I always feel slightly nervous writing about Brexit. It's not because of how much it dominates the news and political landscape, though this is frustrating. It is because of how unbelievably complex the topic is. However many articles I read or Brexitcast episodes I listen to, there is always additional information to be discovered, discrete counter arguments to every single point and a sense of amateur, limited understanding as to what is going on. How ironic it is that my fascination in European politics begins just as we depart. I guess this reflects how polarising and difficult the European question is, a multitude of opinions and deep scented concerns that shaped the reason for that fateful vote nearly two years ago.
Nevertheless, Britain appears to be getting some direction. Not in terms of trade negotiations, they are yet to come, following a summit of European leaders at the end of next month. But there is progress in the negotiating position of both major parties. Mr Corbyn has given a speech, favouring remaining in a customs union after Brexit. On the day I post this, Mrs May is to give a speech on her negotiating plans, which will determine the starting lines and end approach of Brexit negotiations. The plans for remaining in a customs union, were Labour in office, are interesting. The trade between Britain and EU would be free, allowing the issue of imports and exports to be slightly reduced. However, it would mean Britain would have to set the same tariffs as the EU on imports from outside the EU. This could harshly affect other countries and potentially prevent Britain doing its own trade deals. While Jeremy Corbyn has said he would want Britain to be involved and not just be a rule taker, his conditions for joining a customs union, it is unclear how the EU would allow this. Nevertheless, It would solve the question of the Irish border, allowing a soft border to avoid disputes and makes Labour look, surprisingly, more appealing to businesses than the Conservatives. Much of the discussion over Labour's final, evolved position over Brexit has been seen as political. Instead of viewing Mr Corbyn's decision, as a long standing Eurosceptic, with pragmatism, deciding to try and bring this oh so divided country together, some have questioned whether he took this position only because of Parliamentary reasons. The government has delayed votes on a trade bill by many months due to an amendment proposed by Anna Soubry, a Europhile Tory MP, which would commit Britain to joining a customs union with the EU after Brexit. This goes against the government position, which from speculation and Theresa May's Lancaster House speech, wishes to leave the customs union fully. However, it agrees with the Labour position. There are several other Conservative MPs, like Nicky Morgan and Dominic Grieve, who have expressed backing for the bill. Such is the case that were enough Tory MPs to rebel, and nearly all of Labour kept its act together by voting for the bill, Mrs May could lose, having to accept the amendment. Whether this is legally binding remains unclear. Had Mr Corbyn opted to leave the customs union, while some Labour MPs may have rebelled, the amendment would have no chance of getting through. By changing his position, so far as the UK is given a firm say in external EU trade deals, remaining in a customs union wouldn't look so unappealing to Labour. Conservatives are worried about the consequences of the amendment passing. Would Theresa May have to go? Would the government fall? Is Brenda from Bristol, the brilliant representative for everyone outside the Westminster village, going to go mad? It's unlikely. If Theresa May decided to resign, there would be a new Tory Prime Minister. I'm very worried about who that could be, but as a country, we choose to elect a party, not a leader. Surely the last election showed that Presidental style campaigns don't always go to plan. Given an early election can be called only by two votes of no confidence in the Government or the approval of two-thirds of MPs, an early general election as a result of voting to remain in the customs union is certainly not inevitable. Electorally, Labour had to decide who they wanted to upset. Their previously vague Brexit position, despite supporting remain during the referendum, helped them in the general election, but wasn't sustainable long term. Were they going to upset the socially liberal metropolitan remain supporters or the socially conservative, northern leave supporters? While they have opted to upset the leave supporters, I believe Mr Corbyn's position may please the majority of both groups. Remain supporters wish we were staying in the EU. That is their desire and, unless we do just that, they will never be fully happy. Despite Labour's previous 'hard Brexit' message, I'm sure many would have preferred a Labour-led Brexit over the current chaos of the government. Now that a customs union is firmly on the table, they will be extremely pleased. Yes, it's not the EU, but it's far better than a complete exit. If they were willing to vote Labour last year, a manifesto containing Labour's most right-wing immigration policy for decades, I doubt many will flock to other parties, given the softening of their position. What did leave voters want? There were several different forms of leave voters from across the political spectrum. Some were free market libertarians, who desired never-ending capitalist trade from all over the world. Given the Conservatives' strong support for business, they would be more likely to vote Conservative anyway, so Labour haven't really lost their vote. I imagine working class voters were more concerned over reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS, due to that infamous red bus. Therefore, their key priority wouldn't be the ability to expand trade deals around the world and by committing to leave the single market, Labour has vowed that freedom of movement will end. I'm sure both wings of Brexiteers would support the democratic argument for Brexit, the bulk of which will be possible were Labour to implement their policies. While some die-hard UKIP supporters may view even the tiniest move away from the complete Brexit as a betrayal and sabotage, I think the rest of the public, remain and leave, are far more pragmatic. What do we want as a country after Brexit? No person has the correct answer to this that will satisfying everyone, because we are all individuals. Each of us wants something different. Yet we should be united by society to aspire for certain things. Presumably, we want safety domestically, meaning maintenance of the European Arrest Warrant seems a sensible idea. Most of us want a stable economy that grows and benefits as many people as possible. Therefore, a necessary transition period is an absolute necessity, with the solution that gives us the most trading opportunities and jobs. Surely, to keep peace in Northern Ireland, the border must be protected. The fact Britain's foreign secretary was comparing the border to Camden and Westminster is beyond words of amazement and absurdity. We should be so happy and proud to have a free press in Britain. While declining sales for all newspapers are a worry, the ability for the public to learn the facts – what is happening – and receive so many perspectives are all part of a free society. Yet it is the MPs who have the time, energy, level of expertise and awareness to read through the European legislation and make the final decisions. MPs must be the ones who decide whether a Brexit deal is accepted and they, when scrutinising Brexit legislation, must ensure the economic, political and social interests of Britain are placed before their own ideology and party squabbling. Pragmatism is the answer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|