Brexit Into Trumpland

Jan 19, 2017 Philippe Legrain

British Prime Minister Theresa May is leading the UK toward a very hard Brexit in 2019 – and potentially off a cliff. Her objectives for negotiating with the EU make clear her intention to prioritize hardline Brexiteers’ demands over the country’s economic interests.

LONDON – British Prime Minister Theresa May is leading the United Kingdom toward a very “hard” Brexit in 2019 – and potentially off a cliff, if the UK leaves the European Union without an exit or trade deal. In her January 17 speech, May outlined her objectives for negotiating with the EU, and made it clear that she will prioritize hardline Brexiteers’ demands over the country’s economic interests.

It isn’t surprising that May would choose a Brexit variant whereby Britain leaves both the EU’s single market and its customs union: she knows little, and cares even less, about economics. Her ultimate objective is to survive as Prime Minister, and she believes that controlling immigration – a longtime personal obsession – will endear her to “Leave” voters, and that ending the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in Britain will pacify the nationalists in her Conservative Party.

This stance rules out continued membership in the single market. Until now, Brexiteers had denied the existence of any political tradeoff between rejecting free movement and maintaining free trade with the EU. As Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson fatuously claimed, Britons could have their cake and eat it. May has now belatedly admitted that this is impossible.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 22 in all 22 Comments on this article

Chris Parry-Davies Jan 23, 2017

This whole article is based on the fallacy that Prime Minister May has any alternative. David Cameron previously tried to negotiate some kind of compromise or intermediate position but was resoundingly rebuffed by an EU elite (the likes of one Philippe Legrain) who have adamantly refused to hear the increasing clamour discontent. Indeed, still seem to be as deaf, dumb and blind as the three proverbial monkeys; including that it was they, not any one else, who have forced voters to turn to the likes of Brexit, Donald Trump et al - yet are still so convinced of their own verity they come up with this kind of sanctimonious claptrap. Try a little more humility, self-criticism and respect for the people first.
- Chris Parry-Davies Jan 23, 2017
  
  For the avoidance of doubt, I personally voted to remain (I'm no little Englander) but grew increasingly concerned as people like Philippe Legrain made the the worse case outcome all but inevitable by their own purblindness.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Weber Jan 23, 2017

At least the UK governement is doing a credible job in negotiations. The alternativ would be what the Swiss governement did. Most of the politicians in Switzerland were against restriction on migration and therefore the governement concentrated in "educating" the public that such a deal was not possible with the EU. In the end they have passed legislation that does almost nothing of what was decided in the popular vote.

Of course the public is not convinced. People now have no other choice than to vote for the only party that supports restrictions on immigration and they feel betrayed. This is not good for a democracy. But that is the nature of the EU, poeple have not many democratic rights in this construct. And dissatisfaction with the results are met with concentrating more power in this bureaucratic construct.

The only option will soon be to cancel the bilateral agreements with the EU and follow the UKs footsteps or to give up more and more democratic rights.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
S Sam Jan 23, 2017

The objections raised in terms of leaving the customs union is the inability of the author to come up with new viable solutions and he only looks at the negative side.
Similar arguments were used by the elite when they incorrectly predicted that UK will plunge into recession, etc. if they voted to leave in the EU referendum, ignoring that interest rates could be reduced and there could be fiscal and monetary stimulus to keep confidence in the market and economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Scott Pepper Jan 22, 2017

Wonderful post, love the detail (particularly the auto industry example) that helps one understand exactly what is - and will be - going on there. Too many Americans (Trump supporters and apologists, of course) are saying, "Look - the UK voted for Brexit and they did not drop off an economic cliff!". I think they just didn't realize that they are driving towards it at 20 mph. My career was in international trade, both on the govt side (US Customs commercial trade branch) and corporate, and in my mind's eye I can see corporate meetings already happening to plan for supply chain withdrawal from Britain. I must ask, what special kind of madness prompts a government to hold a simple-majority referendum, with zero review & approval mechanisms, on such a life-altering question of public policy? (I should talk - we just elected Trump with 26% of the voting public.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Jan 21, 2017

May now knows, because of the palpable chaos in the F.O, that Britain can't wait to impose controls on migration till a trade deal is sorted out. The H.O, on the other hand, appears more willing to grasp the nettle and get tough on some classes of migrants.
Britain was always aware that it could use greater bureaucratic means to muddy the waters and effectively repatriate powers. Know is the time to play that card.
May getting tough on migrants may help Le Pen- and this concentrates German minds.
It is pointless to pretend that 'Brexit' wasn't Blair's fault- he had no business rushing to welcome East European migrants (though, most of us thought it a great idea at the time- we were stealing a march on the Germans) and, of course, our Benefit System should have been made more like the German on a long time ago.
We could have had 'our cake and eaten it too', if we hadn't got greedy and complacent. No doubt, silly careerists like BoJo and Gove are an effective scapegoat. Still, the truth is, Brexit is the fault of Blairites who didn't do their sums and thus figure out how to work within the EU to make it maximally beneficial to ourselves.
Given this history of incompetence, no question, going forward we are going to stumble from bad to worse when it comes to trade agreements.
Still, if Europe unravels on the migration issue over the course of the year, we probably can have pretty much a stand still on everything except Migration and Human Rights- i.e. in practice life goes on as before except for some poor foreigners getting victimised.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 21, 2017

Philippe Legrain sends a warning to Theresa May - "Be careful what you wish for" - against an exit from the EU into Trumpland. In her long-awaited speech on January 17 she outlined her government’s 12 priorities for Brexit negotiations, hinting Britain was on track for a “hard Brexit”, and there would be no “partial membership”, no “half-in, half-out”.
She warned EU leaders against inflicting a punitive outcome on the UK, suggesting it would be an “act of calamitous self-harm” because it would then slash taxes to attract companies from across the world. Despite her negotiating strategy, critics said she remained clueless about where she wanted to take Britain and how it would get to its destination.
May has earned much criticism for putting hardliner's demands ahead of Britain's economic interests, by taking the country out of the EU's single market and its customs union. Critics say she "has no electoral mandate to pursue a hard Brexit. Many of the 52% of Britons who voted for Leave want to stay in the single market, as do all of those who voted for Remain."
The prime minister showed authoritarian streak when she decided that Members of Parliament didn't have a say on triggering Article 50. This was "a mockery of democracy," because the Parliament voted in favour of the European Communities Act in 1972 that allowed the UK to join the EEC. In equal measure it should have a vote on Brexit. After an appeal, the High Court ruled in November that Parliament must vote on whether the UK could start the Brexit process. One month later MPs voted by a majority to back May’s plan to trigger article 50 by the end of March. But she refused to commit to giving MPs a say "in setting the government's negotiating agenda." However she has "promised them a vote on the final deal, Britain will still leave the EU if they reject it."
There are many explanations for her hard stance. She obviously is desperate "to survive as Prime Minister," hoping that "controlling immigration – a longtime personal obsession – will endear her to “Leave” voters. During her time as home secretary she saw the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in Britain as a thorn in her side. By leaving it she seeks to "pacify the nationalists in her Conservative Party."
May's speech came a day after Michael Gove - one of the leaders of the Leave camp - has interviewed Trump. Teem with euphoria Gove spoke about a revival of the Anglo-American relationship like the one Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had in the 1980s. Trump revealed his passion for the UK, saying his late mother loved the Queen. He delighted Brexiteers by offering an immediate free trade agreement with Britain before their country left the EU. He also sparked outrage across Europe, especially in Berlin, as he openly supported the break-up of the EU and hinted at a trade war with Europe.
This inspired May to believe "that Brexit will enable Britain to strike better trade deals with non-EU countries, and she is pinning her hopes on a quick deal with Trump’s America." But the author points out that despite this special Anglo-American relationship, and given Britain being in "such a desperate negotiating position, even an administration headed by Hillary Clinton would have driven a hard bargain on behalf of American industry. US pharmaceutical companies, for example, want the UK’s cash-strapped National Health Service to pay more for drugs."
The author says Brexiteers will be naive if they believe in more fraternal support from Trump, who - as a businessman with a penchant for zero-sum games - "will drive an even harder bargain. Like China and Germany, Britain exports much more to America than it imports from the US. Trump hates such “unfair” trade deficits, and has pledged to eliminate them."
Show less
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jan 20, 2017

Britain and Europe have a much bigger problem than Brexit.

Trump. Putin and Jinping are pushing the world back into an era of "great power" politics. How will the fragmented countries of Europe fare in such a geopolitical environment?

Not well is my guess. And events may move very quickly over the next few years to make concerns about trade and immigration seem quaint.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gunnar Eriksson Jan 20, 2017

It is unfortunate that these basic facts are not clearly spelled out in UK media outlets.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cal Bengoshi Jan 20, 2017

PM May might have personal reasons for the positions she has taken with respect to controlling immigration and putting an end to the power of a non-UK court to declare invalid a law enacted by the British Parliament, but there is little doubt that those who voted for "Leave" were concerned about both of those issues and that PM May's position on those issues is consistent with that of the "Leave" voters.

Aside from his foray into a discussion of PM May's motives, Legrain does a good job of pointing out some of the problems that the UK is likely to encounter as it goes down the path apparently chosen by PM May. However, he ignores the problems likely that the EU is likely to encounter if it decides to wall itself off from the UK with the creation of significant barriers to trade in goods and/or services.

Brexit certainly can be a "lose-lose" proposition for both the UK and the EU, and given the attitudes that have been displayed by their respective leaders that appears to be the most likely outcome. However, the severity of the losses to be suffered by either the UK or the EU can be lessened if their respective leaders act rationally rather than emotionally.
- Ted Smith Jan 20, 2017
  
  Wise counsel.
  
  I have heard from UK Brexit leaders many statements of how awful the EU is. Indeed, for twenty odd years they have said the same things. And parts of the UK press have spent that time excoriating the EU, invariably with made-up stories (bent bananas etc). Or, stories that fail to point out that it is the Heads of State and not the EU itself that have taken a specific position that does not make sense.
  
  From the EU side, the harshest words I have heard have been along the lines of "don't think you can have your cake and eat it", in other words, reminding the UK it cannot pick all the benefits of EU membership and none of the burdens. Which is correct and necessary to remind cloth-eared UK politicians.
  
  So I am curious about the attitudes from the EU side that you've seen, that you think will contribute to a lose lose outcome?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jan 20, 2017

AN ARCHITECTURE DESIGNED FOR DECADES - DETERMINED TO DESTRUCT
Philip Legrain has an incredibly incisive prescience - that sees Britain's departure "off a cliff".
As Architects of The European Union, the key protagonists must have the same incision in protecting European interests.
There is a whole range of measures that Unions in this predicament are known to think through.
Instead of focussing on the repercussions for Britain - Greece was subjected to similar admonitions - Europe seems faultless.
Advocates like the Author point to repercussions for "The West" and consequences for Britain - The EU bereft of mirrors.
Actions are innumerable to protect the interests of The West - The EU as One Pillar - but no room for introspection @ Headquarters.
Always the onus to protect "The West" - flows from the consequences to those that democratically decide in favour of departure.
Democracy enabled The Referendum - and Britain's Prime Minister respectfully followed the process.
Steps that follow from Europe's Headquarters - that discovers the causes and the consequences - don't exist.

The protagonists for The Union - are not grateful for the longest peace and prosperity that Europe enjoyed 1945 - 2015.
The protagonists for The Union - cannot see why Brexit happened, why Brexit plus plus happened.
The protagonists for The Union - cannot fathom why those Boots-on-the-Ground needed in Poland, in the Baltics, in Ukraine.
The protagonists for The Union - are blissfully oblivious of the responsibilities incumbent upon their shoulders.
The protagonists for The Union - were prescient enough to meander and manoeuvre The Architecture for The Union.
The protagonists for The Union - believe that Britain and Germany and America are under obligations to deliver Prosperity for them.
The protagonists for The Union - are unconcerned that Democratic processes have resulted in Brexit and Brexit plus plus.

Unfortunate, for Democracy.
Unfortunate, for Peace n Prosperity.
Unfortunate, that lessons of history never learnt.
Unfortunate, that European Headquarters have recreated An Architecture that resulted in Brexit and Brexit plus plus.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Morris Jan 20, 2017

Only the truest True Believers, the most gullible “Useful Idiots” cling to the belief that the EU is there to promote the interests of the Subject peoples.

Witness the economic brutality inflicted on Greece. Witness the “Lost Generation” of youth sacrificed to the fantasy of the imperial Eurozone. Witness the enthusiastic embrace of “free-trade” agreements, signing away sovereign powers to opaque committees of Elite interests.

For all the pompous rhetoric, the EU is an unaccountable, undemocratic institution that exists to promote Elite interests.

Like any nascent empire, it attracts aggressively narcissistic, machiavellian political agents, drawn to the prospect of exercising dominion over hundreds of millions of Subjects.

Unlike the US it doesn’t even have the rudimentary constraints of “elective” government, let alone anything approximating genuine (direct) Democracy.

Its leaders are deaf to any calls for reform. Even in the face of the imminent departure of Britain, they refused to contemplate reform of the organisation. They - and their sycophant supporters - can think only in terms of how best to inflict punishment on those who dare to defy them.

What does THAT tell us about the psychology of these people???

Haven’t we seen THAT sort of behaviour before in Europe??
- Stephen Morris Jan 23, 2017
  
  Elitism is everywhere and always an illogical philosophy and Ted Smith once again assails our intelligence with elitist fallacies.
  
  First and foremost is the (very common) fallacious inference from bundled options. Mr Smith refers to the ability of voters to vote for anti-EU parties and from this erroneously infers support for the EU.
  
  The essence of this fallacy may be illustrated with the simplest of cases:
  
  a) Party A offers Policy X and Policy Y;
  
  b) Party B offers Policy not-X and Policy not-Y; and
  
  c) a voter (a majority of voters perhaps) prefers Policy X and Policy not-Y.
  
  It should be clear even to the simplest of minds that such a system does not allow voters to express their preferences for all policies. Conversely, the preference for any specific policy may not be inferred from the pattern of voting. And this simple example includes only two policy options. In practice, there are dozens.
  
  Moreover . . . this analysis does not take into account collusion between Establishment parties which cooperate to prevent (wherever possible) voters being a given an effective say on policies at odds with elite preferences.
  
  Moreover . . . in most jurisdictions the bundling of policy options is compounded by some bundling of Executive and Legislative functions. Voters are forced to vote not just for a bundle of policies but a for bundle of policies tied to a choice of who should exercise Executive power. For example, one might well support leaving the EU (as a majority of British voters apparently did when casting a vote on that specific issue) but NOT want Nigel Farage or UKIP to hold Executive power (as a majority of British voters apparently did when casting a vote in parliamentary elections).
  
  Moreover . . . the framework in which preferences are expressed adds further complication owing to an aspect of Game Theory known as the Schelling Focal Point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_%28game_theory%29) as it applies to mass media.
  
  In order for their reporting to be considered “newsworthy”, reporters with limited time and resources focus on those events which they expect others to regard as “newsworthy”. In the political arena, established political parties are a natural Schelling focal point for what may be expected to be considered newsworthy, making it difficult for others to gain attention. Hitherto, this has allowed established parties to “control the narrative”.
  
  Media focal points are intensified by the typical practice of conducting all elections for all politicians on a single day (in contrast to corporate practice, for example, which sees directors retiring in rotation each year) thereby ensuring that media is congested and only the most newsworthy (i.e. focal point) messages get to be reported.
  
  This helps to explain why new parties (including are often egregiously outrageous in their behaviour and statements: it is the only way to gain any media coverage. Unfortunately, there is an invidious trade-off between the benefit of being outrageous and the cost of such behaviour in undermining voter confidence in the party’s ability to govern (i.e. to exercise Executive functions), and that helps to entrench the position of the Establishment parties as the parties of government.
  
  The breathtakingly obvious error of Smith inference can be seen from those rare occasions where history has conspired to allow the citizens to vote directly. In the European Constitution plebiscites, in the Danish and Swedish Euro plebiscites, and in the Brexit plebiscite, all the Establishment parties (with the unusual and partial exception of the British Tory party in Brexit) supported pro-EU policies and yet in every case, the citizens expressed a preference AGAINST the EU!
  
  And yet Smith uses voting in parliamentary elections to infer support for the EU(?!)
  
  Smith’s analysis is ignorant of Game Theory, it is ignorant of constitutional political economy, and it is ignorant of the Realpolitik of how governments actually work.
  
  Smith also assails us with a fallacy of inference from a restricted target space of options, claiming that a majority of Europeans now support the Euro. The fallacy arises because the since the introduction of the Euro the target space of options has been dramatically curtailed: to remove it now would cause considerable pain.
  
  But that is irrelevant. The relevant period of analysis is the time the decision was made (February 1992) when the target space of options was still wide open. At that time, there was a clear net opposition to the Euro (over 20%) in the critical country of Germany. Once integration was under way it was not unexpected that support for not upending an agreed system should grow. (Similar effects may be seen in public attitudes to war, where support increases once the community has been committed, whether or not they may have supported it beforehand.)
  
  Importantly, Smith – like many Elitists – uses opinion polling rather than binding referendums to make inferences about voters’ preferences. Opinion polling is an unreliable source of information on aggregate preference (and increasingly unreliable as recent events have shown) . Significantly, it involves respondents providing answers to complex question “in a vacuum”, often with little time to reflect and often (in polls such as the ones cited by Smith) in the absence of a public debate over a specific binding decision which is about to be made.
  
  Finally, Smith denies suggesting that citizens “not be asked what they want”, all the while expressing strong support for an EU regime which denies citizens that very thing!!!
  
  One can always tell who the elitists are because they are the ones not supporting the right of the citizens be governed to freely choose the form of government THEY prefer. The elitists are the ones telling us that they just KNOW what the citizens prefer without actually allowing the citizens to vote on it in a binding referendum.
  
  The essence of Elitism is simple. For any nation state, sub-national state, supra-national state or other polity exercising de facto sovereign power over a set of members (“citizens”) Elitists are those who deny - or who at the very least do not support - the right of those citizens to freely choose (using a “non-privileging aggregation device”) the form of government they prefer for that polity.
  
  Does Ted Smith support the right of the citizens to freely choose the form of government they prefer?
  
  If so, let him acknowledge it.
  
  If not, let him tell us when was he granted his “Charter from Heaven” to make that decision on behalf of everybody else.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Ted Smith Jan 21, 2017
  
  Nowhere have I suggested citizens not be asked what they want. Indeed UK citizens have had the chance to vote for an anti-EU party for 15+ years - the Referendum Party and then later UKIP. EU scepticism is reflected in new political movements in France, Netherlands, Germany.
  
  Other than calling me a true believer, elitist, and useful idiot, all this is bluster. For example, on the single currency (which I regard as a mistake) you seem confused.
  
  Since the introduction of the euro in 1999, a large majority of EZ12 citizens has supported the euro (with average net support exceeding 30%). In the 8th year (in May 2016) since the start of the financial crisis, average net support of 42% has surpassed the pre-crisis level of 40% in March-May 2008.
  
  Is this elite control? Is it undemocratic to have a shared currency that the majority support?
  
  I don't know which Elites you are railing against because it is sooooo much easier to bluster in generalities than call out specifics. Do they include Merkel, who's won several elections? Or are your elites behind the curtain, pulling the strings? Do they include the UK political elites (Gordon Brown) who kept UK out of the euro? What about the elites who allowed Scotland to hold an independence referendum on how they were governed? Are they on your list?
  
  Please share how you have neatly defined elites from true democrats. You won't because you are blustering.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Stephen Morris Jan 20, 2017
  
  Tell it to the people of Greece. Tell it to the Lost Generation of youth sacrificed to the Eurozone.
  
  There will always be the True Believers who cling to their belief long after evidence have shown it to be unfounded.
  
  There will always be the "Useful Idiots” who cite the propaganda and recount the formal institutions without understanding the REALPOLITIK of how such organisations work.
  
  There will always be the fundamentalists who dismiss every unfolding disaster as a "necessary evil" in pursuit of some future Greater Good . . . a Greater Good which never arrives.
  
  Ask the citizens what THEY want.
  
  When the European Constitution was put to a democratic vote, it was rejected even the heartland of France and the Netherlands. The Elitist's response - as always - was to cancel further democratic voting and ram it through as the "Lisbon Treaty" without democratic legitimacy.
  
  The only peoples to get a direct vote on the specific issue of Euro-catastrophe (the Danes and the Swedes) both rejected it - despite the Great and the Good from both sides of politics urging them on to disaster. Elsewhere citizens were forced like lambs to the slaughter by the elitists politicians.
  
  You can always tell the Elitists.
  
  They're the ones arguing that the Citizens should not be given any effective say in the government!
  
  They're the ones arguing that the Citizens should not even be allowed to choose the FORM of government they prefer for their country or state.
  
  They're the ones claiming a Monopoly on Wisdom.
  
  As John Locke once remarked, "they ought to show us this Charter from Heaven, that we may see . . . "
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Ted Smith Jan 20, 2017
  
  The EU is many things, but it is not this leviathan.
  
  It is the Commission, with Commissioners appointed by elected Heads of State and a permanent bureaucracy.
  It is the European Parliament, directly elected by voters across 28 countries.
  It is the Council of Ministers, the elected Heads of State of the EU28 countries, with shared and conflicting goals and interests.
  It is a body of treaties, laws and regulations.
  It is a court of justice.
  It is an idea, both in the minds of its founders and advocates and 400 million Europeans - but a morass of conflicting, shifting ideas.
  
  It is complex, contradictory and frustrating. Which makes populist bluster and baloney an easy play. "These people" with their "nascent empire" and "its leaders".... of course, never once specifying which institutional component they are talking about. Far easier to portray it as a hegemonic leviathan to which all manner of evils - real (Greece bailout policy) and imagined can be assigned.
  
  Lazy, populist, blowhard generalisations, instead of specific incisive critiques.
  
  News just in.... There is no Wizard behind that curtain. There are a bunch of elected Heads of State, pursuing shared and conflicting goals, some stable, some shifting. There is a democratically elected European Parliament. There is a permanent bureaucracy (with its own ideas and interests). There are armies of lobbyists looking for proprietary interests. And there is an Idea, which shifts and advances and retreats. It's messy. It's full of flaws. It takes two steps forward and one step back. But what it does not lack are voices calling for reform, but precisely because it is not the leviathan, it can only stumble forward.
  
  In other words, exactly how you'd expect any partial integration of 28 sovereign states to look and to evolve.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 19, 2017

T. May and her team of holiday seekers think that they can revive the Victorian Glorious times in the 21th Century. When T. May visited France shortly after her appointment, the French gave her and the Brits a minor touch of what is to come (when they shut the border and stranded many travellers for days in their cars). Glorious Britania is long gone, the sooner everyone in Britain realises this the better. Diplomacy has failed with the EU due to the failed policies of the previous and successive British governments. The Brexit referendum did not have to take place until the end of this year, again and due to the incompetence and miscalculation by the Tories, all went sour. The EU must not be blamed for the mistakes and incompetence of successive British governments. The EU did not ask for the divorce, it is the British establishment that misled and continue to mislead the British People. The 60s' here we come.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
S Sam Jan 19, 2017

According to Philippe Legrain, "While May has promised them a vote on the final deal, Britain will still leave the EU if they reject it. This makes a mockery of democracy."

I understand that triggering Article 50 means UK leaves and as voters decided in U.K. referendum vote. Everything I see is democracy. Mockery of democracy would be if referendum is ignored and parliament does not take UK out of EU.
- Ted Smith Jan 20, 2017
  
  We are leaving the Single Market. If just one in every thirteen Leave voters did not want this (I.e they voted to leave the EU but thought we would stay in the Single Market), then surely you must accept that we will leave the Simgle Market with a majority of voters against doing so. I believe that might be considered "undemocratic".
  
  Perhaps those people also did not understand that when Boris Johnson said Britain will retain access to the Simgle Market, that he was mouthing an inanity (other than North Korea, as far as I know, every country has access to the Simgle Market). Of course, if all of the 52% of voters choosing Leave understood what leaving the SM meant and wanted that, then there's no democratic deficit.... full steam ahead!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nicholas Beale Jan 19, 2017

Pundits tend to be overconfident. I guess there is a non-zero probability that there will be no Exit deal if the EU negotiators make a mess of things, but Barnier is very competent and professional and he won't. The EU will get no money from the UK unless they agree exit terms that are satisfactory to the UK and falling back to WTO terms without preferential access to London would damage the struggling EU economy. So it's far more reasonable to suppose that there will be a deal.
- Ted Smith Jan 20, 2017
  
  Be clear, there will be some sort of exit deal 24 months after Article 50. But a new free trade agreeement between the U.K. and EU, approved by all 48 national and regional parliaments, in the same timeframe is a close to zero impossibility for multiple reasons.
  
  So what matters, is what kind of transitional arrangements can be negotiated to kick in from March 2019 until a FTA can be negotiated and inked. Many of us fear it will be WTO trade rules, exit from the Customs Union and Single Market. I'm curious to see why you think the EU needs "access to London". If you mean the City, the U.K. has most to lose (losing passporting) as it can only mean more finance jobs moving to Paris and Frankfurt. I don't think either side wields a trump card, only a mixed deck.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/rMclahm

Cookies and Privacy

Brexit Into Trumpland

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Brexit Into Trumpland

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification