For the EU, Brexit represents an existential threat – and that is the real problem.
After a brief respite, we are now back into the daily blizzard of Brexit interviews, rows and disasters. It really does seem to have been a chaotic process. But could it have been any other way? In any negotiating process, it is always evident that, with the benefit of hindsight, one or both of the parties could have played things better. In this particular situation, however, even had Mrs May’s tactics and judgement been better, I doubt that it would have made much difference, and there are a number of reasons why.
In the first place, the extreme nature of the decision taken – to leave the EU – inevitably meant that there were many views between the extremes that have had to be reconciled or accommodated. And that is not just including those who believe that ‘out’ was the right choice. Even amongst the innies, there was a wide variety of views about what our relationship should look like (remember, for instance, the intensity of the debate over whether the UK should participate in the common currency). Because of the fundamental nature of the debate, covering crucial areas such as sovereignty, views tend to be deeply held and compromises are not easily agreed or imposed.
Now add to this one very obvious feature of Brexit, that for most politicians in both the UK and elsewhere in the EU, this will be by far the most momentous event of their political lives, then you have a recipe for an intense if not vitriolic and uncompromising debate. Some people enter politics merely because they feel a call to serve their country and try to bring about positive change. I am doubtful that altruism is the true calling card of most of our modern-day politicians, but perhaps I am being a little ungracious (no change there). But the one thing that unites all politicians is that they are in politics to express their views and to be seen to be doing so. And in my experience, most politicians of whatever colour or shade of colour think they could be doing a better job than the current incumbent of No. 10. Taken together, this means that there is a desperation amongst most politicians in the UK and elsewhere to make their views known and heard as widely and loudly as possible. Is it any surprise, therefore, that the whole Brexit process seems chaotic?
But other elements of Brexit serve to make the situation even worse. It is not just the biggest event that most politicians are likely to be involved in, it is also the biggest and most protracted that the media is likely to have to cover for many a decade. Hence, disaffected politicians can find plenty of places where they can rant and rail about the current state of the negotiations, et cetera. It is also true that no media organisations are truly neutral. Whilst there are some that lobbied hard and long for exiting the EU, there are others who either overtly or covertly are clearly alarmed by the prospect. So, we start the day with BBC’s Today programme giving a daily dose of vitriol and gloom, and from there it simply carries on.
It hardly needs to be said that the media, by its very nature, is a very divisive industry. While this can be justified by the need to hold politicians and others to account, newspapers and broadcasters thrive on extreme views, and in the era of twenty-four-hour news, the pressure to seek out the extremes is even greater. And, of course, there is the new medium of the various, ubiquitous and largely uncontrolled social medias – an area from which emanate the somewhat random and mostly bizarre thoughts of President Trump.
Returning to the political process, it is important to consider the machinations of Brexit in the EU context. There is the very obvious point to make that the EU feels slighted by the UK’s rejection of its grand plan. Furthermore, the last thing that the EU wants is for the UK’s decision to be seen to have been the right one. The prospect of the UK thriving outside the EU could be severely destabilising to the whole EU artifice. This makes for a situation in which EU negotiators think it is in their interests to exploit their size advantage. While the UK always thought it was joining a trade club, this was never the case. The ultimate objective of the EU is to create a federal state. When you read what the founding fathers wrote about the development of the EU, this becomes very clear. Indeed, even the introduction of the euro has to be seen in this context. While it was sold to the peoples of Europe as necessary to make the operation of the single market more effective, in actual fact it was seen by the political theorists as a first real step towards forcing federalisation. While I do not want to go into this too deeply in this essay, suffice it to say that amongst a group of countries as economically and politically diverse as the EU nations, a common currency can only work longer term if those nations federalise. (And yes, the founding fathers did foresee economic and financial crises as a result of the initial introduction of a common currency, but they believed that the resolution of the crises would further the ultimate aim of a federal structure.)
This, in my view, is the reason why the UK took the right decision. I believe very strongly that steps to force federalisation on EU nations could be politically very dangerous with potentially very bad consequences. In fact, one way of interpreting the Brexit vote is to see it as part of the anti-establishment mood that has been growing in the UK and elsewhere. This mood reflects a growing suspicion of established political structures and a rejection of many aspects of big government.
At any time during the life of the EU, there has been one more governmental body than the number of member nations. What we refer to as ‘Brussels’ is an administrative and political structure that is working tirelessly to create its own nation. For those involved in the Brussels machine, Brexit may be threatening to this prospect, but it is also a political event that they judge can be turned around to great advantage and that can be used to increase their authority in the EU at the expense of national governments. And that is not to mention the fact that Brussels administrators and politicians also love the power play and the ability to grandstand.
My personal view is that we should take the deal on offer (as bad as might appear in itself), knowing that Brexit might legally be a moment in time, but that in reality it will take place over many years and will encompass protracted negotiations covering almost every aspect of our lives and then a few dozen more. For all that it might be in individual countries’ interests for the UK to have a ‘good’ exit from the EU, national interests are trumped by longer terms aims and fears.
Undoubtedly, there will be bumps in the road (and some queues), but if the decision to leave the EU is the right one, then moving the focus of the UK to the near-80% of the world economy (a growing percentage, by the way) that is not the EU can only enhance our long-term growth prospects. In the short term, what we must not allow is for a more pragmatic outcome to be stymied by political dogma.