While I do perhaps naively believe that Boris Johnson is the right man to put lipstick on a pig, that is: to trim some sort of agreements between the EU and the UK, Dalibor Rohac thinks that we should prepare for a No Deal Brexit. Dalibor has lived in England and is a fine observer of European matters.
There are several interesting points in his piece but let me highlight a couple. On the one hand, he thinks the European Union has no margin to work a new agreement out for “geopolitical” reasons: “The current era of great-power competition requires the EU, especially if weakened by Brexit, to build credibility and a reputation for a certain degree of ruthlessness for being able to make decisions and stick with them even when it is temporarily inconvenient”. On the other, he maintains that Johnson will be able to extract political value out of a hard Brexit, basically because it is not going to be _as disastrous_ in the short term as Remainers have so far prophesized: “Will Brexit be disruptive and costly? Of course it will. However, if it is expected and planned for, the disruption will not take the form of unmitigated chaos on October 31. Planes will continue to fly, there will be food on the shelves of supermarkets, and the Eurostar will not come to a standstill halfway between Dover and Calais.”
I recommend the whole piece.
READER COMMENTS
Armin Chosnama
Aug 9 2019 at 2:23pm
As the EU moves closer to a federalist system with continued movement of autonomy and military, economic, and tax policy from national capitals to technocrats in Brussels, it’s strange that the article begins with “Brexit was always a bad idea.”
It seems to me, recent (hopefully temporary) UK economic slowdown notwithstanding, the larger and more unwieldy the fantastic European project gets, the stronger gets the case for jumping ship before the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
The so-called experts who predicted financial meltdown on passage of Brexit still have egg on their faces as far as a lot of people are concerned and can’t hide behind the authority of their models or expertise when they make unsupported assertions like “Brexit was always a bad idea.”
Shane L
Aug 11 2019 at 6:24am
I think one can be a critic of the EU and still see Brexit as a bad move. For starters, tales of the European Union’s tyranny tend to be greatly exaggerated. Eight EU countries rank among the top 20 in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, while two (Ireland – 6th; UK – 7th) rank above the United States. This measure also estimates generally rising economic liberty in Europe as a whole since 1995.
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
In any case, the UK seems to have staggered into Brexit with no idea how to practically achieve it. I live in the Republic of Ireland, not far from the border with Northern Ireland. For the last two years there has been utter bewilderment and confusion in both countries about the status of the border. At present it is almost invisible, and one can drive back and forth between the two countries, only noticing that road signs change from kilometres per hour in Ireland to miles per hour in Northern Ireland. The openness of that border has been an important part of the peace process, and it is now endangered, as it appears that a series of customs checks may need to be placed on the border.
Rohac argues that these need not be too intrusive, and I’m not sure about that. However there are 208 public border crossings at present, including many tiny rural roads. There seems to be broad uncertainty about the nature of any customs checks in the event of no-deal Brexit. This helpful article by FullFact states only that there: “could be a need for customs checks on goods to be introduced at the border, which could create a “hard border” with physical infrastructure, like cameras or guard posts. This would undermine the principle of North-South cooperation as set out in the Good Friday agreement.”
https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-backstop/
Many people in Britain appear indifferent to Northern Ireland, and a recent Lord Ashcroft poll of British Leave voters found that the clear majority (63%) preferred to leave the EU even if it meant the break-up of the United Kingdom. This is a shocking result!
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/06/brexit-the-border-and-the-union/#more-15616
In general, it appears that Brexit was a surprise even to those who campaigned for it, and therefore they made little serious effort to plan for it in advance. Most British members of parliament are in the weird situation of voting for something they oppose, partly because the referendum is not well-defined in the British constitution and there is general confusion about the MPs’ responsibilities.
I imagine an alternate reality where the UK rejected Brexit: still governed by David Cameron, quietly concerned with education and housing and security, instead of lurching from one political crisis to the next.
All of this turmoil has happened during a period of rapid European economic growth, which has probably softened the impact of the confusion. Yet the most recent Purchasing Managers Index show declines for manufacturing and construction, and reduced growth for services and jobs (https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Release/PressReleases). There was economic decline in Quarter 2 of 2019 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/pn2) and the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts a recession in the UK in the case of a no-deal Brexit.
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Fiscalrisksreport2019.pdf
The UK has a long history of fairly competent government and will probably muddle through; as Rohac says, the planes will continue to fly. But I see Brexit as a major political blunder, probably a net loss for British prosperity, and surely a considerable net loss for freedom.
Armin Chosnama
Aug 12 2019 at 9:19am
Thanks for the detailed response.
One thing I don’t understand (from across the Atlantic) is why having a checked border (that the EU seems to be pushing for) between two countries would increase the risk for violence. I understand it violates the Good Friday agreement, but I don’t know why checking trucks for product across the border would mean people would start killing each other. It seems to betray a low opinion of the Irish and Northern Irish people’s rationality.
I agree that the EU has been great for open trade, but I’ve lost faith in indices, and they go in one ear and out the other. So, while I’m sure they mean something to some people, they are too messy and noisy to be used anywhere outside of research. That’s how we treat unvalidated indices and metrics in medicine, and I recommend economists take the same approach to avoid discrediting their profession any further.
Shane L
Aug 13 2019 at 5:11am
Yes, I am somewhat sceptical of the predictions of violence myself, Armin. I have read suggestions that any infrastructure on the border will be vandalised by Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland, which could force the UK to send police or military to the border, which dissident IRA groups may be tempted to attack. This seems speculative!
I suppose the main thing is the symbolic effect of Irish nationalists once more feeling severed from the rest of Ireland. The British Unionist DUP campaigned for Brexit, presumably understanding the difficulties that this would create for the Irish border. Hence I suspect they supported Brexit to deliberately sever Northern Ireland from the Republic, in an attempt to weaken Irish nationalism in the North.
Hopefully we’re past the days of popular paramilitary violence. This is the first serious change to the constitutional arrangement between Republic and Northern Ireland, and I think people are just shocked and confused. It might not be bad in the long run, but there will probably be economic penalties.
FullFact have a brief explanation for the significance of open borders to the peace process here:
“The 1998 Good Friday Agreement was a key part of this peace process. One of the agreement’s three main points was creating the infrastructure for “North-South co-operation” between the Irish government and the newly-created Northern Irish Assembly.
This cross-border cooperation was a part of a strategy of “‘normalisation’ of relations between Protestant and Catholic communities within Northern Ireland and across the border”, according to the Institute for Government.
A key part of this ‘normalisation’ and cooperation process was the opening up of the border, which had previously been manned by British soldiers. Today, there are no checks at all on people or goods as they move either way between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and trade across the border was worth £4 billion in 2016. The Irish government has said that the open border is “the most tangible symbol of the Peace Process”.
Both the UK and EU agreed that, in negotiating a deal on the relationship after Brexit, keeping the border open and upholding the terms of the Good Friday Agreement was of critical importance. That’s why they committed to the principle that, even if future trade negotiations fail, there should be provisions in place to ensure that the border remains open, as it is today. That principle is the Irish backstop.”
https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-backstop/
To summarise, imagine the bewilderment and confusion in New Jersey if New York seceded from the US and a customs border appeared between the two!
Comments are closed.