Gina Miller : No matter who gets into No 10, their Brexit plans are fantasy
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt claim the backstop problems can be fixed by 31 October. They are in for a rude awakening
Thu 27 Jun 2019 06.00 BST
As commentators line up to debate the character and personality traits of the two men running for the Tory leadership – and by default our prime minister – there is only one question on my mind: how credible are the details of how and when they can deliver or resolve Brexit?
This does not appear to be a question 84% of Conservative party membersare remotely bothered with, as they would prefer the fantasy of an immediate “clean Brexit”. They welcome their witching hour of 11pm on 31 October becoming Independence Day, as if it’s some sort of Hollywood blockbuster, with no deal.
If only will was reality. There is a raft of legislation required even in a no-deal scenario – for example bills on agriculture, fisheries, financial services, trade and immigration. So, too, the vexed question of the Irish border. Boris Johnson, like an overexcited puppy when interviewed by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg this week, grabbed this bone and enthused about “abundant, abundant technical fixes that can be introduced to make sure that you don’t have to have checks at the border”. Johnson is not one to worry about details, given the fact that in January Sabine Weyand, the EU’s deputy negotiator, said: “We’ve looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country – there’s simply no way you can do away with checks and controls.”
Then there is the clause in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 10, on the subject of the Irish border, states that nothing in this act “authorises regulations which … diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast agreement”. This is likely to mean that the Northern Ireland backstop will stay in place until MPs reach an agreement that honours the UK’s obligations under the Good Friday agreement.
I can hear the naysayers now – we are Great Britain, we can leave with a clean Brexit and a smooth transition to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms under which the rest of the world trades. Yes, Britain is a signatory to the WTO in its own right – but there are no WTO terms that apply specifically to the UK, as we have been operating under the EU’s umbrella for decades.
To deal directly under WTO terms will require us to have something called a schedule of tariffs, which applies tariffs to all imports into a country as well as quotas for a certain amount of tariff-free goods. Brexiteers such as Bernard Jenkin MP say we can simply rely on “default terms” or the EU’s schedule of tariffs. But that suggestion has already, understandably, been blocked by many of the 164 WTO members. Why would they allow the UK to take advantage of the negotiating position of a large global trading bloc such as the EU, when they themselves can’t? Unless Britain can set up emergency cover by using the EU schedule or our own schedule without formal approval, we will enter uncharted territory on the morning of 1 November, as no deal means no transition period. Again, Johnson thinks this is “tosh”. He can magic this, too – an implementation period not attached to a withdrawal agreement, but agreed by the EU anyway – even though he has not spoken to a single person on the EU side about this.
Q&A
What is Gatt XXIV or article 24?
Johnson will say we can be like Australia or New Zealand or Norway, conveniently forgetting that Australia has trade agreements in place with more than 17 countries, including the US, China, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, and deals with another 20 countries signed and in the pipeline.
I do not doubt that there are many countries that will wish to trade with the UK post-Brexit, but understandably they will wait to see what the UK’s ultimate relationship with Europe will be. WTO members will be watching Britain’s diplomatic behaviour closely. How the new prime minister and his government conduct themselves, especially if they refuse to pay the £39bn bill, will have a serious impact – and possibly make us devoid of international goodwill.
Trade would not stop, but there will be legal uncertainty, tariffs and barriers, and protectionism from other countries. In some sectors, such as meat and dairy, tariffs as high as 97% would result in British farmers who export lamb and beef seeing their prices double to uncompetitive levels. Imports of animal feed and fertilisers could also face tariffs, so farmers’ costs will increase, squeezing margins in the face of falling sales and no subsidies. This would affect chemicals and machinery parts too, which operate on a “just in time” basis, and also labour. A similar story would unfold across other sectors, with everyday imports we depend on – life-saving drugs, radioactive isotopes for MRI scans, medical equipment, epilepsy drugs, contact lenses, electricity, petrol, even milk – being hit.
Most politicians stay quiet on the fact that we are an 80% service economy. The WTO/Gatt regime into which this would fall would mean other countries being able to impose barriers, such as requiring doctors, accountants or architects to requalify. The financial services sector, which has been world-leading, and the UK aviation services sector, the third largest in the world, would be hugely affected: the EU has a competitive single market for air transport.
Meanwhile, though the prime minister will change, the arithmetic in parliament won’t. And there will be just 20 sitting days to the end of October to resolve the hornets’ nest of issues – and no one on the EU side of the table to renegotiate with until mid-November at the earliest.
But let’s not be bothered with mere details. Who needs policies and practical solutions – sheer force of personality will win the day. Why worry that we would be poorer and less safe than we are today?
• Gina Miller is a businesswoman and transparency activist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Before our brave Gina Miller went all the way to the courts to prepare the road for the UK elected representatives to have a substantial say in the Brexit process, the common opinion had been, that the referendum had given the UK executive the prerogative power on delivering Brexit.
2. Although this fact is almost too obvious to be overlooked at this point in time, still many people seem to have forgotten, that at the time of the referendum and in the direct aftermath of the referendum, the overriding assumption was, that the new government could practically do as it might wish in this respect.
3. The total change of perspective, once parliament had been introduced into the entire decision and legislative trajectories, has lead to high levels of frustration and belligerent language under the ruling establishment, and much of the anxiety of today can be explained by the sudden interference of the power of the elected.
4. A highly complicating factor as well has been the fact, that a substantial part of the Brexit movement had been (and still is been) inspired by a white-supremacist ideology.
5. A strong white supremacist movement has been reappearing - not just in the UK, but - all over the western world recently and its fanatic members are afraid that "the white race" will lose out on its historic hegemony, and eventually will be wiped out.
6. Within that concept, the white supremacists want a return of the national state, complete with national borders and legislation determined by white politicians, so the survival of "the white race" will be "guaranteed".
7. This geo-political perspective can only be substantiated when non-white people will be deterred from entering the gated community of white supremacists and non-white people that has already been allowed to enter into that gated community, will somehow have to be encouraged to leave the white community.
8. In the UK this agenda has lead to the introduction of the much read and debated about "hostile environment" policy, in the UK designed and delivered by then home secretary Theresa May, who after all does not exactly seem to differ that much from the Boris Johnsons, Rees_Moggs and Farages of this world.
9. International law, based on universal principles like the human rights charter, has been considered incompatible with the alleged superiority of "the white race", so that is the very reason, that the white supremacist part of the pro-Brexit community, does want to severe ties with the EU and wants to by-pass (and undermine) international institutions like the UN.
10. The white supremacist movement has been that much preoccupied with creating an exclusively white society, that it is even prepared, to sacrifice economical advantages, as long as it can preserve the independence of the neo-nationalist UK.
11. Much of the political rhetoric from the extreme-right does resonance the political rhetoric that prevailed in the European interbellum, and much of the rhetoric is about borders and strangers that have to be prevented from entering the sacred homeland.
12. Since White supremacism is all about (perceived) race superiority, racism does form an integral part of the white supremacist political agenda and the importance of national borders (and the subsequent dismantling of international institutions) will bring back border disputes.
13. Border disputes have been a rich source of warfare in the past and do have created wholesale genocidal calamities in our western world only a few decades ago and wholesale carnage in the (today mostly ex-) colonies of the western world.
14. So if one is contemplating to support the Steve Bannon acolytes like Johnson and Farage, one has to be totally aware, that Brexit might highly possibly mean - apart from serious economic decline - the outbreak of old-fashioned war in Europe.
15. Another dire disadvantage of following this ideology, is the fact, that the White supremacist movement has declared itself even independent from regular science and has engulfed itself into pseudo scientific arguments.
16. Pseudo-scientific arguments, that - among other implications - do permit its followers to deny the major human influence on climate change, which opinion only will accelerate the downgrading of our global habitat in general and the downgrading of the UK landscape and nature in particular.
17. Although the latter development seems to be heavily contradicting the ultimate objectives of the ultra-nationalists - such as the to be achieved conservation of the sacred homeland - the hard core ultra-nationalists does not seem to care too much about contradictions within their (mostly conspiracy) theories at all, as one can observe on a daily base when one does register the incoherent rhetoric of Boris Johnson and / or his hero, Donald Trump
18. Do be aware of the fact though, that Johnson and Trump are only useful idiots, that will be ruthlessly replaced by the powerful hyper-manipulative financiers of the global White supremacist movement once their sell-by date will be passed.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten
Opmerking: Alleen leden van deze blog kunnen een reactie posten.