#102: Brexit Means Brexit

Somebody should remind the current Prime Minister of the still United Kingdom of a wise sage once proclaiming loudly, as an answer to all questions about what Brexit means, that “Brexit Means Brexit.” I believe that person was a certain Boris Johnson.

That person was part of a movement that kept denigrating every single expert that advised them on the consequences for the UK as regards trade, relations with the EU, and, most importantly, the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Predictably, the chickens are coming home to roost now. Or rather, they may be stuck in complex supply lines hampered by increased bureaucracy due to Brexit. Clearly, there needs to be a border between the United Kingdom and the European Union. That border lies in Ireland, a result of British colonization of the island and the regained independence of part of the island. The remaining part that is still part of the British Crown is one of the four nations of the United Kingdom, which conveniently is separated by sea from the island of Great Britain. The only way to avoid a land border on Ireland would be to erect it between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as agreed by said Boris Johnson.

Pacta Sunt Servanda – treaties are to be followed, as the old saying goes. Political tricksterdom can only go so far without consequences. Is the expectation that the EU will violate their own rules? If the UK was still in the EU, they could shape policy; now, it is 27 to 1. Is the expectation that Ireland should not follow EU rules but be aligned with the UK? If anyone seriously considered this (and some seem to do so), this would be legitimately seen as an act of neo-colonialism.

Clearly, anti-Irish attitudes were the main driver behind Brexit ignorance. Surely, Irish interests were seen as less important to the snubbish political establishment in Westminster and Whitehall. That goes for both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Neither matter, seemingly, enough for the UK to have been taken into consideration when even thinking about Brexit.

Similarly, the European Union is being underestimated. Granted, the EU may seem dysfunctional at times. All these quarreling nations could not possibly really want to work together; look at the problems between the EU and Poland and Hungary right now. But is Poland going to leave the EU and become Belarus 2.0 under Putin’s guidance? Certainly not. Is Hungary going to align with Russia or China? Both countries have issues with the EU becoming too dominant in domestic policy (rightly or wrongly; in my opinion, wrongly, but what do I know), but they know they are better off in a dissident position within the EU rather than a subservient one to anti-democratic big powers.

The UK left the EU because, frankly, they never were fully in. All other big powers in Europe have been sufficiently humbled by the angel of history to have realized that their future lies within a united Europe, come what may. History teaches what very well would come if Europeans started to be disunited again. Have no illusions about it. To wish for the EU to fail is folly, nothing else.

Brexit was and continues to be a folly. It is a failure of the political establishment in the UK, without any doubt. Now they need to realize what they have said before: Brexit indeed means Brexit, the people, apparently, don’t matter.

#92: The Impact of Brexit on Trade

There is no question that Brexit will impact trade between the European Union and the United Kingdom negatively. This is not something that needs to be answered in the concrete. A simple history lesson will survive.

The European integration process that began after World War II led to the European Union and its component institutions, among them the Free Market, the Schengen Agreement, the Euro currency and common policies on economic, atomic, judicial, foreign and security policy.

The purpose of this integration process was to intensify cooperation and trade in Europe to make any future war between the member states very difficult if not impossible, but most of all, unnecessary. Every single border in Europe is the outcome of warfare and strife. Most currently existing European nation states have seen territorial changes in history, and many are recent creations of the 19th or 20th century.

It stands to reason that in order for there to be trade, there needs to be peace, and in order for there to be peace, that which has divided Europe – the quest over territory and dominion in Europe – needs to be removed as an obstacle. As the question of national sovereignty is tied to the question of territory, any attempt to secure peace and prosperity (which includes trade) needs to limit national sovereignty. Put differently, peace can be made if trade replaces war.

To facilitate trade, many barriers to trading were eliminated by the European integration process. That does not mean that trade did not exist prior to the European Economic Communities, but it was more difficult. Eventually the UK joined the EEC in order to facilitate trade.

If the UK leaves, it must mean that the barriers and obstacles to trade that were limited or removed by the EU will reappear. This is not because of European ill will, it is simple logic: European Integration means the removal of barriers, and if you undo that process, the barriers will reappear.

What does “barrier” mean in the context of trade? Typically, it means costs and time – through paperwork, tariffs, regulations, et cetera – basically all the boring stuff the European Union takes care of.

Thus it is not a matter of whether Brexit will hurt trade, but how much.

Does that mean that it will hurt peace? Hopefully not. Ask around in Northern Ireland. Blame those in the UK that for decades have pushed anti-EU misinformation, set up a non-binding (!) referendum, made a political decision to accept its imperfect conclusion on a strict 50-50 line, and ignored all advice to ameliorate the situation. But don’t blame the EU. Their message has always been clear: You may leave, but the price to pay will be higher than the UK’s already discounted membership rate.

There is a reason that Norway and Switzerland pay into the EU budget. They should really be members, but that is up to their populations. If being a quasi-member who has most obligations but no say-so is an attractive state of affairs, so be it.

If the UK ends up paying into EU budget as well to alleviate Brexit pains (or rejoin as a member), it will have achieved the most paradoxical result: similar monetary contributions with an even greater loss of sovereignty due to lack of true membership.

There are no words to describe this scenario that do not involve any real or implied insults. I’ll leave it there.