EU and Brexit thoughts- Part III: the times ahead

What is the government going to do?

Politicians have a real problem now on their hands, as the turnout was large (which is great in itself). They can’t ignore the vote (even if they wished so) because this would split both major parties, and cause disaffection in a vast number of people. But they have no plan. They also know that this 52.1% is representing quite diverse people with not much in common, which is why there is no plan. The only point of contact might be on feelings of nationalism and a hate of immigration, but even those concepts are not held in the same way by rich Tories in the countryside as they are by working class communities in the industrial North. Plus, it is questionable that the UK as a whole would happily gather around those as new founding values for the future.

So if we have trust in politicians, then we would think they will step up to the job of working out what’s possible, and reconciling the diverse needs, desires and fears in the population. Perhaps address some of those important concerns directly, perhaps disentangle these real issues from the idea of a Brexit.

If we have less trust, we need to be especially aware that this moment of great upheaval not be exploited by a few to run ahead with an agenda that has nothing to do with the intentions of the majority of people.

Are we in a period of “mainstream” vs “protest” politics ? Yes, this seems to be a defining split at the moment in various countries, and the split cuts across the traditional political lines. Is this a new phenomenon, is the fraction of disaffected people increasing ? Hard to say, but there are many examples in western countries over the last decades of protest movements growing very strong, up to 35 or 40% of the vote. Some quite extreme parties have temporarily held majorities (so far not in the largest countries). Perhaps the financial crisis, and the coordinated responses of western economies (and also other factors such as refugee emergency) have somehow synchronised how people think across similar countries, and what we have now is nothing new except it’s happening at the same time everywhere. Most definitely the traditional parties need to respond to this with reason and with intelligent policies and plans; a race for who manages to be more populist seems a losing one (the genuine populists win it).

Why the future is not just in UK hands.

The EU evolves. Unpredictably. Although I believe it is headed irreversibly towards working better and more strongly together, this does get in the way of governments and other interests, and so it’s a process that takes time and proceeds abruptly. Germany and France have parliamentary elections in 2017, and hopefully will discuss and resolve some of the same issues presented here. It could well be that further integration gets a sudden boost. Already the EU is not a monolith: there are 4 or 5 combinations of how different countries have accepted the key treaties (the euro, free trade, Schenghen, etc). The countries that share them all could well take another step – it would be good for them. If they do so by themselves (e.g. decide to have a single finance ministry?) that creates a small “core” (which the UK would not obviously join in this generation) with a corona of other states that perhaps are not ready now to share so much. Brexit from such a “corona” might then not be wished for, at least by those voters fearing further integration.

Other trade partners. This is purely a matter of legal agreements – but they take time. The UK needs to pay (lawyers cost a lot) a huge number of people to arrange these. What I’ve not heard pointed out is that each of the new trade partners also needs to cough up these legal costs (to negotiate a trade agreement with a country they already trade with) – why would they be happy of this, or in a rush ?

Macroscopic effects from migration are just here to stay, they will influence the UK and all the other rich economies, Brexit or not. Likewise globalisation with its impact on workforce and the sustainability only of very efficient, very customised, or very high added value manufacturing.

What would seem a fair path forward?

The PM will be strongly constrained. But politicians should keep the broader debate up. People should be helped to discuss these issues, and to avoid entrenching on prejudice. More information needs to be made available.

The debate needs to continue amongst everyone. If the Brexit process can be reversed it will only be through a sway of public opinion.

If the banks go, the economy tanks, the state is bankrupt and the nation splits. This set of events will not happen in this period of uncertainty, but if it starts happening I don’t see anything good for anyone.

This UK government should work hard, see if they can identify any future at all along the Brexit path, convince people that avenues have been explored. They should set their timelines such that the people can be consulted again (e.g. by an election in 2 years’ time). This should be after we know what course would be followed, but before the ship is steered irreversibly. This intent probably can’t be stated now because it weakens the cohesion of government and perhaps negotiations, fine. But it does not hurt to say it’s possible things might plan out this way. Or just do it.