If there is to be a second referendum we need to be prepared for another onslaught of half truths and lies from the pro-Brexit lunatics otherwise we run the risk of losing again and this would be unforgivable as well as catastrophic. Some of the half truths and untruths that will need to be robustly challenged include leaving without a deal would be pain free and that we are leaving the EU and not Europe.
I am not convinced any responsible government could actually ever put no-deal on a ballot as an option but this doesn't mean they wouldn't.The referendum was reckless and I don't think any lessons have been learned at all.
The belief that unwinding forty years of closer and closer trading inside the world's most sophisticated and integrated single market can be done without huge dislocation is a fantasy, but like all the fantasies around Brexit, it is widely believed. And people who should know better continue to maintain the fantasy.
Professor David Blake at the Cass Business School is one such fantasist and has an piece on the website Briefings for Brexit (HERE). In it he makes the usual claim that the inherent contradictions of Brexit have nothing to do with the present impasse, it is all down to remainers conspiring to thwart the will of the people:
"The WA has been drafted with the support of pro-Remain civil servants using the Mad Hatter strategy of putting forward proposals that are completely barking – leaving the EU, while still having to obey all EU laws, but without a vote or veto; claiming this is the only way of having “frictionless trade” when WTO rules mandate this very thing; then claiming it is the only way of avoiding a hard border in Ireland when the UK, Ireland and the EU have already said that they will not impose a hard border; and finally maintaining the notional freedom to negotiate trade deals with other countries, but on terms that no other country could possibly accept".
The professor apparently thinks WTO rules 'mandate' 'frictionless trade'. If this was the case there would be no need for any free trade agreements at all but as we know most countries have FTAs and strive for years to get them. Indeed, many Brexiteers claim it is having the freedom to have an independent trade policy and sign our own FTAs is one of the fundamental drivers of Brexit. So it's laughable nonsense to claim basic WTO rules make trade frictionless.
Listen to Sir Ivan Rogers, a man who knows about these things, in his Liverpool speech where he says:
"First, there will, under NO circumstances, be frictionless trade when outside the Single Market and Customs Union. Frictionless trade comes with free movement. And with the European Court of Justice. More later on that.
"Second, voluntary alignment from outside – even where that makes sense or is just inevitable – does NOT deliver all the benefits of membership. Because, unlike members you are not subject to the adjudication and enforcement machinery to which all members are.
"And that’s what Brexiteers wanted, right? British laws and British Courts".
Ivan Rogers might have had Professor Blake in mind when he said:
"Likewise, all the breezy assertions that “no deal” would pose no great problems for aviation, for road haulage, for medicines, for food, for financial services, for data and for any number of other areas – for most of which, 'WTO terms' are simply not a safety harness".
"No number of repetitions of the grossly misleading term “WTO deal” makes it any more real or effective. Its proponents – or most of them - know this full well, incidentally. This is not because of Establishment remainer sabotage".
And read this twitter thread about what trading under WTO terms actually means:
Industry will need to assert itself and find a louder and clearer voice, ignoring the calls of Brexiteers for them to be silent or neutral on Brexit and especially on a no-deal Brexit. A no-deal Brexit would be an existential event for many of them. By being clear about that would demonstrate why we are in a weak position to negotiate a good deal. In truth we do not have a 'Best Alternative to a Negotiated Deal' - they are all worse than a negotiated deal, even a bad one.
Yesterday it was announced that Jaguar Land Rover is to 'axe up to 5,000 jobs' (HERE) partly as a result of Brexit and it is this kind of announcement that will change hearts and minds. The prospect of job losses and factory closures on the front pages will force reality to be confronted. Governments cannot create jobs that produce wealth, they can only create the conditions for others to do it. When the government is actively engaged in making those conditions worse, as it is with Brexit, economics make a change of course inevitable sooner or later.
The other thing I think we need to argue against is the notion that we are leaving the EU, not Europe. Europe IS the EU and the EU is Europe. They are one and the same. We cannot separate ourselves from the EU and remain close to Europe, it is a logical impossibility. Words like isolation, detachment, alone, retreating and so on should be used to build on the negative impacts of setting ourselves apart from our closest neighbours.
Somebody reminded me the other day of what the Danish Finance minister (HERE) said in 2017:
“There are two kinds of European nations. There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nations.”
When this penny drops Brexit will be over,
I am not convinced any responsible government could actually ever put no-deal on a ballot as an option but this doesn't mean they wouldn't.The referendum was reckless and I don't think any lessons have been learned at all.
The belief that unwinding forty years of closer and closer trading inside the world's most sophisticated and integrated single market can be done without huge dislocation is a fantasy, but like all the fantasies around Brexit, it is widely believed. And people who should know better continue to maintain the fantasy.
Professor David Blake at the Cass Business School is one such fantasist and has an piece on the website Briefings for Brexit (HERE). In it he makes the usual claim that the inherent contradictions of Brexit have nothing to do with the present impasse, it is all down to remainers conspiring to thwart the will of the people:
"The WA has been drafted with the support of pro-Remain civil servants using the Mad Hatter strategy of putting forward proposals that are completely barking – leaving the EU, while still having to obey all EU laws, but without a vote or veto; claiming this is the only way of having “frictionless trade” when WTO rules mandate this very thing; then claiming it is the only way of avoiding a hard border in Ireland when the UK, Ireland and the EU have already said that they will not impose a hard border; and finally maintaining the notional freedom to negotiate trade deals with other countries, but on terms that no other country could possibly accept".
The professor apparently thinks WTO rules 'mandate' 'frictionless trade'. If this was the case there would be no need for any free trade agreements at all but as we know most countries have FTAs and strive for years to get them. Indeed, many Brexiteers claim it is having the freedom to have an independent trade policy and sign our own FTAs is one of the fundamental drivers of Brexit. So it's laughable nonsense to claim basic WTO rules make trade frictionless.
Listen to Sir Ivan Rogers, a man who knows about these things, in his Liverpool speech where he says:
"First, there will, under NO circumstances, be frictionless trade when outside the Single Market and Customs Union. Frictionless trade comes with free movement. And with the European Court of Justice. More later on that.
"Second, voluntary alignment from outside – even where that makes sense or is just inevitable – does NOT deliver all the benefits of membership. Because, unlike members you are not subject to the adjudication and enforcement machinery to which all members are.
"And that’s what Brexiteers wanted, right? British laws and British Courts".
Ivan Rogers might have had Professor Blake in mind when he said:
"Likewise, all the breezy assertions that “no deal” would pose no great problems for aviation, for road haulage, for medicines, for food, for financial services, for data and for any number of other areas – for most of which, 'WTO terms' are simply not a safety harness".
"No number of repetitions of the grossly misleading term “WTO deal” makes it any more real or effective. Its proponents – or most of them - know this full well, incidentally. This is not because of Establishment remainer sabotage".
And read this twitter thread about what trading under WTO terms actually means:
Debunking WTO, and what "trading on WTO terms" really means...— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) December 13, 2018
As EU members, we participate in over 750 international treaties.
Many relate to trade, enabling us to trade freely with the EU, the EEA, and 40+ other countries. 1/26
Industry will need to assert itself and find a louder and clearer voice, ignoring the calls of Brexiteers for them to be silent or neutral on Brexit and especially on a no-deal Brexit. A no-deal Brexit would be an existential event for many of them. By being clear about that would demonstrate why we are in a weak position to negotiate a good deal. In truth we do not have a 'Best Alternative to a Negotiated Deal' - they are all worse than a negotiated deal, even a bad one.
Yesterday it was announced that Jaguar Land Rover is to 'axe up to 5,000 jobs' (HERE) partly as a result of Brexit and it is this kind of announcement that will change hearts and minds. The prospect of job losses and factory closures on the front pages will force reality to be confronted. Governments cannot create jobs that produce wealth, they can only create the conditions for others to do it. When the government is actively engaged in making those conditions worse, as it is with Brexit, economics make a change of course inevitable sooner or later.
The other thing I think we need to argue against is the notion that we are leaving the EU, not Europe. Europe IS the EU and the EU is Europe. They are one and the same. We cannot separate ourselves from the EU and remain close to Europe, it is a logical impossibility. Words like isolation, detachment, alone, retreating and so on should be used to build on the negative impacts of setting ourselves apart from our closest neighbours.
Somebody reminded me the other day of what the Danish Finance minister (HERE) said in 2017:
“There are two kinds of European nations. There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nations.”
When this penny drops Brexit will be over,
