Zealand and now, as these trade deals have set a precedent, all the other countries to follow.” Equally telling is Trevelyan’s response to challenges in the Commons, which amounts to little more than hot – in fact lukewarm – air: "I am very confident that the deal we have struck will provide the opportunity for our wonderful food producers to continue to sell their goods across the world and, as we make more trade deals, creating new markets for them also."
The NZ trade agreement – just like the Australia one if it comes off – is another example where Brexiters’ overconfidence and hubris leads them to create trade terms that benefit the other party more than Britain. Rather than a symbol of Brexit dividends, the NZ FTA is the perfect symbol of the self-harm Brexit has meant all along.
That’s it for the ‘good’ news. In less positive news, the relationship with countries closer to home continue to deteriorate. Most importantly, the one with France and possibly soon with Spain.
Permanent Opportunism: Strains on the Franco-British (and Spanish) relationship
In a witty comment for euradio, my colleague Prof. Helen Drake summarises the current dire state of Franco-British relationship. Her comment underscores that the relationship has soured to the point where the usual diplomatic restraint on both sides does not apply anymore. A French minister accusing the UK of ‘permanent opportunism’ following the signing of the Aukus agreement goes some way in showing just how tense relationships are. French newspapers doubt Johnson’s good faith and consider the UK government’s demands over the NIP inacceptable. In the meantime, tensions continue to mount over the rights of French fishermen to fish in British waters. The spat over fishing rights start impacting other aspects of the UK-EU relationships. Thus, French politicians have threatened to veto UK access to EU research programmes if the fishing rights issue is not solved.
Tensions are also growing with Spain. The issues over Gibraltar has been somewhat diffused when EU members states decided that the border with Spain should be policed by members of the EU-wide Frontex force rather than the Spanish police. Yet, the pro-Brexit press continues to pile pressure on the Johnson government regarding visas and residence permits for UK ‘expats’ (i.e. immigrants) in Spain who own property there. UK citizens who bought a house in Spain prior to Brexit without having a residence permit now face a situation where they are only allowed to reside in the country for 90 days in any 180 days period.
It is beyond ironic to see the Express whining about Brexit having deprived ‘Britons’ of their fundamental rights. It is even more ironic – or rather cynical – to see them invoke the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to protect the interest of Brits living in Spain, when the ECHR has been a long-term target of Brexiteers, Tories and is now under serious threat from the new Justice Secretary Dominic Raab.
Moving on from Brexit: The next frontier for the Tory’s postliberal project
In some important respects Brexiters have moved on from Brexit. While Brexit-induced issues will continue to keep the government busy for a long time, they have now started to set their its sight on other political goals. Having ‘unchained Britannia’ from the bonds of the EU, the goal now is to break the domestic shackles by reforming the UK’s legal order. A few months ago, I wrote about the worrying similarities between some of Johnson’s policies and those of Hungary’s Victor Orbàn. At the time, I still had some doubts about the real motives and goals of the Johnson government. Sadly, recent developments have made it clear that the illiberal Hungary path, is indeed what the Johnson government has in mind for the UK. Most strikingly, in a Sunday Telegraph interview, the new Justice Secretary Dominic Raab set out his plans for a judicial reform. While Johnson and Frost have launched an attack of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) oversight of the NIP, the Justice Secretary has moved on to the next target: the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which interprets the ECHR.
Beyond Raab’s promise to stop the Strasbourg Court from ‘dictating us’ and from judging ‘British soldiers,’ there is also a domestic agenda. The insightful comments by professor Mark Elliott reveal that Raab’s attack does not stop at foreign courts, but also questions the legitimacy of domestic ones. Most worryingly, the judicial review reform that Raab hinted at includes the introduction of a mechanism that would essentially allow Parliament to ‘correct’ politically inconvenient court rulings. This plan has striking similarities with the Polish disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court that has the power to discipline judges whose rulings were considered politically problematic by the government.
Under the pressure of the EU, the Polish government has now agreed to eliminate that disciplinary chamber. In the UK, there is no counter power left that could prevent the government from going ahead with its plans. As professor Elliott points out in a video recording, while the official justification of these reforms is ‘Parliamentary sovereignty,’ a much more likely outcome – and goal – of the reforms is to enhance executive supremacy – moving us closer still to an elective authoritarian system with very few checks and balances.
The decline of liberal democratic culture
There is little hope that people will be outraged by such attacks on the country’s constitutional order. Indeed, people seem to have gotten used to a government that disrespects any principles of good governance in the name of sovereignty. A rather shocking piece of news this week was the decision by the Labour Party to tune down its attacks on the government’s use of levelling up funds to secure electoral support in the North of England, because they realise that voters are fine with it. There are scientific studies that show that the Towns Fund is being used by the Tory government to channel public funds to enhance electoral support in certain parts of Northern England. In other words, the governing party uses the control it has over taxpayers’ money to advance the party’s private interests. You cannot get much closer to the definition of corruption as abuse of public office for private gain. Equally shocking are the defences of such behaviour one can read in the press. Will Tanner, director of a right-wing think tank, for instance, defended the government by simply stating that “I don’t think the way in which the government is distributing these funds suffers from pork barrel politics.” The fact is that there is actual scientific evidence to the contrary. But in post-truth Brexit, the unfounded opinion of a think tank director matters as much – or more – than solid scientific evidence.
The normalisation of corruption and the spread of post-truth arguments in the press signals a decline of political culture, which will prove difficult to reverse even after the Johnson government is gone. Or in Chris Grey’s words Brexit has bequeathed us “a government and a form of governing which are irredeemably dishonest.” The former can be corrected at the next General Election, the latter will haunt us for a long time. That is what will make moving on after Brexit difficult.