REVIEW Brexit: What The Hell Happens Now?

Ok, so I've already deviated from my 'next five books' plan. However, it's with good reason. As soon as I'd snapped up Ian Dunt's 'Brexit: What The Hell Happens Now?' I was keen to get going, not least before Theresa May triggered Article 50. I've appreciated Dunt's superb analysis of post-referendum Britain for some time now on Twitter and in a series of columns. Luckily the book delivers the same blend of smart insight and wit.

There are two over-riding feelings I was left with by the end. Firstly, you have to take your hat off for what Ian Dunt has achieved here. To have been able to produce such an informative text within a relatively short time only increases my admiration for him. Not only that, but the book is future proofed, staying just as relevant now as it was when written - despite the election of a US president and all that has happened in the UK since (including the debate over the Scottish referendum). I feel like I'll refer back to this as a sort of instruction manual to whatever happens after this Wednesday.

For me, Dunt strikes the perfect balance in the book. There's the right level of detail on some fairly complex issues but, at 160-odd pages, it can all be digested quickly and easily. It's clearly the result of a lot of research and hard work - without ever feeling the need to talk down to the reader. The passages on veterinary medicine, farming and fishing are great examples of the complexity of the issues up for negotiation, a complexity which was all-too-often buried amid the bluster of both sides of the referendum campaign.

Yet, aside from admiration, I also came away from this feeling pretty terrified. The next few years are going to be one hell of a challenge aren't they? I'd love to say that I have confidence that David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson have mastered the topic of the EU as well as Dunt, but I just don't see it. As he ably demonstrates, there's a lot to do in a short space of time and a distinct lack of the manpower and expertise needed to deliver. Since reading this, I've been taken by how many times I've read and heard people glibly talk about 'falling back on WTO rules' or 'access to the single market' despite clearly having little or no appreciation for what this means in practice.

Indeed, you feel this book shouldn't just be on the shelves of Waterstones but in the pigeon holes of every MP. There's also a sadness to be had in the fact that so little of the workings of the EU - and the potential options for a post-EU future - were understood by the people who went out to vote on June 23rd last year. I still feel like we were given the option of a 'yes/no' answer to a question that was far more complex that a black and white choice such as that.

But this book isn't a polemic delivered by a sore loser (can we scrap the word 'Remoaner' from use? 'Brexit' is bad enough). Yes, it begins with a fairly sobering vision of a worst case scenario in the first chapter but Dunt stresses that the dangers that he outlines in the book arise from the way Brexit is delivered, not Brexit itself. As he puts it:

"Ultimately it is British values which will help get the country through this difficult new period: calm debate, instinctive scepticism, practical judgement and moderation. We appear to have lost sight of these values. The sooner we reaffirm our commitment to them, the better off we will be."

That said, I can't help feeling like Brexit will turn out to be a monumental mistake and the scale of the challenge Dunt sets out only served to convince me that we're about to head along the wrong path. I am worried about what happens next, frankly, and I've seen nothing since June that allays my fears. Dunt's values seem sadly missing from public debate.

For an understanding of what Brexit really means and what our future could look like, I couldn't recommend Dunt's highly enough. It delivers on its promise to be a readable guide to the 'biggest story of the decade' and is a superb piece of writing.

I'm heading back to my original plan next and will be picking up The Man In The High Castle by Philip K Dick. From a bleak real life vision of the future to a dystopian one, maybe it's a natural move?

Promises, promises: 11 failed pledges from both sides of the EU referendum campaign

What's a promise worth in politics these days? After writing my last post I started to think about all of the promises that had been reneged on during the course of the EU Referendum saga.

I came up with the following:

• David Cameron told us he'd stay on regardless of the result. He quit within hours
• The PM also said he would enact 'Article 50' but didn't
• George Osborne said he'd need to draw up a 'Brexit budget' if we voted to Leave. He hasn't
• Boris Johnson said the pound would be fine and the economy would be stable after the vote. It isn't
• The mop-haired ex Mayor then weighed up standing to deliver on the result he'd strived for and backed out
• Michael Gove repeatedly ruled himself out of standing to be Prime Minister. He then stood and stuck the knife into his old mate Boris
• Andrea Leadsom once warned Brexit would be a disaster. She now backs it
• Jeremy Corbyn promised to support the Remain campaign but has been accused of undermining its efforts and not-so-secretly wanting to be out
• We were promised £350 million more a week for the NHS. We won't get it
• The Leave campaign promised to control the levels of immigration. They probably can't
• Nigel Farage has stood down, saying his work is done. It isn't. (He also insulted the people we now need to win over to strike a new deal for Britain, nice work)

That's pretty damning I'd say. I don't want to just criticise politicians, but they should look at the list above and begin to understand why many people don't trust them.

The sad thing is I doubt I've even covered them all. Feel free to point out any I've missed below...

How do we know what the electorate actually wanted from EU Leave vote?

Photo: Unsplash

Life very rarely throws up questions that have a black and white ‘yes/no’ choice does it? I can’t quite help think that this hasn’t helped with the EU referendum. With a question of such complexity and magnitude boiled down to one simplistic question, chaos was probably always likely.

I last blogged on the eve of the ballot. A lot has happened since hasn’t it? Yet one thing is clear, no-one really knows what to do next.

Whether I like it or not (and I’m still convinced that it’s a terrible decision) the electorate chose to Leave. The trouble was, while there is a mandate to negotiate an exit, it’s not clear what else there is a mandate for. What did the people actually vote for?

The black and white nature of a yes/no referendum also allows people to make sweeping and inaccurate statements about both camps. Remainers aren’t all whiners just as much as Leavers aren’t all racist. Yet, because the cap fits for some in those respective sides, others are tarred with the brush.

Some Leavers want a strangely very similar relationship to the EU to that we have now. Others want a Norway style deal, some are keen on a more distant position and others want us to be as far away as possible. Some won’t countenance ‘free movement’ of people, others are happier to accept this. All of this variation is under the umbrella of the ‘no’ in the yes/no vote... and that’s not even considering the shades of grey within those arguing for yes.

So, what do we do? Blunder along into a position that is bound to be unsatisfactory? That’s the way it seems. Consider this: a negotiation that adopts a Norway-style relationship is likely to upset the 48% who voted to Remain AND all of the most vehemently anti-EU elements of the Leave voters. The mandate suddenly becomes a little flimsy.

People like Boris Johnson certainly don’t have the answer. Having been royally shafted by his fellow Leaver Michael Gove, Johnson ducked out of the race. Yet, let’s face it, he had no idea how to implement the result he’d helped to win anyway. He’s probably relieved to be able to snipe from the sidelines rather than having to do anything, passing the poisoned chalice to a colleague in the process.

Gove is a man who regularly repeated the assertion that he doesn’t think he is up to the job and proved too toxic to run the Department for Education. I still don’t think he really wants it. He’s probably achieved what he wanted by dashing Boris’ dreams. A playground-style rivalry played out at the highest level.

It’s certainly a precarious position. David Cameron – having let loose a yes/no question to this tricky topic – is the lamest of lame ducks. A decision on Heathrow and a debate on Trident have been parked until his successor is named. Nothing, it seems, can be achieved until the politicians sort out their squabbles. A final failure that will surely define Cameron’s premiership.

Then there’s George Osborne. The Chancellor had failed to wipe out the deficit in five years of ‘the coalition’ as promised and now, post Brexit, says it won’t happen by 2020 either. His sole purpose destined to be left unachieved. He now seems to think that by repeating the phrase ‘I want to offer reassurance’ that people will actually feel reassured. Why not try giving us some words and ideas that are actually reassuring George? Is it because you’re keeping your powder dry in the hope of clinging on to a job?

And what to make of the mess on the opposition benches? Right now, in the country’s hour of need, there is no opposition and no Government. Cheers guys.

I know some people feel Jeremy Corbyn has been hard done to in recent days but I can understand why his parliamentary colleagues have lost faith in him. His performance during the referendum debate was poor. We’re told he’s a man that sticks to his principles and convictions yet you get the impression he is a Eurosceptic and is happy to leave. So, why not say that? Irrespective of that, the man doesn’t command enough of a party to form an effective opposition any more and has to go. It might not be nice but that’s politics.

I can understand why some people have chosen to march, demonstrate and protest. It seems ridiculous that others now say they shouldn’t do so having argued that they are ‘pro democracy’ during the referendum. The trouble is that I doubt there’s a consensus solution among the marchers about what they think should happen next either.

We’re left awaiting the result of the Conservative Party leadership election to see how we’ll go forward. The final two candidates will, at least, offer differing visions of the future relationship with the EU but it feels a little unsatisfactory that 150,000 party members will get to choose that vision (having had their ‘final two’ whittled down for them). Some grim irony given that we apparently voted to end the rule of unelected and unaccountable figures.

Maybe we should’ve been given a better range of choices in the referendum? Maybe we should never have had one in the first place, leaving the politicians we choose to represent us to make the tough decisions on our behalf? Maybe we should be given a chance to say whether we agree with the final deal thrashed out with the EU? Maybe we should all pretend this never happened in a very British way and try to move on? Maybe Remainers should just step back and hope things aren’t that bad? Maybe Johnson and Farage should’ve had the decency to see through what they started?

So many maybes, so few answers. We’ve said ‘no’ to a question that really wasn’t a yes/no problem and all it has done is throw up other more complex questions. Questions of the nature that probably should’ve been thrashed out before the vote instead of tawdry nonsense, spun statistics and guff written on buses.

Some thoughts on the EU Referendum

Sometimes this EU referendum has got so tiring that you might just be best placed to choose whether you are ‘in’ or ‘out’ based on the status of your belly button.

Churlish perhaps, but not less nonsensical than some of the points being made as we approach polling day.

Before we get much further I might as well chuck my cards on the table. I’m voting Remain on Thursday and not just because I’ve got an ‘in’ belly button (too much information, sorry).

I tended to shy away from making my political views on individual topic too well known when I worked in journalism because I honestly made an attempt to be an impartial observer. I think/hope I managed that. Not that I expect many people care too much either way about my two penneth now but, you know, it’s cathartic to type it out.

The thought of Brexit actually fills me with dread. I’ve always thought that this debate should really be about their side proving, on the balance of probabilities, that we’d be right to make such a big change as leaving the European Union. I honestly don’t think they’ve got anywhere close. If you're still uncertain now then I'd say they've not done enough to persuade you either.

Neither side got off to the best of starts it has to be said. When the words 'Hitler' and 'World War Three' were thrown around by Boris Johnson and David Cameron you got a feeling for the sort of campaign that was coming.

I shan’t waffle on too much about experts because you’ll undoubtedly have seen all that elsewhere. Still, I do find it worrying to see the casual nature to which they’re all brushed aside by some on the Leave side. Of course experts have been wrong before, but it’s insufficient to simply use that line alone to oppose what they are saying. Whatever you think of the detail and some of the longer term forecasts, I struggle to formulate a case for thinking we’d not be worse off by leaving. I don’t expect the weather forecasts to be 100% accurate but if they say it’s going to chuck it down I pack a coat. What the economic forecasters say about Brexit makes me think some stormy clouds are looming if we follow that path.

Many people ask for ‘facts’ to help them make their decision. We’re being asked to vote on the future, of which there are no hard and fast ‘facts’. We have to weigh up the forecasts, predictions and promises from politicians, pundits and experts and it’s not really acceptable to complain about this if we don’t find it easy. It’s our right to vote and our duty to find the information we need.

Then there’s the tosh about £350 million. There have been exaggerations on both sides but this is the biggest whopper of the lot. Presumably it was too much hassle to get the Battlebus repainted with the true number (which they could still have used for the basis of their case) so they’ve had to stick with a ‘stat’ that just isn’t true. That this line unravels so quickly upon examination makes you question the judgement and accuracy of the rest of the campaign.

So much is confusing about the whole referendum debate. Most recently we saw Boris Johnson calling for the UK’s ‘independence day’ while, during the campaign, harking back to the nation’s ‘better days’. You know, when we had the empire. The same empire that the Americans cut loose from in their ‘independence day’. So, are we voting to come out of the EU because it has got too much like the British Empire in order to try to rekindle better times we had as the British Empire? My head hurts. Maybe Boris just meant he had a ticket to see the new film at the cinema on Friday when the tawdry campaign finally ends?

My head also hurt when I saw Nigel Farage’s hideous ‘Breaking Point’ poster but for a different reason. I’m all for robust campaigning but that was a step too far. Whether it was intended to or not, it reached into the nastiest of propaganda playbooks, the sort that whips up hatred of others. Everyone behind that poster – and I’m well aware that many Leavers were equally unsettled by the image – should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Look in the history books and you might see some similar images. You won’t be happy to see who used them.

I wish I’d had a pound for every mention of the ‘Australian style points system’ – the cliché of choice during the immigration debate. As someone who worked in Boston in Lincolnshire it would be wrong of me to argue that everything about immigration has been positive. Boston hasn’t had the investment it has needed to keep up with its population expansion and that still hasn’t been addressed. It isn’t alone. Yet this isn’t the fault of the migrants. The vast majority of them work hard and pay enough into the system to help fund better infrastructure.

Unemployment is, thankfully, low and the jobs being done by EU migrants would be necessary if we left the EU. I doubt those who yearn for ‘control’ would get what they want by a Leave vote. The predicted economic dip is definitely not worth the risk for such a flimsy promise.

The EU is far from perfect but too much of our view of it is clouded by caricature of the sort peddled by Boris himself as a journalist. ‘Brussels bureaucrats’ are much fewer in number than ‘Whitehall bureaucrats’, for example, and it is not strictly true to label the EU as unelected. We chose our MEPs (although too many of us don’t bother) and we also chose our Governments who then represent us at an EU level and also pick our commissioner. If we don’t like our MEP we can vote them out and if we don’t like the deal we are getting in Europe then we can kick our Government out and elect one that can do our bidding. Criticise the EU if you like but let's avoid such generalisations.

The EU has been a handy bogeyman for governments to hide behind and blame for all of our ills. Much of that mud has stuck and Cameron and co are now struggling to undo it.

Journalist Robin Lustig wrote a piece on the Huffington Post that resonated with me in this respect. It contained the following passage:

Between 1999 and March 2016, the UK was indeed outvoted in the Council 57 times. It abstained 70 times, and voted with the majority - wait for it - 2,474 times. In other words, over a roughly 15-year period, the UK’s elected representatives, members of a government that has to face the electorate every five years, voted in favour of 95% of the laws passed in Brussels.

So the UK Government does get its own way in Europe. We aren’t dictated to at an EU level. Add that into the fact that we’re not in the Eurozone or part of the Schengen agreement, throw in a few other opt-outs and rebates and you realise that we currently have our European cake and eat it. We won’t get better terms from the outside and that could diminish the trade, education and research relationships we benefit from.

Then there’s the fact that the likes of Michael Gove rail against the daily influence the EU has on policymakers. If the EU is so controlling, how did Gove manage to completely overhaul the schools system? Surely such fundamental change should be impossible with Brussels on our back? Or there’s HS2, benefits changes, tuition fees, military air strikes…big decisions that we’ve made for ourselves in our Parliament. It doesn’t add up to me and smacks me of people using the EU as an excuse. If we vote out, who will the next scapegoat be?

Finally, this whole ‘we want our country back’ nonsense makes me wince. It’s not unpatriotic to want to stay in the EU. We should stay, work with our neighbours and fight for a better future together. Walking away isn’t patriotic or anything to be proud of. I want us to play a full part of the world we now live in if that doesn't sound too woolly.

The world has changed since we joined the European project – globalisation has happened and we can’t ignore it. Barack Obama probably summed it up best when he said that our voice is amplified by being in the EU rather than being diminished. It’s the way we can have an influence that’s relevant to the day and age we live in. It won’t feel any more like ‘my country’ if we vote out, quite the opposite.

I don’t doubt that many people will think I’m talking nonsense. That’s the beauty of free speech. Let's still be friends though, eh? See you on the other side on Friday…