This week was an interesting one Brexitwise. There was of course the fifth anniversary of the referendum. And one increasingly gets the feeling that slowly but surely Brexiteers are running out of excused and explanations for the elusive benefits of Brexit.
For instance, there are the increasingly frequent ‘micro-acknowledgements’ by Brexit Minster Frost and others in the Johnson Government that they did not fully understand what they were doing. Lord Frost in particular is making a habit of openly and publicly acknowledging his lack of understanding of the impact of Brexit on the UK’s economic and political position, seemingly without being aware that that is what he is doing. Most recently, besides acknowledging having underestimated the impact of Brexit on Norther Ireland and on the relationship with the EU, this week, he openly acknowledge that Brexiteers did not understand that negotiating with the EU as a ‘third country’ would be more difficult than being a member. Confirming thus indirectly, the thesis that Brexiteers never expected Brexit to mean Brexit.
Also interesting was the Express’s reporting on a speech by Thierry Breton who – on the fifth anniversary of the referendum – allegedly mocked the UK for its failed attempt to take back control. The interesting bit is not the attack on Breton, but the fact that the Express could not come up with a single element of evidence to counter the argument that the attempt to take back control had failed, and the UK stood increasingly isolated on the global scene. Indeed, other than quoting Johnson’s claim that "[t]his Government got Brexit done and we've already reclaimed our money, laws, borders and waters" and Patel complaining about the treatment of Britons in the EU, the Express had nothing to oppose Breton’s claims.
But there was also an interesting stream of news about the UK governments increasing jingoism. In a move worthy of the worst dictatorship, the government endorsed a campaign that would have school children sing patriotic songs. There was also the incident in the Black Sea where the UK Navy’s destroyer HMS Defender entered what the Russians consider their territorial waters off the coast of Crimea. The Russian reaction was to deploy fighter jets and allegedly fire warning shots at the British vessel (although the Ministry of Defence immediately denied that account).
A move that is probably meant to demonstrate Global Britain’s newfound daring, but one that Tony Brenton, former British ambassador to Moscow, says [time mark 46:57] will negatively impact the chances of finding a solution for the Crimea situation. Indeed, whenever Western countries engage with Putin on his – antagonistic and nationalistic – terms, it tends to strengthen his resolve and his backing in the Russian population. But it would seem that we will have to get used to precisely such antagonistic and nationalist international diplomacy from the UK government too.
It might be a stretch to suggest a direct link here, but it is interesting that while the failure of Brexit is already becoming increasingly clear for everyone to see – to the extent that Lord Frost is forced into micro-admissions of guilt at increasing frequency – , the nationalistic grandstanding of the Johnson Government also seems to strengthen. This starts taking on genuinely worrying proportions now. I have recently written about the Johnson Government’s increasing resemblance to Orban’s government. This week, the Guardian quoted David Boyd, the UN’s special rapporteur for human rights and the environment, as suggesting that the Government’s laws on policing, on surveillance, and the weakening of judicial review were ‘reducing the public space’ and threatening the protection of basic human rights in the UK.
Beyond the realm of symbolic politics, the NIP and the economic consequences of Brexit figured prominently this week.
NIP
In terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, other than the fallout of Edwin Poots downfall as DUP leader after just 3 weeks, the big news was that the EU is expected to grant the UK a three-months extension on the grace periods on chilled meat exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Thus, averting an imminent clash at the end of the month.
This piece of news can be interpreted as the so far clearest piece of evidence contradicting the Johnson Government’s claim that it is the EU that is inflexible about the implementation of the protocol. However, it also shows the difficult position that the EU finds itself in. Without the extension the most likely outcome would have been the UK government once again extending graces periods unilaterally and thus forcing the EU to react. The options the EU Commission would have had would essentially have been three: 1. Taking legal action once again, but accepting in the meantime the de iure violation of its internal market 2. Imposing its own border checks between NI and the Republic 3. Imposing its own border checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
All of these options would have been greatly problematic for the EU. The first one would have been interpreted as a sign of weakness or powerlessness and would have constitute a massive short-term victory for the UK government. Presumably reinforcing it in its unreasonable and intransigent approach to all things European. The second one would have been even more damaging, given that avoiding a hard border on the Island of Ireland is considered crucial to Good Friday Agreement and indeed the whole point of the Irish backstop and the NIP was deemed necessary. The third option finally, would have been a major betrayal of the Republic of Ireland and again a victory for the Johnson government. So, granting the extension was always going to be the only option in the short-term. But of course, it does not solve any of the problems around the UK’s refusal to implement the agreement it signed.
Free movement of people and the UK labour market
The economically interesting news this week was the increasing evidence of the approaching unravelling of what is possibly the biggest Brexit lies of them all: Namely that the mass immigration from the EU was responsible for the economic grievances of the British people. It increasingly turns out that quite the opposite is true: it is the lack of immigrants that increasingly poses a threat to the UK economy in a remarkable variety of sectors.
Thus, different sectors are now discovering that the UK economy needs immigrants – including from the Eastern EU member states. Indeed, vegetable and fruit growers, meat producers, construction companies, are already feeling the effects of the absence of that workforce post-Brexit. The Grocer, weekly magazine for the Fast-moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) industry, titled that food shortages were now a certainty due to labour shortages along the value change, from harvesting, manufacturing and packaging.
Of course, there is truth in the claim that cheap, low-skill workers from Eastern Europe did put pressure on wages in some areas and sectors. Therefore, low-skilled workers had their reasons worry about immigration. But by simply cutting off – or at least drastically reducing – the inflow of workers from the EU, Brexit offered a seemingly simple, but ultimately deeply flawed ‘solution’ to this very real problem. Simply closing the borders to workers that the UK’s economy desperately needs, was never going to solve the problem that was very largely homemade, by decades of underinvestment in people’s skills, by protecting investor rights over worker rights, and by thus locking the country into a low skills, low wage, low productivity equilibrium.
This fact is now becoming abundantly clear, and businesses start feeling the bite. But the Johnson government with its ‘f**k business’ attitude, does not care about the consequences of Brexit for businesses (As is also illustrated by the news this week that the Port of Dover is taking legal action against the government over its refusal to fund post-Brexit check points at the port). Tory peer Dido Harding even campaigns for the position of head of NHS England on a promise to make things worse – namely by promising to reduce the NHS’s reliance on foreign workers. With foreign staff reportedly making up 14% of the NHS staff, it is highly questionable that a reduction of foreign workers could be compensate by training more British doctors and nurses.
But the government and people close to it are still in Brexit campaign mode and willing to ignore its realities – to a large part because these realities increasingly evidently expose their false promises. Indeed, what Brexit and the decline in EU immigration does illustrate is the real nature of the British economy and its – as any modern economy’s – reliance on other countries to function. Or as Jonathan Mills aptly put it in a tweet ‘Brexit does appear to be a long education in how Britain really is, as opposed to how many ppl there believed it to be.’
The decline of workers from Europe puts the skills shortage in the UK into sharp relief and shows that the reality is that the UK has neglected for too long to make education affordable for all, promote social mobility, and invest in workers’ skills. Neglecting to do that meant that European integration was akin to throwing domestic workers under the bus without any protection. It is not surprising that they saw little benefit in EU membership. Sadly, Brexit is a cure far worse than the disease. What Britain would need is instead is protection for domestic workers from downward pressures on wages through strengthening union rights, or compensatory social security spending, retraining programmes, and generally equipping British workers to compete more successfully by providing proper vocational education and training. Instead, Brexiteers chose to promote their own political careers by selling to the people a fake solution that created a maximum of collateral damage to the UK economy.