Since we first got an inkling of Brexit about five years ago I must have read millions of words on the subject and written a million myself in well over 2,000 blog posts. Occasionally, you read stuff which stands out as extraordinarily well written and as clear an explanation of the insanity of Brexir (and why it's doomed to fail) as anything else you have ever seen. Such is a paper by Nicholas Westcott at the LSE: A peculiar definition of sovereignty is the root cause of a failed Brexit. See it HERE. At the moment it has just 128 shares and 8 comments - nearly all negative and from, I assume, Brexiteers.
It's a 10 minute read and well worth the time. A few quotes:
"Real sovereignty is about protecting a country’s interests, not simply its borders and laws, and by that measure every form of Brexit now on offer reduces Britain’s sovereignty, and a ‘no deal’ Brexit damages it most."
Brexiteers put sovereignty above everything. I seem to remember Lord Patten saying a man alone in the middle of the Sahara desert was sovereign but probably not entirely happy about it. It remains to be seen how much voters think the recovery of some (not all) sovereignty will be a benefit to them personally. Several of the negative comments to the LSE piece are from people objecting to immigrants but as Mr Westcott says, UK industry needs migrant workers and if they don't come from the EU, "they will come from elsewhere." Immigration from the rest of the world, which we have always been able to control, has increased to make up for disgruntled EU workers returning home.
"The government has sidelined Britain’s economic interests, except fishing, in the interests of what they declare to be ‘sovereignty’, a matter seen as quite distinct from the national interest as a whole."
It appears that fishing (0.02% of the economy) is to be preserved at all costs while financial service (7% of the economy) is thrown under bus, not to mention farming and manufacturing. Fishermen no doubt got a raw deal in 1973 but it is a fact that many later sold their quotas to European owners rather than try to compete and that won't change. At best we will get an increase in our quota but without the boats or crews to take advantage of it.
What the government is doing with Brexit is to create several bigger and more influential sectors of the British economy who will be unhappy with the settlement and will begin a campaign to reform and renegotiate the deal. They will be the 21st century of the fishing industry but with a megaphone.
"Trading across borders means regulating across borders, and the more you want to trade, the more regulation you need. This goes for services and data as much as for goods. ‘Sovereignty’ in this context means having control not only of regulation in your domestic market but in the markets you sell to and buy from. In the 1960s, Britain vividly experienced the drawbacks of having no control over the European market and too small a domestic market for its manufacturers. EFTA did not provide what was needed, so only membership of the EEC would enable Britain to defend its national economic interests effectively. It was less a case of giving sovereignty away than, by sharing it, extending our sovereignty to mainland Europe."
We have given up the power to exercise any control over our largest market, one of 450 million wealthy consumers and, in any future FTA with any other nation, we will not recover anything approaching the influence that gave us.
"Ultimately, real sovereignty means having a seat at the table, a voice in the debate and a vote on the outcome. We have thrown all that away. We are left with paper sovereignty that sounds good but has no effect. We become a rule-taker from countries and Unions bigger than us, rather than a rule-maker."
And in the context of the Scottish independence debate, this next paragraph is something I have argued (albeit not so well) myself. Brexiteers in Scotland are making the polar opposite argument to the one they used in 2016. They are suggesting we are better, stronger and more prosperous together. This is how Mr Westcott puts it:
"Brexiteers would also argue that their assertion of sovereignty does reflect national interests. But this exposes the problem that their understanding of British national interest is identical to their party political interest. The fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both needed membership of the EU to make the United Kingdom work for them was excluded from this calculation. The Brexiteers definition of sovereignty will therefore come back to bite them when – as we have already seen – they argue that Scotland’s interests [NOT sovereignty] dictate that it should stay in the British Union. The party political interest of the SNP dictates otherwise and therefore – using the Brexiteers own argument – they will declare that Scottish sovereignty demands separation from an English nation that gives them no say in fundamental decisions. The Brexiteers will be hung with their own petard."
I fear this is true. And the SNP will win Indyref2 which will ultimately be irresistible in Westminster.
Trade talks continue today in London with The Times reporting that "Brussels puts pressure on Barnier for a Brexit deal" this because Ursula von der Leyen has sent one of her most senior officials, Stephanie Riso, to 'assist' (their word) Michel Barnier. Riso was apparently part of Barnier’s team during the Brussels negotiations with Theresa May’s government and is seen as someone who can help to find a solution.
Whether that's true or not we shall no doubt discover. I suspect it might just be that VdL wanted a second opinion about UK intransigence on the LPF and governance issues before pulling the plug next week.
