On the day of the Queen's speech I want to take a look at the 2019 Tory manifesto. Weighed against the years of struggle by Tory Eurosceptics and the near constant carping by Johnson about EU regulations you would have thought it would be choc-a-bloc with all those burdensome EU laws destined for the great post Brexit bonfire. But not so. You search in vain to find the list or even a single EU law which is to be repealed. If we have been fettered by Brussels, the Tories seem to be having some difficulty identifying which EU rules were doing it. It's hard to set fire to a myth isn't it?
The manifesto's introduction - almost certainly straight from the pen of Johnson - says:
"We have all shared the same frustration – like some super-green supercar blocked in the traffic. We can see the way ahead. We know where we want to go – and we know why we are stuck."
If the manifesto really points to "where we want to go", one would have to conclude after reading it that the best way of getting there would be by revoking Article 50. After all the fury, arguments, aggravation, gridlock and division of the last three year you would be forgiven for thinking EU rules had been the single greatest obstacle in our great journey to the promised land of Brexit. Remember by 31st December 2020 we will be "free", if that's the right word, and able to do as we please. You might think this involves the wholesale dumping of masses of EU regulations. Err... no. The great majority of the manifesto could easily be delivered whilst we are still inside the EU.
The sheer futility of Brexit comes across in what the manifesto doesn't say. Had Britain really been the oppressed victim of Brussels as Brexiteers like to claim, the first government after we have left would have delighted in symbolically throwing off the 'shackles' but it doesn't.
Unleashing Britain's potential (page 7) is about beginning to spend money after 'clearing up Labour's mess'. Nothing about the EU at all here. Focusing on your priorities (page 9) is about boosting investment in the police, schools, health and social care. Quite what the EU were stopping us doing in these fields isn't explained. As far as I know, the answer was nothing.
Unleashing Britain's potential (page 7) is about beginning to spend money after 'clearing up Labour's mess'. Nothing about the EU at all here. Focusing on your priorities (page 9) is about boosting investment in the police, schools, health and social care. Quite what the EU were stopping us doing in these fields isn't explained. As far as I know, the answer was nothing.
Helping vulnerable children and supporting families (page 14) doesn't seem to involve the dumping of any EU regulations either. Neither does making the country safer (17) or supporting victims of crime (19).
Johnson's plan to 'Unleash Britain’s potential (25) talks about "making sure people have access to world-class public services, that they feel safe on the streets, that working families get to keep more of their own money, and that we help with cost of living pressures. I'm not aware of those pesky unelected bureaucrats getting involved in our public services or criminal justice so nothing to be gained by Brexit there.
Reviving towns and cities (26), a transport revolution (27), helping people buy their own homes (29), making Britain the best place to start a business (32) jars a bit when you look at all the companies driven out of the country by Brexit. Backing entrepreneurs and innovation (34) is not something the EU ever seemed to be strongly against. Building a fairer tax system (35), investing in people, fairness in the workplace, supporting rural life and coastal communities, etc etc. It goes on and on in a lot of bland phrases that could have been plucked from any party's manifesto since Attlee.
Page 44 must have gone through quite a bit of drafting and redrafting because it talks of Strengthening the Union and Standing up for Northern Ireland (I'm not kidding). Protecting our democracy comes on page 47 where the unlawful suspension of parliament is conveniently overlooked.
Johnson made us a laughing stock as Foreign Secretary but he now proposes to "Strengthen Britain In The World" - by withdrawing from a position of influence and power as one of the largest members of the EU. This is a strange way of going about it. Buried on page 53 is a reference to setting up Britain's "Space Command" - whatever that means. Improving animal welfare is on page 54 and fighting climate change is on page 55.
The only two areas which have express references to possible 'benefits' of Brexit are in trade (page 57) and immigration (page 20). On trade, the government "aim to have 80 per cent of UK trade covered by free trade agreements within the next three years, starting with the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. These will be negotiated in parallel with our EU deal."
Bear in mind we already have a trade deal with the EU and (via the EU) with Japan. Negotiations between the EU and Australia are taking place now. The only 'benefit' is to get an FTA with New Zealand, a nation of 5 million, twelve thousand miles away and with the USA who will demand we lower our food quality standards on meat, cereals and drugs. The BBC report:
"US business groups from the agricultural sector have been among the most vocal, amounting to nearly a third of all comments [to the US government consultation].
"The groups, which as well as meat, drug and technology firms include producers of olive oil, wine, nuts, fruit, and dairy products, say they want to see the UK reduce tariffs on food products. They also want to limit geographic labelling rules, such as those that bar US companies from using terms such as Prosecco.
"The Animal Health Institute, which produces animal antibiotics, was among several groups that said it would not support a deal that did not address demands by the US agricultural sector. We have noted with concern statements by certain UK officials indicating a desire to exclude the agricultural sector from the negotiation and an intention of maintaining regulatory harmonisation with the European Union," it said.
"Should the UK adopt such policies, we see little basis for the negotiation of a bilateral trade agreement."
This will come at the cost of significantly reduced access to our primary export market across the Channel. It is not a good or equitable exchange. We will be the losers.
"US business groups from the agricultural sector have been among the most vocal, amounting to nearly a third of all comments [to the US government consultation].
"The groups, which as well as meat, drug and technology firms include producers of olive oil, wine, nuts, fruit, and dairy products, say they want to see the UK reduce tariffs on food products. They also want to limit geographic labelling rules, such as those that bar US companies from using terms such as Prosecco.
"The Animal Health Institute, which produces animal antibiotics, was among several groups that said it would not support a deal that did not address demands by the US agricultural sector. We have noted with concern statements by certain UK officials indicating a desire to exclude the agricultural sector from the negotiation and an intention of maintaining regulatory harmonisation with the European Union," it said.
"Should the UK adopt such policies, we see little basis for the negotiation of a bilateral trade agreement."
This will come at the cost of significantly reduced access to our primary export market across the Channel. It is not a good or equitable exchange. We will be the losers.
On immigration Johnson plans to introduce an Australian style points system. There is a vague reference to reducing immigration - "overall numbers will come down". The firm target of getting it below 100,000 is gone. Whether the xenophobes and racists will appreciate that immigrants after Brexit will have been government vetted even though the numbers will be exactly the same or slightly lower, is not clear, my guess is that they won't be impressed.
An article from The Telegraph in September 2016 by Juliet Samuel explains why such a system won't work:
An article from The Telegraph in September 2016 by Juliet Samuel explains why such a system won't work:
"The first fact to understand is that Australia has a higher immigration rate than Britain does – much higher. For every immigrant Britain lets in, Australia lets in two – that’s right, double – as a proportion of its population. Why? Because Australia is an enormous, sparsely populated land mass and its immigration system is designed to attract settlers to move there. It’s hard to imagine a system less aligned with the stated aims of the Brexit campaign leaders.
"The points-based system was designed as a way for would-be workers to move to Australia before they actually found jobs. Those with job offers move there on work visas. Those without can apply for permission to come and look for work if they get enough points. So if your aim is to cut down on job-seeking immigration, then the last thing you would want is an Australian points-based system."
So, the only two areas where being out of the EU would make any difference whatsoever, will be seriously detrimental to us. It's hard to see otherwise.
As for strengthening the United Kingdom - well, words fail. One gets the impression of two might yships, England and Scotland, now set on a collision course that can only end in disaster for both.
The manifesto also suggests we lead the world in battery technology (page 2) when the truth is China, South Korea and Japan dominate with over 90% of global lithium-ion battery production. This again is a Johnson delusion as I pointed out in April this year when he made a similar claim in his Telegraph column.
Not in the manifesto but said to be coming in The Queen's speech is a proposal to allow courts below the Supreme Court (and the High Court in Scotland) to override EU law. According to the BBC:
"It means that UK civil courts below the Supreme Court, for example the Court of Appeal, High Court, county courts, and tribunals such as the Employment Appeal Tribunal could depart from ECJ rulings in areas such as workers' rights.
"Take for instance the right to paid holidays. The ECJ has interpreted this right more generously than the UK courts: for example, on the inclusion of overtime in holiday pay, and currently its interpretation binds the UK courts.
"Following the 11 month transition period after Brexit, the way is open, for example, for an employer to take a case to one of the UK's lower civil courts and invite a judge to apply a more restrictive interpretation to the right to paid holidays.
"This would create plenty of work for lawyers, but it opens a can of worms and could affect many workers."
A lot of leavers might be surprised by this although I daresay it won't make any difference to their attitude to 'getting Brexit done'.
Not in the manifesto but said to be coming in The Queen's speech is a proposal to allow courts below the Supreme Court (and the High Court in Scotland) to override EU law. According to the BBC:
"It means that UK civil courts below the Supreme Court, for example the Court of Appeal, High Court, county courts, and tribunals such as the Employment Appeal Tribunal could depart from ECJ rulings in areas such as workers' rights.
"Take for instance the right to paid holidays. The ECJ has interpreted this right more generously than the UK courts: for example, on the inclusion of overtime in holiday pay, and currently its interpretation binds the UK courts.
"Following the 11 month transition period after Brexit, the way is open, for example, for an employer to take a case to one of the UK's lower civil courts and invite a judge to apply a more restrictive interpretation to the right to paid holidays.
"This would create plenty of work for lawyers, but it opens a can of worms and could affect many workers."
The vast majority of the pledges in the 64 page document could have been done inside the EU. In areas where leaving the EU is a pre-requisite there are only downside risks, sometimes very big ones. Johnson seems to have just as much of a problem as Nigel Adams in answering the question: which EU laws did British ministers vote against? As we know, the truth is there aren't any significant ones worth repealing.
A lot of leavers might be surprised by this although I daresay it won't make any difference to their attitude to 'getting Brexit done'.
Moreover, most of the manifesto commitments will take money. Money that comes from tax revenues that we know will shrink due to Brexit. If Johnson was really serious about changing things for the better he would stop Brexit and reverse course.
