Skip to main content

Brexit Brexit Brexit

Ten weeks after Article 50 was invoked, we are already seeing a general election (which the Tories are likely to win by a landslide), and a fateful dinner at No 10 Downing Street where the disagreements between the UK and the EU were made more apparent.

When I thought there would be a general election this year, I thought it would be because the government had seen sense, and had realised the impossibility of Brexit. I was wrong. This election is because May wants a larger majority in the House of Commons and does not want to be distracted by managing her own party during the EU negotiations. Theresa May hates scrutiny. The other reasons are that there was an expenses scandal which could have seen a series of by-elections which would be very messy and embarrassing for the government, and when the EU negotiations fail to deliver what Leave promised (because they are undeliverable), or because of economic chaos of a cliff-edge Brexit, the Tories would get the blame. With more time on their side, this is all about Tory party politics.

The UK's position is that it wants to arrange a "comprehensive and ambitious" trade deal between the EU and the UK within 2 years, and for those talks to run in parallel with the Article 50 exit talks. The UK has already set its red lines: no more EU nationals, control over borders, no immigration and freedom of movement, no jurisdiction by the ECJ, and no more payments to Brussels. In addition, it is highly sceptical about the large bill of €40-100bn for its liabilities.

The UK may as well have asked for the moon on a stick. This more or less guarantees a hard Brexit. The General Election is a way for the Conservative government to check with the people that this is really what they want. In many ways this is actually quite sensible. If it all goes wrong, as is entirely likely, then the electorate is to blame. And indeed, they are. 

Many Brexiters by now have taken on the "Brexit at any cost" attitude, due to an almost religious yearning to be free of the "evil and corrupt" EU. Even many who voted to Remain accept the inevitability of Brexit. But the Labour party have misjudged the mood of the country. Not only have they lost the political centre, but by accepting and ignoring Brexit, they alienate a large group of voters. Nobody who cares about Brexit either way will vote Labour. The UK desperately needed more politicians to stand up and say that Brexit is utterly daft and should be stopped, and we should cancel the whole thing. Instead, they have all abandoned their principles and are happy to facilitate this catastrophe. Shame on them. Politicians of a better calibre would stand against this and inform the electorate rather than pandering to populism. What started off as pressure from UKIP has snowballed out of control.

I'm starting to suspect that the UK game-plan is to attempt to bully the EU into concessions, and to expect to walk away empty-handed (maybe without even a transitional arrangement), as a clean break is at least deliverable, if painful. We need to see Theresa May's personal motivations. If she gets the backing from the country to act tough, then she cannot be blamed when the strategy inevitably fails. The Brexiters will attempt to blame the EU for the breakdown, when really, the EU has its rules and if the UK doesn't like them then it doesn't have to play. The UK only has itself to blame.

The next few months will be marked by a lack of progress, and frequent reminders about just how far apart the UK and EU positions are. The EU is very wise to stand up for its principles, whereas the UK just wants free trade. I'm very glad that the EU is standing up for the rights of citizens, because people should always come before profits. It really is unfair for a family who have moved to the UK to suddenly be kicked out or be confronted with an expensive and arduous 85 page application form. I just cannot see how the talks can end amicably.

Theresa May will be under tremendous pressure to keep acting tough, and will be goaded by the right and by ardent Brexiters into walking out of the talks. (These people want all ties with the EU to be severed to make Brexit irreversible). Yet a strong majority in parliament will allow her to stand up against these forces and make her own decisions. It may not be a bad thing.

Ultimately the UK has a choice: a soft Brexit which sees the UK continuing to accept freedom of movement, EU payments and the ECJ, or a hard Brexit offering independence but economic chaos. Brexit cannot be both, and one group of Brexiters will end up very disappointed. Now reality is starting to bite, and the Brexit lie is exposed. Brexit cannot deliver both economic prosperity and independence from the EU. There is no trade "deal" to be had.

The saving grace in all this is that the EU may allow the UK to continue under its current terms for a few more years, allowing a further window for the UK to change its mind. This is 5 years away. The UK would be mad to reject such an extension, and so for that reason alone, we are now seeing the real Brexit at least 5 years from now. Much can happen in that time.

In spite of this, there's a real danger that the UK will reject the EU's offer, or that talks break down. If a leaving agreement cannot be reached, and without an agreed framework for leaving, then it's hard to conceive that an extension could be granted. I predict that the UK will capitulate to all of the EU's terms, at least in the short term, due to the UK's utter unpreparedness. The real question becomes for how long the EU will be willing to throw the UK a lifeline, and for how long the UK holds up its begging bowl to the EU before it decides to go it alone. This is nothing like taking back control, it's the betrayal of Britain's future and the biggest con in history.

At some point, Theresa May will pull the trigger and end our single market membership. Some think we may as well get it done sooner rather than later, but whenever it happens, things will get very very messy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali