This evening should see the definitive British parliament vote on Brexit and
we have today
also learned that the government intends to have all stages finished in TWO
DAYS.
Normally
international treaties – and this is such a treaty, under law – must be before
parliament for at least 21 sitting days in order to be ratified. This minimum
time period is laid down in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (Crag)
of 2010. But this provision is lifted for the purpose of the WAB, to allow the
31 October deadline to be met.
Amazing how governments can play fast and loose with convention. That’s
the beauty of the country having no written constitution……
MPs were given the 220 pages of the Bill only yesterday evening –
although Friday evening saw a rough guide. No serious person now
believes a word that comes from Johnson’s mouth or pen. So the text will need
line by line attention – and much consultation. Caroline Lucas, the Green MP,
put it nicely when she wrote
“MPs had more
time to debate the Wild Animals in Circuses Act (affecting 19 animals) than
they will to decide the future of 65 million people”
On such a critical day, I don’t
want to play the usual guessing pantomime which passes for political
comment. I want simply to indicate why
those who simply ”want to get Brexit over” are in for a bitter, bitter
disappointment and why the air will, in a few years, be full of bitter recriminations.
And, in this argument, I want to bring into play the words of the
longest and strongest Brexit supporters – Richard North and his son Pete
who also has a blog from which I give you these facts
- countries
do the highest volume of trade with their immediate neighbours.
- Just under
half our trade is done with the EU.
- Much of our
exports only exists because of the facilitation measures inherent in the single
market.
- Frictionless
borders is a product of regulatory harmonisation.
- The EU is a
regulatory superpower.
- If you want
to do business with a regulatory superpower then you follow its rules.
- It doesn't
have to take your position into account.
- The cost of
non-tariff barriers far exceeds the cost of tariffs.
- The EU is
the largest contiguous regulatory block in the world, extended by way of its
own FTAs and external agreements.
- There is no
likely combination of new FTAs that could ever offset the loss of the single
market.
On the face of it, therefore, there isn't an economic
case for leaving the EU. If only this were just an economic question.
Brexit,
though, touches on a range of issues which come into conflict with the
direction of travel of the EU. It is said that the EU wishes to be a federal superstate.
EU scholars say that ambition ended with Lisbon with a recognition that member
states to not share that aim. To a large extent they are right. It's only
really the mouth foamers such as Guy Verhofstadt who still speak to that goal.
But the EU is still an incomplete project and one that is still guided by its founding dogma of "Ever closer union". Economic integration is a tool of political integration. As rules are harmonised authority over them is centralised which diminishes the power of national parliaments to reform or repeal laws according to their own values and political manifestos.
But the EU is still an incomplete project and one that is still guided by its founding dogma of "Ever closer union". Economic integration is a tool of political integration. As rules are harmonised authority over them is centralised which diminishes the power of national parliaments to reform or repeal laws according to their own values and political manifestos.
If we take democracy to mean the ability of peoples to
organise and take power to direct the institutions then the EU does not qualify.
It is a benign dictatorship - but a dictatorship nonetheless. There can be no
democratic choice against the treaties.
The EU may never become a federal superstate with homogenised law throughout but it will continue to weaker member state sovereignty and lay down the parameters in which member states must operate. Primarily the objective is to liberalise trade within the borders of the EU so that national borders are increasingly meaningless. Superstate it may not be but it is most certainly a supreme government with the power to overturn laws of member states.
The effect of such rapid integration on the UK has been profound. Economically and culture it has made a deep and lasting impact. It has transformed the culture of politics and government. All levels of government below the EU are constrained by it and must give over much of their resources and time to implementing agendas devised in Brussels and above. The people can be overruled and their decisions nullified.
That the EU has a parliament does not make it a democracy. Elected representatives turning up to rubber stamp initiatives devised by the EU machinery is a figleaf of consent but one lacking a legitimate mandate. Especially when you consider the Euro election turnouts.
The EU may never become a federal superstate with homogenised law throughout but it will continue to weaker member state sovereignty and lay down the parameters in which member states must operate. Primarily the objective is to liberalise trade within the borders of the EU so that national borders are increasingly meaningless. Superstate it may not be but it is most certainly a supreme government with the power to overturn laws of member states.
The effect of such rapid integration on the UK has been profound. Economically and culture it has made a deep and lasting impact. It has transformed the culture of politics and government. All levels of government below the EU are constrained by it and must give over much of their resources and time to implementing agendas devised in Brussels and above. The people can be overruled and their decisions nullified.
That the EU has a parliament does not make it a democracy. Elected representatives turning up to rubber stamp initiatives devised by the EU machinery is a figleaf of consent but one lacking a legitimate mandate. Especially when you consider the Euro election turnouts.
52% of British citizens who bothered to vote were not convinced by the economic
arguments – or, rather, were prepared to set them aside for the issues of “political
sovereignty” (for which read “immigration” and a clear understanding that European
Court decisions now trumped British justice). There may have been some
uncertainty about which of the 2 European Courts had the most influence but
they knew that they didn’t like the situation)
So far, Pete North isn’t saying anything we haven’t already heard….it
is the next part of the argument which Pete (and his
Dad) have been hammering (to little avail) for the past decade – namely that
unpicking the legal implications of EU membership and negotiating acceptable
trade deals will take a decade; and that a far better arrangement is to go with
EFTA. This would, of course, keep the UK under the aegis of the European Court
of Justice – although, in theory, this could be negotiated about further down
the line. Pete north’s post goes on -
There are two
types of Brexiter. There are those who hold these economic realities to be true
and those who deny those realities. The latter believes that leaving without a
deal has manageable consequences and an exaggerated economic impact. I
therefore have as much difference of opinion with them as I do remainers.
As mentioned much of our high tech just in time economy is a product of regulatory harmonisation and much of our trade with the EU only exists because of it. An overnight departure, subjecting us to the full force of tariffs and third country controls (as defined by the Notices to stakeholders) is a hammer blow to the UK economy with grave ramifications for jobs. Thus far this has been disregarded as "project fear" - with Brexiters ever keen to remind us that this isn't just an economic question.
On the latter point I do not disagree but the economic question is not one we can afford to ignore. In the bluntest of remainer terms, you can't eat sovereignty. Bills have to be paid. Mortgage payments have to be made. Politics impacts our lives.
As mentioned much of our high tech just in time economy is a product of regulatory harmonisation and much of our trade with the EU only exists because of it. An overnight departure, subjecting us to the full force of tariffs and third country controls (as defined by the Notices to stakeholders) is a hammer blow to the UK economy with grave ramifications for jobs. Thus far this has been disregarded as "project fear" - with Brexiters ever keen to remind us that this isn't just an economic question.
On the latter point I do not disagree but the economic question is not one we can afford to ignore. In the bluntest of remainer terms, you can't eat sovereignty. Bills have to be paid. Mortgage payments have to be made. Politics impacts our lives.
I do not pretend to be a trade expert - but don’t need much convincing that
few politicians understand the transformation which has taken place in the role
of regulations in the past decade…Anthony Barnett is one of the UK’s most
independent-minded and thorough journalists and confessed in 2018 that it was only
then that he started to appreciate its significance.
I wrote about this earlier this
year, referring to some of the discussions which have been taking place in
academic circles about the “Regulatory State” – particularly “The
Rise of the Unelected Democracy and the new separation of powers” by Frank Vibert
(2007)
The EU has
for the last two decades used global standards as the basis of its regulations
and the base framework of regulatory cooperation in its external relations.
Globally we are moving toward a single regime of standards, leaving only the
USA and China as the sticks in the mud. Were we to secure a deal with the USA
according to their system of standards, even if it doubled the volume of trade
done with the USA (which not FTA has ever done) it wouldn't come close to
mitigating the loss of the single market.
Much of what is commonly understood about trade follows assumptions from the previous decade of globalisation when offshoring was the fashion and corporates moved around to exploit differences in tax regimes and labour standards. To some extent the EU has sought to close some of these holes by way of its own "level playing field" provisions and seemingly it has had an effect
But the talk is no longer about “offshoring” but of “nearshoring”
update;
Anna Soubry says that she can’t find a single part of the Brexit bill that meets a promise made by the Leave campaign in the referendum.
Further Reading
The Odyssey of the Regulatory
State; article by D Levi-Faur (2011)
The
Rise of the Unelected Democracy and the new separation of powers” by Frank Vibert
(2007) which, full disclosure, I still haven’t been able to complete
