In the UK you have this incredible blessing of 5 year terms and very few veto points for the minority to use in the system to block things
LBJ ended segregation, passed 3 civil rights acts and the voting rights act (over filibusters) created Medicare and Medicaid and enacted The Great Society in 5 years (and still had time for a disastrous war)
Attlee nationalised coal, created the NHS, created NATO (with help but it was a UK idea) and formed an Economic system that lasted 30 years, he did all this while recovering from WW2 and in 5 years
Keating created superannuation, put in place enterprise bargaining, created the ACCC as part of broader competition policy and formed APEC all in 5 years as PM
But from Day 1 Starmer has acted like reelection is the most important thing. Why not just forget the polls, ignore the right wing papers, and just do things, use his 5 years to change the country, join the customs union, concrete over the green belt between Oxford and Cambridge fill it with houses and data centres, or don’t do any of that, just do things he wants to do, but do it, forget reelection, just change the country and who knows in 5 years the public might even reward you with reelection anyway
None of the heroic and monumental acts you listed took place against the backdrop of social media, 24/7 “news” channels as interested in making news (and giving their opinions) as reporting it, and interference by foreign governments who don’t share our interests. It is unlikely that there has ever been a time in which public opinion has been such an easy prey for the paddlers of lies. It has reached the point where nobody - from this time, from history, or from the future could properly govern the country. We can only look across the Atlantic, across Europe, and around the world and be thankful for small mercies. It won’t make us better off, but we’ll realise we are better off than many.
Problem is, the media will give Labour a kicking no matter what it does. The party had five years. It should have come out of the hate strong, and just did whatever it wanted to. Nuts to everyone else. It had a mandate. But now, it just comes across as timid and scared. Moreover, it doesn’t come across like there’s much of a narrative and a plan. The comms op is terrible. And Labour keeps setting massive red lines for itself that it daren’t then go back on, but then leave it with no room to move regarding the economy. It’s horrible to watch and disappointing to experience.
The government’s mandate only extends to what was in its election manifesto. While it may choose to do additional things, it doesn’t have a mandate for them.
The uK constitution is basically an elected dictatorship with elections every 5 years as the check and balance, if you don’t want that then you need a written constitution with minority protections built in
I’m not saying this is good or bad, it just is what it is, the High Court can block you but then as the Tory’s proved you can just pass legalisation that changes the law the court used to block you (unless it’s not ECHR compliant because the EU does have a written constitution hence why the Tory’s hate it, but Brexit happened and unilateral disarmament doesn’t work in politics, so if the Tory’s take advantage of it so should Labour)
No mandate to join the EU. But a mandate to make Brexit work, whatever that means. It certainly shouldn’t be running scared from the PEM or a YMS, given that neither breaches Labour’s red lines – only hyperbolic takes (including those from Labour) about what those things are.
The media DOES NOT MATTER if you are not obsessed with re-election. You have 5 year terms, a 180 seat majority and no veto points of any consequence for the minority to use to block your agenda. So just do things. Walk into parliament tomorrow and pass a law that rips up planning approval laws, defenstrate the NIMBYs in one shot, then concrete over the green belt. Go and join the Customs Union, let the Mail scream and let them win an election in 5 years and reverse it if they want, but you get 4 1/2 year of economic benefit in the meantime.
Stop using the media as an excuse, they are only an excuse if you are obsessed with re-election and if you take as your starting point 'I can change a country in 5 years' then re-election doesn't matter (and if you believe in what you are doing then you would see the benefits and win re-election anyway) but let the Mail throw a fit, let the Telegraph have a stroke, let Twitter bitch and moan, ignore it all, take your 180 seat majority and go and change the country
I agree. Despite the Tories dominating the media they still lost big time.
I think it’s who’s donating to them. The Tories were purchased and relatively cheaply at that by a small number of very large donors.
I saw on Peter Geoghegan’s substack that Labour are taking donations from hedge funds. I just think now politicians don’t think they can win unless they court media barons and the super rich but that comes at a price for us. The idea is just to get past election time. Why deliver? Just blame it on the Tories mess.
If Labour don’t start making a concrete difference to people’s lives then they’re paving the way for Reform. Because despite all the lies people still need GPs and affordable housing. So there’s only so much mileage to be gained from the press or should I say in most cases now influencers.
I think you’re arguing for an elected dictatorship. If so, that’s what separates us. I have no interest in party politics and I abhor political dogma. I want a government to act in the best interests of the country, not just their supporters. This means I prefer statesmen to politicians. I would not support, for example the idea of concreting over the green belt for short-term economic gains. Today is the 5th anniversary of Brexit and a suitable time to reflect on its effects on our country. Without wishing to resurrect all the old arguments, it does seem that investment has fallen since we left the EU. The government claims to want to encourage greater investment in our economy (perhaps to compensate for what we have lost) but doesn’t appear to have a plan for achieving it. Like it or not, investors have choices as to where to invest. They seek returns on their investments. It is only the government that can create an economic environment in which that can happen. I think tax concessions are the way to encourage investment. But this is difficult if we are governed by the politics of envy.
Unfortunately the facts contradict your belief. We have seen, since 1979, govt slowly but surely reduce taxation on wealth and business to, as the last govt bragged, the lowest levels in Europe. At the same time, that tax cutting has attracted our lowest levels of investment, at times, since the war. This has been shown by the IFS and other institutions studying levels of investment v tax cuts. Indeed, the IFS has shown there is no correlation, at all, between lowering taxes and investment. Investment follows success. If an economy is thriving, investors are willing to take risks. Ours, despite those endless tax cuts, is not.
At the same time, as the Water company's have proved beyond doubt, hefty dividends don't attract investment either. While their profits have surged, dividends boomed, investment over the last decade has steadily declined. This is nothing to do with envy, its hard facts. Tax cuts don't work. Indeed, as 1987 showed, general cuts to taxation in fact cause the economy to overheat, and recession to set in shortly after.
As for the current govt, like all its Conservative predecessors, it is only interested in itself. It has no care for the rest of us, with only wealth talking, and the govt listening. Since its election, it has continued with the last govts policies with regards, Health, Education, Welfare, privatisation, green commitments and deregulation. All of the key areas then, for a healthy nation, and a healthy economy are being sacrificed for the needs of Corporate wealth.
As for running scared of the press, not a bit of it. Starmer is living the dream. He is a Tory, carrying out a Tory agenda. A quick read of his puff piece in the Times finally removes the mask, as, take out the name of the party, and it could have been written by Cameron, Johnson, or Truss. The same old nonsense about 'red tape' (we have less regulation than any of our major competitors in Europe, and some US states) same old drivel about 'over mighty regulators' (he is surely taking the piss?), and the 'burden of green regulation'. In other words all the same rubbish that led directly to Grenfell, and has contributed to the UK falling behind even China in terms of progress in the Green energy and energy conservation arena.
Basically, its more of the same. The election was a total fraud, and we've ended up with the same policies with different names on the door.
Not correcting anyone. Merely stating that you seem to have a misconception. Its easily done when reading what the press and politicians say. Unfortunately, on the one hand they lie on a daily basis and on the other, they, well, ditto.
The government has to get a grip, stop fiddling around on the edges with distractions such as a 3rd runway at Heathrow. The priority is to break barriers to trade and science/technology investment. I don’t get why Brexit is brushed under the carpet and major journalists and economists don’t highlight the disaster as it is … we are isolated with no levers of influence
Several economists have stated, and indeed predicted exactly what would happen. Unfortunately, they get no airtime, or are simply ignored in favour of halfwits like Minford. Brexit is a classic example of how, when they get their heads together, the political right and their supporters in the press and establishment, can completely manipulate events, manage the outcome of those events, and contain the fallout. Its not the first time, or will be the last that what is in actuality a major scandal in terms of the result of the politicians actions, is simply glossed over. As for Labour, to quote the Who, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Differences between them and the last govt are measured in fag papers.
Another great piece Ian. Brexit is the great lie of our time - the UK equivalent of Trump’s ‘Stop the Steal’ peddled by shabby fourth-rate pseudo-intellectuals and right-wing lackeys (Gove, Hannan etc.). For the last eight years or so the Brexit lie has been aided and abetted by political ignorance, self-interest and a virtual conspiracy of silence in mainstream public life. Like you, I hope better days are to come.
It always wryly amuses me that the things that UK needs to do to get growth outside the EU - massive infrastructure and housing investment, significant increase in state capacity, new trade hubs - are all so much harder to do than just relaxing trade barriers with your neighbours. Brexit may have been won on easy mode, but its political legacy to UK politicians too scared to revise it is fiendish.
- I remain uncomfortable with ‘rejoin’ regarding the EU. It suggests rewind. We need to ‘join’.
- On that, we need to make peace with being a normal EU country. That means Schengen. It means committing to the Euro. If we can’t do that, we are not ready.
- For people banging on about patriotism and sovereignty, an awful lot of Brexiters now seem very keen on ditching both and the UK being eradicated and its remains fusing with the US.
- On Leave voters, we should also be cautious: yes, you see a lot of them say Brexit has gone badly, but many believe that is because it hasn’t been done properly, not because they would change the decision that led us to where we are today.
I’m much more pessimistic than I once was. I (sadly) predicted that we’d leave, even guessed the cursed ratio, and assumed hard Brexit. But I also imagined we’d be back in the SM (or on the way to it) within a decade. We’re not even close. And it’s hard to know how we’ll get there. I imagine at the very least, we need:
- Minimum 60% pro-join *beyond* the ‘don’t knows’ (as in if every DK went no, we’d still need 60% saying yes to joining)
- Labour pro-join and Cons *at worst* impartial/accepting of that eventuality – but ideally doing a U-turn and perhaps even trying to outmanoeuvre Labour on this
- Political stability likely into the reasonably distant future – which is basically impossible under the current circumstances (Cons deranged; Ref resurgent; media acting like LD and Greens don’t exist) and with FPTP
Oh, and it’d be nice if Labour would stop conflating everything vaguely like its (absurd) red lines with the actual red lines, eg:
- The PEM is not the customs union. (Media: ask why we won’t join PEM when basically every other economy in our geographic region – including many outside of the EU – are members.)
- A YMS is not ‘freedom of movement’. (Media: ask why specifically we can’t have a YMS with the EU when we have ones with other countries.)
I agree that becoming "ready to join" will be a massive undertaking.
It isn't just Brexit that was built on lies, many lies had their origin much earlier.
Among the most pervasive ones are the those that sold the various opt-outs and exemptions as great achievements of the government of the day.
Even many erstwhile remainers still parrot the "we had the best deal" line, not realizing that these "achievements" had disadvantaged both country and its citizens.
Once you start digging deeper than the spin-doctored cover you are starting to see two patterns: opt-outs engineered to hide government failure and opt-outs engineered to keep the population from feeling too connected, too European.
The two examples you've mentioned, the Euro and the Schengen opt-outs, are each an example of one of these.
The opt-out from the Euro hid the government's epic failure to stabilise the country's currency for long enough to even be considered a Eurozone member.
The opt-out from Schengen was specifically just an opt-out of the provisions for passport free travel which would have been a tangible improvement for UK citizens.
The government did of course not opt-out of all the provisions for shared databases or cooperation between law enforcement bodies.
I hadn't realised T May was as ignorant as Johnson, but as a Brit in Europe, I will never to my dying day forgive her for "citizens of nowhere". I grant that she wasn't deliberately malicious or as venally self-serving as Johnson, but IMV her key mistake and handicap was and still is conflating the interests of the country with the interests of the Conservative party.
I know lots of people want to rejoin asap but I think you make an interesting point re by the time that point is reached, what complexion will the EU have? Or will SM/CU/EEA (or CH-style - which I think is more likely in the short term and Starmer should be looking v carefully at the new deal CH has negotiated with the EU, although it's not a done deal yet) be the more attractive option? Either way - and I stand to be mistaken over time - I think Starmer is a wilier fox than he's given credit for and I think his play is to be "forced" into SM/CU in a second term by the "will of the people" in order to spike the Brexiteers' guns. That's why it's important to him to get that second term - a lot of the policies will take 10, not 5, years, and certainly not 6 months.
Emma, what would be chances that the EU offer would a Swiss style agreement to the UK. What I heard that set up is not very popular in the EU, possible for the wrong reasons.
Some of the provisions seem to be just exercises in making things that are already true more explicit.
Not a bad idea given how much disinformation opponents of European cooperation tend to throw around.
In any case it is great to see that reasonable people and pragmatism have prevailed and Switzerland will have managed to stop its slow drop out as previous arrangements laps.
Brexit pulled the rug on the scientific research & clinical trials sector. Once leading edge, and a geographical location for the conduct of robust trials, now that the UK is no longer part of the EU we’ve lost the “mutual recognition” advantage. All our clients are going elsewhere, Europe, the US, even Australia. The MHRA imploded and VC funding is challenging to come by in the current economic climate, the combination has resulted in redundancies the length & breadth of the country.
I'm American. We are having a coup in real time over here which the legacy media are just blowing right past. It's a lot. So this is a breath of hope that I really need right now. Things can get better. There are places where facts eventually triumph. Thank you for reminding me of that.
That was quite an emotional read. I felt sick the morning of the EURef result and gutted when Johnson won the GE in December 2019. I hope I’m around long enough for the UK to change course and move to rejoin the EU, no caveats or opt-outs.
I really like this. It’s a useful summary for those befuddled by the lies and statistics so thank you for that. I would disagree, however, that the culture war is over. If you’re not a white, straight man it might be; for many of the rest of us it certainly isn’t.
On an entirely trivial point, I enjoyed the reference to Gove's "glistening" rather than the expected "glittering" ministerial career. It evokes that kind of sweaty sheen you see on the faces of people who are effortfully concealing some inner secret of which they cannot stop being ashamed, however hard they try to disavow the feelings that keep on leaking out from their hidden selves.
In the UK you have this incredible blessing of 5 year terms and very few veto points for the minority to use in the system to block things
LBJ ended segregation, passed 3 civil rights acts and the voting rights act (over filibusters) created Medicare and Medicaid and enacted The Great Society in 5 years (and still had time for a disastrous war)
Attlee nationalised coal, created the NHS, created NATO (with help but it was a UK idea) and formed an Economic system that lasted 30 years, he did all this while recovering from WW2 and in 5 years
Keating created superannuation, put in place enterprise bargaining, created the ACCC as part of broader competition policy and formed APEC all in 5 years as PM
But from Day 1 Starmer has acted like reelection is the most important thing. Why not just forget the polls, ignore the right wing papers, and just do things, use his 5 years to change the country, join the customs union, concrete over the green belt between Oxford and Cambridge fill it with houses and data centres, or don’t do any of that, just do things he wants to do, but do it, forget reelection, just change the country and who knows in 5 years the public might even reward you with reelection anyway
None of the heroic and monumental acts you listed took place against the backdrop of social media, 24/7 “news” channels as interested in making news (and giving their opinions) as reporting it, and interference by foreign governments who don’t share our interests. It is unlikely that there has ever been a time in which public opinion has been such an easy prey for the paddlers of lies. It has reached the point where nobody - from this time, from history, or from the future could properly govern the country. We can only look across the Atlantic, across Europe, and around the world and be thankful for small mercies. It won’t make us better off, but we’ll realise we are better off than many.
Problem is, the media will give Labour a kicking no matter what it does. The party had five years. It should have come out of the hate strong, and just did whatever it wanted to. Nuts to everyone else. It had a mandate. But now, it just comes across as timid and scared. Moreover, it doesn’t come across like there’s much of a narrative and a plan. The comms op is terrible. And Labour keeps setting massive red lines for itself that it daren’t then go back on, but then leave it with no room to move regarding the economy. It’s horrible to watch and disappointing to experience.
The government’s mandate only extends to what was in its election manifesto. While it may choose to do additional things, it doesn’t have a mandate for them.
The uK constitution is basically an elected dictatorship with elections every 5 years as the check and balance, if you don’t want that then you need a written constitution with minority protections built in
I’m not saying this is good or bad, it just is what it is, the High Court can block you but then as the Tory’s proved you can just pass legalisation that changes the law the court used to block you (unless it’s not ECHR compliant because the EU does have a written constitution hence why the Tory’s hate it, but Brexit happened and unilateral disarmament doesn’t work in politics, so if the Tory’s take advantage of it so should Labour)
No mandate to join the EU. But a mandate to make Brexit work, whatever that means. It certainly shouldn’t be running scared from the PEM or a YMS, given that neither breaches Labour’s red lines – only hyperbolic takes (including those from Labour) about what those things are.
Its like you are totally ignoring the point
The media DOES NOT MATTER if you are not obsessed with re-election. You have 5 year terms, a 180 seat majority and no veto points of any consequence for the minority to use to block your agenda. So just do things. Walk into parliament tomorrow and pass a law that rips up planning approval laws, defenstrate the NIMBYs in one shot, then concrete over the green belt. Go and join the Customs Union, let the Mail scream and let them win an election in 5 years and reverse it if they want, but you get 4 1/2 year of economic benefit in the meantime.
Stop using the media as an excuse, they are only an excuse if you are obsessed with re-election and if you take as your starting point 'I can change a country in 5 years' then re-election doesn't matter (and if you believe in what you are doing then you would see the benefits and win re-election anyway) but let the Mail throw a fit, let the Telegraph have a stroke, let Twitter bitch and moan, ignore it all, take your 180 seat majority and go and change the country
I agree. Despite the Tories dominating the media they still lost big time.
I think it’s who’s donating to them. The Tories were purchased and relatively cheaply at that by a small number of very large donors.
I saw on Peter Geoghegan’s substack that Labour are taking donations from hedge funds. I just think now politicians don’t think they can win unless they court media barons and the super rich but that comes at a price for us. The idea is just to get past election time. Why deliver? Just blame it on the Tories mess.
If Labour don’t start making a concrete difference to people’s lives then they’re paving the way for Reform. Because despite all the lies people still need GPs and affordable housing. So there’s only so much mileage to be gained from the press or should I say in most cases now influencers.
I think you’re arguing for an elected dictatorship. If so, that’s what separates us. I have no interest in party politics and I abhor political dogma. I want a government to act in the best interests of the country, not just their supporters. This means I prefer statesmen to politicians. I would not support, for example the idea of concreting over the green belt for short-term economic gains. Today is the 5th anniversary of Brexit and a suitable time to reflect on its effects on our country. Without wishing to resurrect all the old arguments, it does seem that investment has fallen since we left the EU. The government claims to want to encourage greater investment in our economy (perhaps to compensate for what we have lost) but doesn’t appear to have a plan for achieving it. Like it or not, investors have choices as to where to invest. They seek returns on their investments. It is only the government that can create an economic environment in which that can happen. I think tax concessions are the way to encourage investment. But this is difficult if we are governed by the politics of envy.
Unfortunately the facts contradict your belief. We have seen, since 1979, govt slowly but surely reduce taxation on wealth and business to, as the last govt bragged, the lowest levels in Europe. At the same time, that tax cutting has attracted our lowest levels of investment, at times, since the war. This has been shown by the IFS and other institutions studying levels of investment v tax cuts. Indeed, the IFS has shown there is no correlation, at all, between lowering taxes and investment. Investment follows success. If an economy is thriving, investors are willing to take risks. Ours, despite those endless tax cuts, is not.
At the same time, as the Water company's have proved beyond doubt, hefty dividends don't attract investment either. While their profits have surged, dividends boomed, investment over the last decade has steadily declined. This is nothing to do with envy, its hard facts. Tax cuts don't work. Indeed, as 1987 showed, general cuts to taxation in fact cause the economy to overheat, and recession to set in shortly after.
As for the current govt, like all its Conservative predecessors, it is only interested in itself. It has no care for the rest of us, with only wealth talking, and the govt listening. Since its election, it has continued with the last govts policies with regards, Health, Education, Welfare, privatisation, green commitments and deregulation. All of the key areas then, for a healthy nation, and a healthy economy are being sacrificed for the needs of Corporate wealth.
As for running scared of the press, not a bit of it. Starmer is living the dream. He is a Tory, carrying out a Tory agenda. A quick read of his puff piece in the Times finally removes the mask, as, take out the name of the party, and it could have been written by Cameron, Johnson, or Truss. The same old nonsense about 'red tape' (we have less regulation than any of our major competitors in Europe, and some US states) same old drivel about 'over mighty regulators' (he is surely taking the piss?), and the 'burden of green regulation'. In other words all the same rubbish that led directly to Grenfell, and has contributed to the UK falling behind even China in terms of progress in the Green energy and energy conservation arena.
Basically, its more of the same. The election was a total fraud, and we've ended up with the same policies with different names on the door.
Thank you for correcting me.
Not correcting anyone. Merely stating that you seem to have a misconception. Its easily done when reading what the press and politicians say. Unfortunately, on the one hand they lie on a daily basis and on the other, they, well, ditto.
On the plus side, it took Brexit for me to discover Ian Dunt. Shame about it ruining the country, but, y'know.
Ian - and Sir Ivan Rogers, are voices of reason that remind me that insanity is not a given.
Good to see a nod to UKICE. They have been a trusted source of information and a credible forum for debate through the whole Brexit process.
The government has to get a grip, stop fiddling around on the edges with distractions such as a 3rd runway at Heathrow. The priority is to break barriers to trade and science/technology investment. I don’t get why Brexit is brushed under the carpet and major journalists and economists don’t highlight the disaster as it is … we are isolated with no levers of influence
Several economists have stated, and indeed predicted exactly what would happen. Unfortunately, they get no airtime, or are simply ignored in favour of halfwits like Minford. Brexit is a classic example of how, when they get their heads together, the political right and their supporters in the press and establishment, can completely manipulate events, manage the outcome of those events, and contain the fallout. Its not the first time, or will be the last that what is in actuality a major scandal in terms of the result of the politicians actions, is simply glossed over. As for Labour, to quote the Who, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Differences between them and the last govt are measured in fag papers.
Another great piece Ian. Brexit is the great lie of our time - the UK equivalent of Trump’s ‘Stop the Steal’ peddled by shabby fourth-rate pseudo-intellectuals and right-wing lackeys (Gove, Hannan etc.). For the last eight years or so the Brexit lie has been aided and abetted by political ignorance, self-interest and a virtual conspiracy of silence in mainstream public life. Like you, I hope better days are to come.
It always wryly amuses me that the things that UK needs to do to get growth outside the EU - massive infrastructure and housing investment, significant increase in state capacity, new trade hubs - are all so much harder to do than just relaxing trade barriers with your neighbours. Brexit may have been won on easy mode, but its political legacy to UK politicians too scared to revise it is fiendish.
A few thoughts:
- I remain uncomfortable with ‘rejoin’ regarding the EU. It suggests rewind. We need to ‘join’.
- On that, we need to make peace with being a normal EU country. That means Schengen. It means committing to the Euro. If we can’t do that, we are not ready.
- For people banging on about patriotism and sovereignty, an awful lot of Brexiters now seem very keen on ditching both and the UK being eradicated and its remains fusing with the US.
- On Leave voters, we should also be cautious: yes, you see a lot of them say Brexit has gone badly, but many believe that is because it hasn’t been done properly, not because they would change the decision that led us to where we are today.
I’m much more pessimistic than I once was. I (sadly) predicted that we’d leave, even guessed the cursed ratio, and assumed hard Brexit. But I also imagined we’d be back in the SM (or on the way to it) within a decade. We’re not even close. And it’s hard to know how we’ll get there. I imagine at the very least, we need:
- Minimum 60% pro-join *beyond* the ‘don’t knows’ (as in if every DK went no, we’d still need 60% saying yes to joining)
- Labour pro-join and Cons *at worst* impartial/accepting of that eventuality – but ideally doing a U-turn and perhaps even trying to outmanoeuvre Labour on this
- Political stability likely into the reasonably distant future – which is basically impossible under the current circumstances (Cons deranged; Ref resurgent; media acting like LD and Greens don’t exist) and with FPTP
Oh, and it’d be nice if Labour would stop conflating everything vaguely like its (absurd) red lines with the actual red lines, eg:
- The PEM is not the customs union. (Media: ask why we won’t join PEM when basically every other economy in our geographic region – including many outside of the EU – are members.)
- A YMS is not ‘freedom of movement’. (Media: ask why specifically we can’t have a YMS with the EU when we have ones with other countries.)
I agree that becoming "ready to join" will be a massive undertaking.
It isn't just Brexit that was built on lies, many lies had their origin much earlier.
Among the most pervasive ones are the those that sold the various opt-outs and exemptions as great achievements of the government of the day.
Even many erstwhile remainers still parrot the "we had the best deal" line, not realizing that these "achievements" had disadvantaged both country and its citizens.
Once you start digging deeper than the spin-doctored cover you are starting to see two patterns: opt-outs engineered to hide government failure and opt-outs engineered to keep the population from feeling too connected, too European.
The two examples you've mentioned, the Euro and the Schengen opt-outs, are each an example of one of these.
The opt-out from the Euro hid the government's epic failure to stabilise the country's currency for long enough to even be considered a Eurozone member.
The opt-out from Schengen was specifically just an opt-out of the provisions for passport free travel which would have been a tangible improvement for UK citizens.
The government did of course not opt-out of all the provisions for shared databases or cooperation between law enforcement bodies.
I hadn't realised T May was as ignorant as Johnson, but as a Brit in Europe, I will never to my dying day forgive her for "citizens of nowhere". I grant that she wasn't deliberately malicious or as venally self-serving as Johnson, but IMV her key mistake and handicap was and still is conflating the interests of the country with the interests of the Conservative party.
I know lots of people want to rejoin asap but I think you make an interesting point re by the time that point is reached, what complexion will the EU have? Or will SM/CU/EEA (or CH-style - which I think is more likely in the short term and Starmer should be looking v carefully at the new deal CH has negotiated with the EU, although it's not a done deal yet) be the more attractive option? Either way - and I stand to be mistaken over time - I think Starmer is a wilier fox than he's given credit for and I think his play is to be "forced" into SM/CU in a second term by the "will of the people" in order to spike the Brexiteers' guns. That's why it's important to him to get that second term - a lot of the policies will take 10, not 5, years, and certainly not 6 months.
For those that are interested, here's my BlueSky thread on the CH-EU agreement signed in December:
https://bsky.app/profile/linguistforsail.bsky.social/post/3ldv3i6vnxk27
Emma, what would be chances that the EU offer would a Swiss style agreement to the UK. What I heard that set up is not very popular in the EU, possible for the wrong reasons.
I think "Swiss style agreement" used to refer to dozens of separate agreements, each with their own scope, duration, etc.
The new agreement is a single one which covers multiple aspects.
Very much like the TCA covers a wide range of aspects in a single agreement.
The scope and width of the Swiss agreement was always available to the UK as well but May's red lines moved several aspects out of reach.
If the UK government would move from hardline Brexit red lines to Swiss red lines the TCA could almost certainly accommodate that
Thks!
Well, 12 months ago the EU was rejecting anything other than a full framework agreement with CH, no sectoral agreements. And now...
It's a negotiation and if you don't ask, you don't get. The UK also needs to know what it has to offer that the EU wants.
And Trump has added another layer of complexity to the already fraught security situation.
All that being said, I'm no trade negotiator, so your guess is as good as mine.
Thks!
That was a very interesting read, thank you Emma!
Some of the provisions seem to be just exercises in making things that are already true more explicit.
Not a bad idea given how much disinformation opponents of European cooperation tend to throw around.
In any case it is great to see that reasonable people and pragmatism have prevailed and Switzerland will have managed to stop its slow drop out as previous arrangements laps.
Brexit pulled the rug on the scientific research & clinical trials sector. Once leading edge, and a geographical location for the conduct of robust trials, now that the UK is no longer part of the EU we’ve lost the “mutual recognition” advantage. All our clients are going elsewhere, Europe, the US, even Australia. The MHRA imploded and VC funding is challenging to come by in the current economic climate, the combination has resulted in redundancies the length & breadth of the country.
I'm American. We are having a coup in real time over here which the legacy media are just blowing right past. It's a lot. So this is a breath of hope that I really need right now. Things can get better. There are places where facts eventually triumph. Thank you for reminding me of that.
That was quite an emotional read. I felt sick the morning of the EURef result and gutted when Johnson won the GE in December 2019. I hope I’m around long enough for the UK to change course and move to rejoin the EU, no caveats or opt-outs.
I really like this. It’s a useful summary for those befuddled by the lies and statistics so thank you for that. I would disagree, however, that the culture war is over. If you’re not a white, straight man it might be; for many of the rest of us it certainly isn’t.
On an entirely trivial point, I enjoyed the reference to Gove's "glistening" rather than the expected "glittering" ministerial career. It evokes that kind of sweaty sheen you see on the faces of people who are effortfully concealing some inner secret of which they cannot stop being ashamed, however hard they try to disavow the feelings that keep on leaking out from their hidden selves.
Another great article…thank you.
Terrific piece. Thank you.