EU Referendum


Brexit: uncertainty


11/01/2018




Still in court in Scotland, I found myself today listening to arcane discussions on the application of EU law to the assessment of fitness or otherwise of the produce from Errington Cheese Ltd.

What we see argued is that, in the absence of definitive scientific evidence as to the nature of microbial contamination and its potential to cause harm, we rely on the so-called precautionary principle which offers guidance as to how to deal with uncertainty – the fact that there is much information which is simply not available to us.

Much nonsense is talked about the use of the precautionary principle but, in terms of making sense the Commission Communication is actually a model of coherence, offering some sound analytical advice on the management of uncertainty.

However, while my enforced presence in court requires me to focus on such issues, it occurs to me that Brexit in this particular context, isn't so very different. The process of EU withdrawal is acknowledged to carry with it enormous levels of uncertainty which have to be dealt with in order to mitigate the risks involved.

The trouble is, as Pete writes in this joint post – constructed between us – is that, when it comes to the the technical aspects of Brexit, most people don't want to know.

Especially when we go to Twitter, the Brexit debate, instead of dealing with the practical issues, has become largely a proxy in a broader culture war where the complexity barely features. Our experience is that the detail is only ever popular when it proves a useful stick with which to beat the government, but as far as shaping the outcomes of Brexit, we might as well be talking to ourselves.

It is an odd facet of that debate, therefore, that those who are least interested in the detail tend to be the Brexiters themselves. The detail which is addressed still very much pertains to the economic argument, which doesn't really have any bearing on the culture war arguments. It's not the economy, stupid. It's all about narrative, and it is sharply polarised. There is virtually no grey area.

Pete and I both find it depressing to note that those who claim to be most motivated by Brexit show the least interest in the mechanics of it. They don't know and they don't want to. That makes our job even harder because we are very often talking to ourselves waiting for the rest to catch up.

Meanwhile, for all the volume of material that has been written on Brexit, we are still left to guess as to the eventual outcome. In some respects we know less now than we did before. As windows of opportunity are missed and options ruled out, we are left with the question of what happens next when the UK government has only a vague idea of what it wants. But then it is increasingly apparent that the EU is equally uncertain.

What we know is that there is a willingness to facilitate a trade relationship, we know the legal limitations of our choices, and the EU is guided by the principle that its own systemic integrity must be preserved while setting no new precedents that could expose it to making future universal concessions. Beyond that there is little we can put our finger on.

This is what puts us in the danger zone. Assuming that Article 50 talks are concluded and we enter into a "vassal state" interim period, there is every reason to expect that process will last far longer than two years and at some point there will be a general election. A lot can happen between now and then. Depending what happens on the domestic front, any number of possibilities present themselves.

Though remaining in the EU by then will be a non-starter, Brexit could very well be kicked into the long grass where the vassal state interim arrangement is morphed into a form of associate membership that will in effect be Brexit in name only. Precisely where we didn't want to be which is why we advocated the EEA, suboptimal though it may be. If nothing else it has the virtue of getting us out.

As to the more immediate debate, we are still waiting for the penny to drop. The nature of the transition would very well be make or break or Article 50. It all depends on how much of a fight hard liners put up. Given the parlous state of the Tory party and their natural tendency toward conformity, it would well be that all we see is bluster and the stamping of feet before caving in at the last minute.

Whether or not the EU plays hardball remains to be seen. From the diplomatic chatter and the noises on Twitter, there seems to be willingness among member states to be flexible, but there is no reason to expect that politicians from Member States are any more informed than our own when it comes to the legal limitations and though the EU may, in spirit, wish to be more accommodating, they are still going to play it by the book. It is a creature of rules.

This is where Brexiteers will have boxed themselves into a corner. Having taken no interest in the details or attempted to engage in this reality, they will not know what is happening to us or why. This will have them retreating to their comfort zone of demanding a walkout (to little avail), not least because they are unable to offer any workable alternatives. Especially after having ruled out the EEA.

In effect we are seeing our chickens coming home to roost. Having set upon this enterprise without a plan and having decided the details don't matter, the high leavers seem to have vacated the field. Apart from vague aspirations of a "Canada-plus" option, we have nothing really to go on.

Here, never more has the aphorism "nature abhors a vacuum" been appropriate. Leavers cannot be surprised if the technocrats move in and take ownership of it. The arrogance of the Eurosceptic aristocracy will be repaid in full.

What happens in the next few weeks will probably decide which way this goes. The legalities of a vassal state transition are fraught with their own stalling points, where UK red lines will melt away at the first exposure to reality. It will become apparent that we are in for the long haul and we may need an extension as well as an interim. We can only guess.

One thing that looks to be a declining asset is the prospect of reversing Brexit altogether. While the so-called "ABC campaign" may be looking for fame and glory in this respect, none other than the Daily Mail is telling us that the egregious Jean-Claude Juncker has called upon Member States to abandon hopes that Brexit will be reversed.

This is in the context of the new multi-annual financial framework (MFF) period looming, with the Commission president warning that the EU-27 should be looking for an uplift of at least one percent of the budget cap, to enable the EU to meet its expectations.

The EU is also dreaming up innovative new taxes, such as the plastic tax in order to plug the budget shortfall left by the UK's departure.

This, plus Juncker's pessimism are probably the first really tangible signs that the EU hierarchy have come to terms with the UK's departure as a permanent fixture, something which will become more and more apparent as they look towards a UK-free future and make their own plans.

With all that, Pete looks forward to February, when we might be able to see a bit of clarity and some of the fog induced by that growing sense of "Brexit fatigue" begins to disperse – or not.

At the moment, the Brexit environment is cluttered by the residual expectation that someone can make it all go away but, once we get used to the idea that we are going to leave and nothing is going to stop it, sentiment may harden and people will learn to confront the new reality.

But it's then, finally, that the impact of uncertainty will kick in. We will finally have to confront the fact that so much time has been wasted and we are no further forward in knowing our fate than when the referendum results were first announced.

Uncertainty thus will become the dominant ethos for the next year and, once we see it take its grip on the body politic, we might at last see some determined efforts to resolve the many outstanding issues. Cited as the downside of Brexit, it could eventually be the thing that kick-starts the process and makes it happen.