Much has happened in British politics since my last post in early July, making a return to Brexit blogging somewhat daunting. Yet, having followed British politics from afar for a few months does have the merit of making it easier to focus on the bigger picture rather than being bogged down – as I sometimes am – in the details.
The bigger picture, it seems to me, is that just like Schrödinger’s cat, Brexit now seems to be dead and alive at the same time. The analogy between Brexit and Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment – in which a cat in a box has to be thought of as being simultaneously dead and alive – has been used many times especially during the Brexit negotiations (e.g. here). But it seems to me, that the analogy about the dual state of Brexit has gaining a new meaning in recent months. This is illustrated by the fact that the increasingly used term ‘Brexit 2.0’ is used in two different ways. On the one hand it is used to describe the next frontier that the British hard right’s political project is now turning towards, most importantly exiting the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
The other sense in which the phrase ‘Brexit 2.0’ is used concerns the additional disruptions to EU-UK trade that will result from increasing divergence of EU and UK rules resulting not so much from a conscious strategy of divergence, but rather from the fact that the EU introduces new rules, which the UK as a non-member now does not follow anymore. Most importantly, new EU rules coming into force in the next months and years concerning a carbon border tax, the implementation of plastic packaging rules, and – further down the line –supply chain due diligence laws will create considerable additional costs and red tape for UK businesses exporting into the EU.
The first meaning of the phrase then refers to the ‘political Brexit’ (Brexit as a political project), the second to the ‘technical Brexit.’ While the second is very much alive and kicking – i.e., it is ongoing and largely unresolved from the perspective of the companies concerned –, the former is dead and being superseded by new political ‘wedge issues.’
Dealing with technical Brexit
Chris Grey has labelled the Tories’ strategy of dealing with the concrete problems caused by technical Brexit ‘pragmatism without honesty.’
This pragmatic approach includes different tactics. The first one is to simply not use the ‘Brexit freedoms’ that Brexiters previously extolled. The most striking – and for Brexiters probably humiliating – example perhaps is the decision to indefinitely postpone the introduction of the UKCA quality mark for UK goods and instead continue to – unilaterally – use the EU’s CE mark.
A second, increasingly frequently used, strategy is to undo some of Brexit. Here the decision to rejoin the Horizon scientific programme constitutes a striking example. Another ones is the plan to rejoin the EU border agency Frontex in order to tackle cross-Channel migration.
Finally, in other areas Brexiters are still clinging on to pipedreams such as the conclusion of allegedly game-changing Free Trade Agreements with far away countries. This strategy works to the extent that the conclusion of such agreements can be turned into positive headlines, while the negative impact of the deals (concluded in a rush and under political pressure) will take some time to materialise and become evident to the British public.
Overall, this multi-pronged tactic does not amount to a coherent long-terms strategy to fix technical Brexit. Sunak’s pragmatic approach seems opportunistic and dictated by the internal and external political pressures he is under at any given day. This leads him at times to make concessions to the EU (e.g. when he agreed to the Windsor Framework); at times placating the Eurosceptics in his party, e.g. when rejecting the EU’s offer to establish a strategic dialogue with the UK. For businesses, this approach is expected to mean more of the chaos we have seen since January 2021.
Dealing with the death of political Brexit – In search of new ‘wedge issues’
Like any right-wing populist movement, the right-wing fringe of UK politics thrives on division. In fact, the ‘us versus them’ rhetorical strategy is their most powerful tactical weapon to rile up enough supporters against ‘the other’ and garner electoral support. It is no surprise, then, that as political Brexit has all but lost its potential to divide the nation, new political wedge issues need to be found.
Indeed, the view that Brexit was a mistake is now firmly established in the British public with nearly a 2-1 majority thinking it was wrong to leave. Even when asked the more controversial and consequential question of whether people would vote to rejoin or vote differently in a re-run of the 2016 referendum, the join/rejoin/remain side tends to have a clear lead (varying between 10 and 25%) over the leave/’stay out’ side in virtually all polls (although the picture may be more complicated if the ‘don’t knows’ are taken into account). As a result, political Brexit simply has lost its potential as a political weapon.
Little wonder then that the ‘great dividers’ on the hard-right are desperately looking for a new ‘retractor’ that can keep the gaping wound of Brexit open until after the next General Election. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been their first choice for a long time. Given that the ECHR court sits in Strasbourg and in many people’s minds is barely distinguishable from EU institutions, it has the great advantage of tapping into the same Euroscepticism that has been nurtured by the hard-right since the 1970s at least and that eventually brought us Brexit. It also has potential as a populist wedge issue between the people and the elite, because of the role of ‘foreign judges’ in implementing the ECHR. Anti-judiciarism has always been a core strategy of Brexiters and other populists not only since the infamous ‘enemies of the people’ headline in the Daily Mail. Attacking the ECHR and the European Human Rights Court allows Brexiters to carry over some of the hatred and populist tropes onto a new battle ground. Finally, the attack on te ECHR is also the perfect substitute for Brexit, because it neatly links with the right-wing populists’ core issue: Immigration. Indeed, given the ECHR’s role in trying and protect the basic human rights of those who desperately seek to reach Britain’s shores, it is easy to portray the Court as the key reason why Britain ‘cannot protect its borders.’ Human rights lawyers and judges objections to inhumane schemes like the Rwanda plan – whereby people would be flown to a remote country at great expense to the taxpayer – or to the plan to house asylum seekers on unsafe boats – constitute ideal targets for populists who claim that we need simple and drastic solutions to the problem of immigration. The ECHR is the perfect scape goat for the current governments’ failure to deliver on its promise to ‘stop the boats.’
Like in other cases, we are being told the problem – made worse by Brexit and the related exit of the UK from the Dublin regulation that allows countries’ to send back refugees to safe first countries of arrival – is not too much Brexit, but not enough Brexit. Hence, the need for Brexit 2.0.
The attacks on human rights from the far right inside and outside the Tory party will probably ebb and flow over the coming months and years, but it is unlikely that they will go away complete. The failure of political Brexit makes it certain that the anti-ECHR’s strategy will remain an important lifebelt to keep the former Brexiters’ right-wing populist political project afloat.
Uxbridge and Ecoscepticism
Over the summer, however, a second substitute for political Brexit has emerged, namely net zero and environmental protection in general. The reason for this alternative to emerge was the fateful Uxbridge by-election, which the Tories won thanks to a simple but effective NIMBY (not in my backyard) strategy. The Tories focussed on attacking Labour over the Labour Mayor of London’s ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) policy. The election was decided on the finest of margins: 515 votes separated first placed Conservative Steve Tuckwell from Second place Labour candidate Danny Beales (with third placed Green Party candidate Sarah Green taking a decisive 893 votes– illustrating once again the importance of pre-election strategic voting and alliances). Still, the conservatives smelled blood and spent the rest of the summer developing an anti-environment strategy that they probably see as their best hope of averting a seemingly inevitable electoral defeat at the next General Election. Consequently, this week PM Sunak announced a U-turn on various net-zero targets and policies claiming to care about the costs these would impose on ‘ordinary people.’
The short-sighted anti-environment stance may indeed make some political sense, given that some polls show that as many as 46% of people say that they would oppose climate change policies if they have a negative impact on personal finances. However, it is unclear how much potential this strategy really has. On the one hand, it fits well with recurrent – but so far less systematic – attacks conservatives have dished out against climate activists like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil or more broadly what they call the ‘anti-growth coalition.’ It also seems like a logical move closer towards climate change denialism, is in line with the conservatives increasing proximity to the US-style NatCon ideology. The NatCons flagship channel GB News, for instance, seems already far down the black hole of climate change denial. At the same time, some commentators are doubtful that anti-environmentalism can provide a path to electoral victory, given that the British public is quite strongly supportive of climate action.
The anti-environment strategy may also backfire because of the sewage crisis, which voters seem to care strongly about and which may turn even Tory voters away from their party. In a context where the pollution of British rivers, lakes, and the sea is making international headlines (e.g., when more than 50 athletes fell ill during the triathlon world championship due to high levels of E-coli in the water), being the anti-environment party may generate a backlash against conservatives in many constituencies. Indeed, British voters may not be willing to trade off clean water for affordable houses, but rather will vote for a party who promises both.
Be that as it may, the anti-human rights and anti-environment strategies prove that political Brexit is dead, and the conservatives are actively trying out new wedge issues to divide the electorate and stay in power. However, the death of political Brexit also means Labour and other opposition parties have got more leeway and new options.
Nixon goes to China – Starmer goes to The Hague
On this blog I have often been very critical of Starmer’s strategy and policies since he has become Labour leader, e.g. here. In particular, I have my doubts about Labour’s eagerness to quickly draw red lines, e.g. in terms of customs union or single market membership, or when ruling out a wealth tax. I often feel Labour could afford to be less categorical on such issues to leave more flexibility in case of a GE victory. I also worry that these red lines often replicate the conservative programme too closely, creating the impression amongst voters that there is not much daylight between the two parties and hence no real electoral choice available – possibly increasing absenteeism.
Yet, in the current context of the death of political Brexit, I can see a positive side to Starmer’s ‘red-lines strategy.’ Being categorical on certain policy issues may create political cover that Starmer now can exploit to fix technical Brexit.
The phrase ‘Nixon goes to China’ – coined in the context of Nixon’s 1972 visit to communist China – has come to mean that only a politician whose ideological credentials are beyond doubt can negotiate with an ideological suspect and controversial counterpart. Only Nixon – a staunch anti-communist – could fly to China and meet with Mao Zedong without being suspected by the US public of cosying up or selling out to the communists.
Starmer – as a ‘lefty lawyer’ and ‘Remainer’ – will always be suspected of ‘betraying Brexit.’ Here, his clear stance on rejoining or single market and customs union membership may create the image of a ‘hardliner’ in terms of Brexit. This may increase his ability to become bolder on fixing technical Brexit.
Last week, Starmer went on an international tour, meeting among others with Canadian PM Trudeau and French President Macron, but also visiting The Hague to discuss with officials from the EU’s law enforcement agency, Europol, Labour’s migration policy. That is a remarkable and bold move for a party that has been struggling to find an effective response to the Tories’ anti-immigration strategy. ‘Smash the gangs’ seems like a promising three-word rhetorical response to the Tories ‘stop the boats’ slogan, which links to Starmer’s credentials as human rights lawyer, while also allowing the Labour leader to talk tough on crime without criminalising asylum seekers themselves, which may put off Labour’s core voters.
Of course, the right wing press still accused the Labour leader of turning Britain into a dumping ground for unwanted migrants. But clearly, Labour feels confident enough to take the immigration policy fight to the Tories. Something they have been hesitant and unable to do effectively for years. This is a result of the Tories weakness and of the death of political Brexit. It shows that a space is opening up to address some of the problems Brexit has created or worsened. Starmer’s announcement to seek a major rewrite of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) as well as his commitment to non-divergence from EU food, labour, and environmental standards illustrates this further.
It can be expected that Labour will become bolder still on Brexit, simply because the British public and especially Labour voters – even in the leave-voting Red Wall seats – are increasingly Brexitsceptics. The right-wing presses’ cries of ‘Brexit betrayal’ will simply stop having any effect as fewer and fewer people in the country care about or for Brexit. Labour may also be further emboldened by the risk that the LibDems discover there may be electoral gains to be made from adopting a bolder pro-EU stance.
The government’s attacks on human rights and environmental protection are very regrettable and worrying. However, the silver lining is that now that political Brexit is dead and the NatCon madness is turning on human rights and climate change mitigation, Labour can start to develop a bolder strategy to tackle the many problems caused by technical Brexit.