This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/17/second-brexit-referendum-distraction-honesty-eu
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Talk of a second Brexit referendum is merely a distraction | Talk of a second Brexit referendum is merely a distraction |
| (2 days later) | |
| Just over a week ago the Chequers declaration led to headlines such as “Theresa May has pulled off a deal with her cabinet – and no one has resigned” and “Theresa May wins agreement for new UK Brexit offer”. Though to be fair the latter headline was followed by the line: “How long it lasts is another question.” As it turned out, the answer to that question was less than 48 hours. A week later the declaration and the white paper are widely derided on both sides of the EU debate, and there are now suggestions that the UK’s political problems over Brexit can only be solved by a new referendum. | Just over a week ago the Chequers declaration led to headlines such as “Theresa May has pulled off a deal with her cabinet – and no one has resigned” and “Theresa May wins agreement for new UK Brexit offer”. Though to be fair the latter headline was followed by the line: “How long it lasts is another question.” As it turned out, the answer to that question was less than 48 hours. A week later the declaration and the white paper are widely derided on both sides of the EU debate, and there are now suggestions that the UK’s political problems over Brexit can only be solved by a new referendum. |
| The seductive thought that only another referendum can fix our Brexit problems is based largely on wishful thinking, like so much of the EU debate. Let us assume that the outcome we want to achieve is one that has the support of a comfortable majority of the country and of MPs, based on a single set of verifiable facts agreed by most, and whose benefits and drawbacks are reasonably well understood. Why should a second referendum in two years deliver this when the first patently failed to do so? | The seductive thought that only another referendum can fix our Brexit problems is based largely on wishful thinking, like so much of the EU debate. Let us assume that the outcome we want to achieve is one that has the support of a comfortable majority of the country and of MPs, based on a single set of verifiable facts agreed by most, and whose benefits and drawbacks are reasonably well understood. Why should a second referendum in two years deliver this when the first patently failed to do so? |
| When I was working for the UK government on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks the then UK trade minister, Lord Livingston, liked to use the quote, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” usually attributed to the US politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In the Brexit debate all sides have their own facts. On the Brexit side the economist Patrick Minford projects an economic gain to the UK of 7% over 15 years from a no-deal scenario, you can solve the Irish border issue quite straightforwardly with technology, and the money we don’t send to the EU will be a Brexit dividend spent on the NHS. Needless to say, campaigners against a hard Brexit reject all of these facts, for example suggesting the economy has in fact already lost 2% in potential growth. | When I was working for the UK government on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks the then UK trade minister, Lord Livingston, liked to use the quote, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” usually attributed to the US politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In the Brexit debate all sides have their own facts. On the Brexit side the economist Patrick Minford projects an economic gain to the UK of 7% over 15 years from a no-deal scenario, you can solve the Irish border issue quite straightforwardly with technology, and the money we don’t send to the EU will be a Brexit dividend spent on the NHS. Needless to say, campaigners against a hard Brexit reject all of these facts, for example suggesting the economy has in fact already lost 2% in potential growth. |
| It is hard to see how a referendum on your preferred facts resolves anything. Particularly when so many media reports will either be partisan, or attempt to balance the story by reporting both sets of facts as if they are equally true. Neither will third-party interventions help. Businesses warning of new barriers to trade with the EU have been typically viewed as being supportive of the campaign for a soft Brexit or to remain. It is quite astonishing that we can now hear a conservative MP (Iain Duncan Smith) say, “when big business intervenes politically … they have, with amazing consistency, been wrong,” and not find this surprising. | It is hard to see how a referendum on your preferred facts resolves anything. Particularly when so many media reports will either be partisan, or attempt to balance the story by reporting both sets of facts as if they are equally true. Neither will third-party interventions help. Businesses warning of new barriers to trade with the EU have been typically viewed as being supportive of the campaign for a soft Brexit or to remain. It is quite astonishing that we can now hear a conservative MP (Iain Duncan Smith) say, “when big business intervenes politically … they have, with amazing consistency, been wrong,” and not find this surprising. |
| Meanwhile, all sides have inadvertently colluded on perhaps the biggest and most comforting myth: that the UK is of equal importance to the EU in negotiations. So the government’s white paper suggests the EU and UK will create a new “common rulebook” when the EU already has one of those in the form of the European Economic Area. The Labour party meanwhile proposes that the UK stay in a customs union with the EU, but one in which we get a say in how the EU negotiates trade deals. It’s British exceptionalism at its finest or worst, and rightly seen as such in the EU. | Meanwhile, all sides have inadvertently colluded on perhaps the biggest and most comforting myth: that the UK is of equal importance to the EU in negotiations. So the government’s white paper suggests the EU and UK will create a new “common rulebook” when the EU already has one of those in the form of the European Economic Area. The Labour party meanwhile proposes that the UK stay in a customs union with the EU, but one in which we get a say in how the EU negotiates trade deals. It’s British exceptionalism at its finest or worst, and rightly seen as such in the EU. |
| Another referendum cannot resolve these deep problems, which have appreciably worsened since June 2016. Arguably the biggest missed opportunity was when the prime minister failed to construct the reasonable cross-party consensus you need in a major international negotiation when entering office. But somehow, from somewhere, this leadership and consensus is still what we need. The first step in the process would be honesty, to say that we can’t have everything we want, that the EU is a bigger player. Then we somehow have to discuss the real trade-offs in terms of political control, economic consequences, Ireland, and related issues such as freedom of movement. Ultimately the options will be based around remaining in the EU, leaving with no guarantees of future economic partnerships and a likely border in Ireland, or a halfway house based on EEA membership, with some opportunity to negotiate UK specific elements. Talk of a referendum is merely a distraction from that uncomfortable debate we’re avoiding. | Another referendum cannot resolve these deep problems, which have appreciably worsened since June 2016. Arguably the biggest missed opportunity was when the prime minister failed to construct the reasonable cross-party consensus you need in a major international negotiation when entering office. But somehow, from somewhere, this leadership and consensus is still what we need. The first step in the process would be honesty, to say that we can’t have everything we want, that the EU is a bigger player. Then we somehow have to discuss the real trade-offs in terms of political control, economic consequences, Ireland, and related issues such as freedom of movement. Ultimately the options will be based around remaining in the EU, leaving with no guarantees of future economic partnerships and a likely border in Ireland, or a halfway house based on EEA membership, with some opportunity to negotiate UK specific elements. Talk of a referendum is merely a distraction from that uncomfortable debate we’re avoiding. |
| • David Henig is director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy | • David Henig is director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| European Union | European Union |
| Europe | Europe |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| Labour | Labour |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |