As we proceed with the Brexit circus, I feel increasingly compelled to write. I have felt stigmatised into silence, unwilling to reveal my views. I feel I am not entitled to express my views as they are apparently so offensive to those who choose to differ. I feel the intimidation and intolerance of those who patronise me with their judgmental generalisations. It may be that those supporting remain do not think they are having this effect or that they wish to, but then again, maybe they do.
Intolerance and intimidation are, of course, the very antithesis of the values that Remainers are espousing. That is a reflection of society as it is, and perhaps historians of the future will reflect on this period with interest.
We are approaching the vote on Tuesday the 11th of December of Mrs May's Brexit deal. As you would expect the respective parties are in overdrive to put their position across. The deal being presented is, apparently, much worse than remaining and supposedly better than no deal, depending upon who you speak to. Refreshingly enough both remain and leave supporting MPs are united in their opposition, this is democracy in action.
I have not read the agreement, but I feel that it is not necessary for two reasons: firstly the MPs are responsible for understanding and challenging this. Secondly, the deal is widely expected to fall and therefore there is no benefit in examining it. It is an expensive waste of time, unfortunately. The only opinion I have on the deal is that it is my view that it has been deliberately engineered to be as unpalatable as possible, perhaps this is too cynical a view to support, but it would not surprise me.
I want to spend some time on the mini-campaign by both sides during this period. Once again, as before the referendum, we are getting full on negative impact assessments from business leaders, the Bank of England, Treasury and other bodies favouring remain, or in this case, the unsatisfactory deal on the table. The first point I would like to make is that the doom laden scenarios lack credibility, this is not because I am an economics, supply chain or legal expert that can present a well informed view. It is because the evidence of growth and resilience of the country, post the referendum, has demonstrated the lack credibility. Remainers will state that we did not experience the significant downturn because of actions taken by various players in mitigating the effects. This point then demonstrates the second flaw in the argument, which is that we will not simply sit back and do nothing, which is what the forecasts and scenarios seem to imply.
In terms of the leave side, they are of the view that somehow they can reject the deal and then go back to the EU to re-negotiate an alternative deal. The EU has unequivocally stated that there is nothing else on the table, it is this deal, no deal or no Brexit. So my opinion on this is that it is also a fruitless exercise, unless you believe that the EU will somehow buckle under the threat of no deal. I don't think they will. The only alternative is no deal. This is not what I would like, but then I have no choice when presented with the alternatives.
So where does that leave us? Well, considering that Parliament is Remain leaning, it is conceivable that the MPs will simply ignore the vote and remain in the EU. Indeed, it would seem that this is both possible and desirable from the EU. One of the possibilities is that the deal is rejected and either before or after Mrs May then resigns or is ousted, a so called peoples vote is held.
A peoples vote or referendum Mk II, would be in keeping with the EU approach in overturning the democratic decisions of voters by simply asking again. The point made by remain supporting MPs and commentators is that people are entitled to change their mind now that they know the true impact of Brexit. I cannot disagree with this, people are entitled to change their minds if they feel better informed. The first issue I would take with this is that the voters were clearly promised, indeed threatened, that the original referendum was a one-off. But then broken promises are not uncommon with politicians. Another issue is that the impact of Brexit, as represented, lacks credibility and impartiality. The deal is not a Brexit by any, even a broad, definition. The last thing on this subject is what happens if the decision is again to leave? If, and one presumes that this is the case, the result is to remain, then what happens when UKIP MK 2 or whatever incarnation comes to replace them starts to gain traction again with the voters?
My view on the outcome is that, as a voter, I do not feel I have any choice. Both of the main parties are split and the smaller parties are a waste of a vote. Tony Blair made the observation, among others, that no one is holding the centre ground. Voters feel disenfranchised. So the rise of an alternative party would seem likely. It is interesting to note that more right-wing leaning parties are on the rise in mainland of Europe, please listen and address the concerns of voters or the slide will most likely continue.
I want to talk about the economics of the situation as I see it. I currently do most of my shopping at Waitrose, it is expensive but convenient. Occasionally I go to ASDA and Tesco if I am passing. Why is this relevant? Imagine if there were laws which said I must use Waitrose and I am only allowed to go to ADSA and Tesco for particular goods but that I have to restrict how much of them I can buy. If Waitrose was in charge of what I was allowed to buy and from whom then clearly they would wish to limit the ability of ASDA and Tesco to threaten their position. So they key factor here is controlling the market to your advantage and by expanding your catchment area you can capture more of this market. Even better, because your expansion is covering less mature economies, you benefit by controlling their economies and making full use of their inexpensive labour. This is basically competitive advantage. As it is now if I want to leave the Waitrose dominated arrangement and choose to shop in Aldi, Tesco, ASDA and Sainsburys whenever I wanted to then I would not expect to have to get the agreement of Waitrose.
So how does this translate? The EU is paid a large amount of money as membership, more than we take out in benefits directly. Our trade balance with the EU is in deficit, ie they sell significantly more to us than we do to them, perhaps some of this is due to restrictive practices, but it doesn't really matter. The main point is we represent a valuable market and a source of direct income. If we choose to leave then we are choosing not to pay the membership fee and to check out the competition to see if we can get a better deal, in a nutshell. No one likes losing control and influence and therefore it is no surprise that the EU is unhappy with this.
The EU started out as a restrictive cartel to control coal and steel production, ostensibly so no single nation could start an arms race without the others being aware. One of the pressing arguments made by remainers is that the EU has been a force for good in introducing changes and tacking the issues of the day. I would not disagree with this, but the implication that the UK would regress is judgmental and not based on any firm grounding. They are trying to foresee the future as though they will not be part of the decision making process that guides the values and beliefs of our society. If we choose to, we can do everything the EU does, but the key point is that we can choose to. We can choose not to if we don't agree with the changes.
So that was a very long way of me saying I have felt stigmatised for having what I think are quite reasonable views. I am becoming less concerned with my friends and family knowing my voting preference because my expectations of being listened to or understood continue to diminish. I have surprised at least two people with my views this last week and that is understandable given my connections with Belgium and my interest in being able to continue unfettered access to my home and family. It is also worthy of note that Belgium has been the unfortunate battlefield site across many wars fought by various nations throughout history. Of more concern, the very institutions of the EU are in Brussels and therefore are the most likely target in the future and even now for civil unrest. I genuinely worry about the safety of my family in the future.
There is not an easy end to the current situation because it is driven by power and politics rather than reason and economic judgement. As a remainer or leaver you can interpret that to fit your narrative and continue to disagree or you can try and understand by reasoning, without threats, why the other side thinks the way they do.
