The sovereignty contradiction

Brexiteers’ plans don’t make sense—no wonder the government’s tongue tied

by Nick Clegg / October 26, 2016 / Leave a comment

Brexit Secretary David Davis arriving in Downing Street, London, for a Cabinet meeting. Picture date: Tuesday September 13, 2016

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis heads to No. 10 for a Cabinet meeting ©13th September, 2016

It has been an eventful, and unprecedented, four months in politics.

Let’s start with the facts. A decision has been taken, by the British people, to leave the European Union. A decision that will stand as one of the most significant moments in our modern history. And while it is true that 16 million people didn’t choose this outcome, we are now set on a path that—barring a profound change in circumstances—will see us leave the EU.

We have a Prime Minister running the country who was not chosen by the people. With no mandate of her own, her unconventional choice of cabinet Ministers has raised eyebrows around the world. After four months of drift and indecision, a sense of the government’s priorities is only now starting to emerge.

But beyond these bald facts things remain rather murky.

There has been much effort expended by the government and the Brexit press to undermine the idea of a distinction between “soft” and “hard” Brexit. Brexiteers would have you believe there is only one way to leave the European Union: a “clean” and abrupt severing of all ties.

It is great to see that you are enjoying the Prospect website.

You have now reached your allowance of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
Don’t worry—to get another 7 articles absolutely free, just enter your email address in the box below.

You are in complete control of which 7 articles you choose to read. Register now to enjoy more of the finest writing on politics, economics, literature, the arts, philosophy and science.

When you register, we’ll also send you our free e-book—The past in perspective—which considers how reflecting on the past can give great insight into the present AND we’ll send you our free weekly newsletter. (If you prefer not to receive the newsletter you can unsubscribe at any time).

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

Brexit Secretary David Davis arriving in Downing Street, London, for a Cabinet meeting ©Jonathan Brady/PA Wire/Press Association Images

Big question: are we heading towards a “hard Brexit”?

Prospect Team / September 23, 2016

A panel of contributors share their views

Michael Gove, Justice Secretary ©Andrew Matthews/PA Wire/Press Association Images

Michael Gove misunderstands

George Magnus / May 9, 2016

The UK outside the Single Market? Quelle horreur

Share with friends

Comments

Ken Munn
October 26, 2016 at 16:54
It's where the article doesn't go that is more interesting. The referendum, despite being informed by a blizzard of untruths, has revealed some basic truths about Britons and our politicians. You don't need me to enumerate them in full. Principally: • A vocal minority that are racist: some, indeed, are fascist • The 48% who refuse to be yoked with the 52% to try and make a decent fist of leaving the EU • A significant number (the young, long-term UK overseas residents and long-term EU citizens in the UK) who were disenfranchised and are hacked-off about their diminished status • Politicians who put party before country • The seemingly irresistible urge of the right to head further right (courting those inclined to UKIP, massaging their own Eurosceptics) • The seemingly irresistible urge of the left to head further left (courting those inclined to UKIP, massaging their own hard socialists) • The government's apparent determination to follow a course that will split the Union In this environment there are many of us looking on, thinking, "This is not the country I know and love". The UK is essentially a centrist nation, happy to vote soft left, soft right or even LibDem, and resentful of the only apparent choice when it next comes to vote: hard left or hard right. If the UK's politicians and their backers don't offer a viable centrist option, then turn-outs will decline further and there will be huge resentment of the elected government and the programme it tries to implement. Essentially we will be doomed to government without popular mandate. The article addresses the government's (and thus the people's) choice between a hard or soft departure from Europe. It doesn't consider the third option, which is to remain within the EU whilst taking the opportunity to tackle many of the non-EU problems revealed by the referendum and it aftermath, problems which can be handled equally well whether we are in or out, chiefly: • More (and more affordable) housing • A well funded health service and as an adjunct, a seamless strategy for integrating quality-of-life care out of the hospital environment, with in-hospital care for illness and injury • Redistribution of opportunities away from London and the southeast. towards the many deindustrialised areas • Enhanced control of migrants who do not contribute to the vitality and wealth of the country • And even reintroduction of blue passports! Rather than re-examining the mess we are currently in, it would have been a better use of pixels for Nick Clegg to have proposed ways that the nation could be re-cemented, and wealth redistributed (rather than destroyed).
Reply
Lauren S.
October 27, 2016 at 06:39
You MPs could of course develop spines and stand up for what benefits Britain most - staying inside the EU. "The People" are not 17 million who voted based on lies and manipulation. There are over 60 million of us in this country and millions of British living in the EU. Who is standing up for us. Why do we have to be impoverished and put through social upheavel to pay homage to a flawed interpretation of what was supposed to be an advisory vote. Be advised 17 million voted for something not well defined called leave. Take that into account but do what is right for Britain and fight to remain. That is the brave and right thing to do.
Reply
1. Peter Sullivan
  October 27, 2016 at 18:40
  Still can't handle the referendum result? Most people decided long before the day of the referendum how they were to vote. Something written on the side of a bus made virtually no difference. But if you want lies, take a look at the relentless, day-after-day bombing of the media, especially The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC, by the government, with scare stories warning of disaster if we left the EU. People voted so they could trade with other nations, but have all the laws under which they live made in the country in which they live. That is not unreasonable.
  Reply
  1. Paul N.
    October 29, 2016 at 05:43
    What about all the lies that were published by rags such as the sun Express and Mail? Those "papers" have been printing utter nonsense for years about the EU. It is funny how you don't mention that. Also, we have not left the EU yet so we do not know how badly the economy will be affected until we actually leave.
    Reply
  2. G.
    October 30, 2016 at 11:02
    We already trade with every nation in the world. As does every other EU nation. The question to be asked is why so many EU nations do so much more trade than us. German exports to China and India dwarf that of the UK. Our exports to India are even elipsed by Belgium.
    Reply
  3. Hugh R
    October 30, 2016 at 20:17
    Your several assertions do not even begin to portray a true picture.
    Reply
  4. Andy G.
    November 3, 2016 at 09:38
    You might think it "not unreasonable", but it's completely unrealistic. There is a word for insisting on trading under no-ones laws but your own - it's called "Imperialism". It can work well if you have a military that is more technologically afdvanced and vastly better equipped than those you trade with, but those are not really realistic options in this day and age. Otherwise you just have to suck it up and accept that you live on the same planet as all those awful foreigners and you'll just have to live with them...
    Reply
Andy G.
October 27, 2016 at 10:31
Nick, you talk about "tariff and non-tariff barriers negotiated in modern trade deals" but I see noone in the political sphere clarifying that immigration controls *are themselves non-tariff barriers*. They affect particularly labour and services, which are themselves tradable commodities. The reason that being part of the single market requires acceptance of the free movement of people is not because nasty foreign politicians demand it - it is because the free movement of people/labour is part of what a single market IS.
Reply
Peter Sullivan
October 27, 2016 at 18:28
'Recent polls by Open Britain and ComRes show, respectively, that 59 per cent of the British public wanted to “stay a member of the single market,”' Yes, but how many of that 59 per cent know that would involve free movement of workers? - if that is what you mean by 'single market'. You, or the sub-editor of this piece, seem to be conflating the single market and the Single Market, the latter being an actual agreement between nations which includes free movement of workers. There is a willingness in many on the pro-EU side to conflate the two, as they try to imply that many leavers are reckless and are happy to throw away free trade. Do you mean single market, or Single Market? The former would not necessarily entail free movement of workers. Using the two terms so close together in this article is just confusing for those lacking knowledge of the issue. Maybe that was intended...
Reply
1. Hugh R
  October 30, 2016 at 20:19
  Like brexit means Brexit?
  Reply
2. Andy G.
  November 3, 2016 at 09:32
  Without free movement of workers you do not have fully free trade. A single market, as well as the Single Market, involves having free movement of labour/skills. For all sorts of reasons. Government training in skills is a form of subsidy, from one perspective. Free trade is not simply an absence of tariffs - there are a plethora of non-tariff barriers possible - some of which are enabled by restricted movement of people. A single market requires coordinated government; this has been true since town councils had to be centralised as improved transport linked towns and cities together and became a spur for the nation-building of the 19th century. That we failed to recognise that is on us.
  Reply

You can log in to post a comment under your subscriber name.