Some have argued that there should be a no-deal third option. But there is no significant political constituency positively advocating crashing out with no deal. The hard Brexiters remain defined by what they are opposed to, rather than any concrete proposals. Even crashing out of the EU on WTO terms would require agreements already to be in place: existing EU quotas would need to be allocated between the EU and the UK and our proposals for doing this have already been blocked. Crashing out with no deal would be economically calamitous and this scenario should only be put to the public vote were May to fail to secure a deal.
What is a 'significant political constituency'? A referendum sidesteps that conventional requirement, of course, so if a majority votes for remaining, they will not be a proper constituency either? Are Leave voters not a significant political constituency? The issue of EU quotas is an interesting but technical one and the EC and UK are not agreed on whether to split EU quotas or renegotiate altogether -- no surprises there. Crashing out is just assumed to be economically calamitous,but above all, there is the argument that a nice democratic referendum is required but the Observer reserves the right to reject one option beforehand. With that option in a 3-way decision, a new referendum would never resolve the issue of course.
Underneath all this predictable and transparent strategic argument, lies some material for my endless quest for reasons for believing so passionately in the EU:
Those advocating staying in the EU would need to run an altogether different campaign from the project fear of 2016, centred around a positive case for EU membership. We live in a world where the major challenges we face – climate change, microbial resistance, global tax avoidance – don’t respect national borders. International co-operation has never been more important and the EU, despite its imperfections, offers the best mechanism for that. There is no way Britain can leave the EU without undermining our sovereignty. We will either be a regulatory rule taker from the EU or, worse, from economic giants such as the US and China as a result of trade deals negotiated as a junior partner.
The first sentence undermines the commitment a bit, of course, and echoes W Hutton and others on the need to promise reform (without the slightest idea about how to achieve it) . It reflects the accepted wisdom that a new vote could not just invite people to reconsider the old one: they would be annoyed. I also think they would see through the classic EC strategy of prolonging crises until the voters change their mind as with referenda on the Lisbon Treaty.
That aside, the argument is quite good, and I used to uphold it myself.The problem is that the EU has failed to confront climate change, microbial resistance (resistance to anitibiotics?) or global tax avoidance -- Juncker made his name from making Luxembourg a low-tax haven, although admittedly the UK Government is a worse offender. Above all, it has promoted global finance capitalism and austere government spending. Any positive alternative would involve having to turn round the massive apparatus of the EU.
The sentence: 'There is no way Britain can leave the EU without undermining our sovereignty' could also backfire rather. Is the Observer in favour of more UK sovereignty after all? If sovereignty is the issue, ECophiles have problems. Even that sentence could sound like the EU has (benevolently of course) stripped us of sovereignty now, and that continued membership would accelerate the process.
I doubt if anyone outside Remainerdom will be convinced by these arguments which seem transparently strategic. As with my usual comment about activism, the Observer has sacrificed its reputation for informed comment long ago with its more absurd (sic) interventions.
No comments:
Post a Comment