Brexit is increasingly turning out to be the embarrassing and horrendous farce many of us expected it to become.

The far-right pro-Brexit newspapers continue pumping out ludicrous announcements intended to convince their readers that Brexit is a huge success. The most ludicrous one I have spotted this week was ‘Britcoin bonanza! Revolutionary plan could score UK £90 BILLION – EU left in the dust.’ This is referring to a report by the CityUnited ‘think tank,’ which counts Lord Hannan amongst its advisors, that suggests if Britain were to follow the Chinese example of developing a Bank of England-led digital currency, it would gain a first mover advantage over other countries including the EU. Meanwhile, influential public figures such as UKIP founder Alan Sked or Brexit Minster Lord Frost misconstrue trade news and figures to claim that Brexit has been great for the British economy, but backfired for the EU.

At the same time, the very same Brexiteers increasingly seem to acknowledge many of the negative effects of Brexit – albeit in a contorted way: The same border checks at the EU border that are declared unproblematic for UK exports to the EU via France and the Netherlands, are declared a disaster for Northern Ireland. The NIP has been declared not sustainable and Frost now seems to admit that it was not the deal the UK wanted. The relocation of financial services firms from the City of London to European cities, which various pro-Brexit outlets declared is not happening, is now also decried by other pro-Brexit publications as an ‘EU power grab’ that sees ‘thousand flee the City of London.’

Worse still, after having set up a government taskforce to go looking for the benefits of Brexit earlier in the year, the government will now turn to external advisers to try and achieve this task. Let me repeat this: The UK government, five months after having boasted about securing its ‘have-your-cake-and-eat-it Brexit,’ and five years after having sold Brexit to the UK public as a win-win decision, is now scrambling – and clearly struggling – to identify opportunities that could arise from it!

Conversely, evidence keeps mounting that Brexit was not just as bad as expected (as a reminder all serious forecasts I’m aware of expect a decline in UK GDP due to Brexit net of Covid19 and relative to having remained a member of the EU), but possibly considerably worse. Thus, Eurostat data shows an even steeper decline of EU-UK trade since January than ONS data (among other things, because it also measures trade between subsidiaries of the same firm, not just trade between firms). Other studies show that in the first quarter of 2021 alone, Brexit has already reduced trade with the EU by as much as long-term estimates had  expected to see in the long run, suggesting that ‘project fear’ is becoming ‘project fact’. The Resolution Foundation and the London School of Economics have launched ‘The Economy 2030 Inquiry;’ a research programme that seeks to identify policies that could help prevent “the UK becoming the sick man of Europe.“

It is obvious that we continue to live in a deeply divided country where two parallel realities co-exist. Meanwhile, the government does nothing to try and heal the division left by five years of acrimonious Brexit debates. To the contrary, it does everything to further fuel division and resentment. This, to me, is the key insight from this week’s news about the NIP and new Free Trade Agreements (FTA). They illustrate increasingly clearly that the Johnson government will continue to pursue a confrontational and reckless domestic and international strategy that I call ‘ruthless politics.’ This strategy may allow the government to score some quick political points, but will ultimately prevent the UK from establishing a productive relationship with its allies and trading partners.

 Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP)

The Northern Ireland situation continues to worsen in worrying ways. This week the content of the 20-page letter the UK sent to the EU commission in response to the Commission’s legal action over the UK’s alleged violation of the NIP started to emerge. According to RTE’s Europe Editor Tony Connelly, the UK’s response letter ‘levelled a series of accusations at the Commission for its handling of the Protocol, its apparent disregard for the sensitivities of unionists.’ Connelly quote a diplomat as saying the letter was “politically aggressive, rather than any effort to deal with the substantive issues that were raised in the original letter.”

By now, such a reaction by the Johnson government will come as no surprise. It is part of an emerging pattern of ‘ruthless politics’ whereby the government tries to bully its way through the post-Brexit world, making unreasonable and often untruthful claims about past actions, its partners’ intentions, and by regularly rewriting history. Thus, it seems sheer unbelievable that the EU is now accused of disregarding unionist sensitivities, when it was the EU that since 2016 insisted that an alternative to a hard NI – IRL land boarder need to be found to maintain peace.

It becomes increasingly clear that the Johnson government signed up to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) and the NIP, not believing that the EU would actually hold the UK to the terms of these agreements. Whenever the EU does treat the UK as the third country that it has chosen to become, the UK government (and the pro-Brexit media) respond with outrage and victimisation. This week, for instance, Lord Frost complained about goods being shipped from Britain to NI being treated just like goods arriving in Rotterdam from China. It would seem that Brexiteers within government did not expect that for the EU Brexit means Brexit!

Paradoxically, the UK government’s bellicose victimhood, which mixes bullying with sulking, undermines its own preferred way forward in its relationship with the EU. Namely, a flexible implementation of TCA and NIP based on mutual trust. This is at the heart of the idea of ‘equivalence’ – whereby each side recognises the other’s standards and rules not as similar, but as of equal quality – and the ‘risk based approach’ to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks on food and animal products (whereby the EU accepts that UK exports are safe even though following different rules than the EU’s rules). Equivalence and the risk-based approach precisely require a level of trust and goodwill on both sides that the UK government continues to torpedo with its bullying and sulking.

Meanwhile, the situation in NI is edging closer towards a dangerous stand-off which risks spiralling out of control. This week’s news also brought us news of the UK Parliament’s Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which was told by 19-year-old Joel Keys – a member of the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) – that he would “not rule” violence “off the table”. The possibility of violence during the marching season starting in June, is also increasingly invoked by the DUP and other parties in NI to put pressure on the UK and EU sides to ditch the NIP – it is not always clear whether this is a genuine concern or a threat.

Yet, a solution to the issues surrounding the NIP seems a remote possibility. The key question of course is, what will replace it if it were to be ditched? The UK government envisages a system whereby the EU simply accepts that exports from Britain to NI do not need to be checked, either because UK rules can be considered equivalent to EU rules, or because the risk of products entering the EU from NI can be considered low. Conversely, the EU’s only acceptable alternative would be the UK’s ‘dynamic alignment’ with the EU’s SPS rules.’ The former possibility seems unlikely due to the above-mentioned squandering for trust; the latter has been rule out by Lord Frost as a matter of ‘fundamental principle’ (because sovereign countries don’t align their standards on other sovereign countries’). Beyond this principled reason for the UK to refuse alignment, a more ‘pragmatic’ one is the fact that that it might limit the UK’s ability to conclude trade deals with other countries. The US FTA is particularly often invoked as a stumbling block to a solution in NI, because alignment with EU SPS standards would mean the UK could not offer any concessions on that front in its trade negotiations with the US. The UK government adopts hence a ruthless approach that consist of insisting on non-alignment with EU rules and accepting the risk of a flare-up of violence in NI, in the hope of concluding a trade deal with the US.

Here, recent developments in the US are interesting. On Tuesday, the US Senate’s foreign relations committee passed a resolution reaffirming its ‘unwavering support for the Good Friday Agreement (GFA).’ Together with Biden’s unhurried approach to an FTA with the UK, the US insistence on peace in NI suggests that the US may not be willing to sacrifice the GFA on the altar of an FTA with the UK. Conversely, the UK’s ruthless approach most definitely harms UK’s ability to solve the NIP issues in cooperation with the EU. Indeed, the UK government seems to continue to slowly manoeuvre itself into a lose-lose situation in NI.

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Australia and India

The other big news this week was that the UK is moving closer to agreeing the terms of a trade deal with Australia. This is a development I would not necessarily have thought possible a few months ago. The same goes for the India Trade deal, which some experts now consider a real possibility.

Am I one of Alan Sked’s ‘idiot Remainers’ who doesn’t get it? Perhaps, but the reason why I did not get it is that I underestimated the UK Government’s ruthlessness. In international negotiations, governments tend to try and protect their citizens from possible negative consequences. Since the impact of trade liberalisation is complex and can be extensive, governments tend to be careful and negotiations are protracted and difficult. Not for this government. This government confidently enters negotiations seemingly without any red lines, willing to essentially agree to anything (e.g. an Irish sea border, or zero tariff, zero quote agreements in deals with farming super-powers). If you are entering negotiations without any red lines, willing to happily throw your citizens under the bus, then of course you can have a trade deal with any country in the world.

What should make us think though is, why do other governments – or the EU – not adapt such a ruthless approach to concluding trade deals? Partly the reason is due to concerns about the trading partner’s environmental or human rights record (e.g. the EU decided this week to freeze an investment deal with China over human rights concerns). Partly, governments listen to local producers – legitimate or not – concerns about liberalisation.

The UK government does not have any such qualms. Unshackled by any concerns for human rights, environment, or its population, the UK government is on track to become very efficient in concluding FTAs. (Whether that is a good thing for the country or the environment is of course a different question.)  Ruthless politics towards British citizens is a key element in this strategy.

The prospect of a trade deal with Australia has caused anxiety with UK farmers. The SNP has warned against the impact a zero-tariff trade deal with Australia would have on Scottish family farms due to the prospect of the UK market being inundated with cheap, industrially produced meat. The SNP has warned the Government of what they would consider a ‘blatant betrayal’ of Scotland’s farmers. Similarly, the National Farmers Union (NFU) president Minette Batters warned the government that ‘throwing farmers under the bus’ would go against the goals of the ‘levelling-up’ agenda, which aims to reduce regional inequalities. Mark Drakeford, labour First Minster of Wales, asked “how can our hill farmers compete with the space that is available for the huge farms that they have in Australia? How can we compete when our standards of animal welfare and environmental standards different and are higher than they are in Australia?”

While the government seems divided on the matter (Michael Gove and Environment Secretary George Eustice reportedly defend the interests of UK farmers), the Prime Minister rejects any concerns with his usual pompous but vague arguments about ‘massive opportunities’ to export British products to the other side of the world and thus making up for the lost access to the EU single market. The PM likes to shame those who are ‘frightened of free trade.’ And Brexiteers attribute farmers’ very real and legitimate concern for their livelihoods to producers’ ‘vested interests’ or lack of ambition.

Would an FTA with Australia that contains zero tariff zero quota rules for agricultural exports really destroy UK family farming? The honest answer is that we do not know. There are models that show that it would be difficult for UK farmers to compete with the more efficient Australian farming sector (due to lower standards, more industrialised and intensive farming methods, and larger size of farms). On the other hand, trade experts point out that it is not certain that Australian farmers would choose to flood the UK market with cheap lamb and beef. There is at least the theoretical possibility that they would instead opt to export higher-end products to the UK, putting thus less pressure on prices in the UK market.

So, the impact of an FTA with Australia would not be known until well after it comes into force. But the important point here is that the UK government is happy to give it a try and see what happens without listening to UK farmers’ or environmentalists’ concerns and suggestions (e.g. to keep at least quotas). This government is perfectly happy to throw an important part of its population under the Brexit bus for a very small and uncertain payoff (the government’s own estimate of the benefit of the AUS FTA is a very small positive effect of around .01 or .02 % on GDP growth).

These ruthless politics in the area of FTAs are explained by the fact that for the government concluding FTAs is no longer a means to achieve and end (increasing the UK’s economic prosperity), but an end in itself. FTAs are mentioned in the 2019 conservative manifesto as the ultimate goal not a tool. The Conservatives want to have 80% of UK’s trade covered by FTAs. It does not seem to matter what the substantive content of these FTAs is and at what domestic price they were bought (“quantity over quality” as one analyst has suggested to call this approach). It is part of the symbolic politics of Brexit that substance does not matter anymore. What matters is showing the world that we can go places where the EU cannot (or chooses not to!). It is about proving wrong the Remainers who doubted we could get a trade deal with India, Australia, the US. The pro-Brexit press also follow this approach and have started announcing new trade deals (usually already before they are actually concluded) with a bold headline and a large number estimating the ‘value’ of the deal (but without any analysis of who wins, who loses from the deal). For now, this seems to be sufficient to keep the pro-Brexit half of the country content. I am reminded of a scene – fictitious or based on real events, I’m not sure – in Netflix’s The Crown that depicted people in council estates chanting ‘Maggie, Maggie!’ in the streets upon the announcement of the UK’s victory over Argentina in the Falklands War. However economically or geopolitically irrelevant the Falklands were; no matter how pointless a war over a small archipelago in the South Atlantic was, the fact that we won it is what matters. In the post-Brexit climate, I can imagine similarly people dancing and chanting in the streets upon the announcement of an FTA with Australia, China, or the US. That’s how far we have moved away from problems- and issue-focused policy-making into the realm of symbolism and identity politics where the main thing is to prove to the world that Britain still is a global power.

Beyond that Brexit does not and cannot deliver anything. Brexit always simply was a tool for a number of would-be politicians – from Sked, to Johnson, to Gove, to Frost, to Farage, to Rees-Mogg – to advance their political careers. There never was any plan. There never was any believe in it actually working. It was a tool for a part of the right-wing elite to compete for power with other members of the right-wing elite. Now that they have achieved their goal of conquering power it becomes apparent just how power-hungry, reckless, incompetent, and mediocre they are. All they can offer is ‘ruthless politics.’ That sort of politics is useful for them to stay in power for some time by scoring quick political points, but ultimately will turn out to be a double-edged sword that will wreck the basis for any sustainable post-Brexit relationships between the UK and its allies and trading partners.