Brexit: the canary down the mine

The Independent reports that "Dominic Raab risks a new row with Brussels on Thursday as he demands the EU do more to ensure adequate preparation for a no-deal Brexit. The Brexit secretary will say British and European institutions have not been able to work together in enough areas to guarantee the smooth continuation of life if negotiations fail to reach a deal".

"Mr Raab said there were some good examples of where that was happening, like discussions between the Bank of England and European Central Bank. But he then added: "There are other areas where such engagement needs to take place, whether between the UK and the EU on data protection or between the UK and EU member states, for example between port authorities".

Here I can only echo the disbelief of eureferendum.com. You do have to wonder what planet Raab is on. The only guarantee for a "smooth continuation of life" is to conclude a deal inside the construct of Article 50. That is the entire point of the talks. Raab, though, seems to think continuity is possible having made the conscious decision not to have a deal. Letting talks lapse would be the result of an executive decision not to extend Article 50 talks. 

Somehow he is suggesting that we have a no deal deal comprising of contingency measures presumably for implementation on day one. So in one stroke of rhetoric he is ditching Article 50 talks to talk about a deal or deal(s) without dealing with the EU's preconditions for a deal, ie the Ireland backstop and the financial settlement. He's effectively asking what we can have instead of a withdrawal agreement.

Criticising the EU in this regard, for the lack of cooperation, is totally bizarre. The EU has set up its own task force for Article 50 where it is willing to ensure business continuity just so long as the UK meets its most basic of political obligations. It is hardly unreasonable to expect the UK meets its closing financial obligations, ensuring the rights of EU citizens are safeguarded and respecting the political agreement in respect of Northern Ireland.

As eureferendum observes "Looking at this in the round, it is as if the last 17 months of negotiations haven't existed. Article 50 is no longer of any relevance and we are rebooting the inter-dimensional computer so that we can start again at year zero without regard to anything thus far discussed".

A kinder assessment would be that the government is seeking a backstop of its own should talks collapse, but if the UK is determined to let talks lapse then it must accept that no deal does in fact mean no deal. If we want a minimalist agreement with the EU, it is entirely possible and the EU will even accommodate such a thing, but not without settling the basics.

Some might be tempted to label this as arrogant English exceptionalism but really this is plain old cluelessness. Nobody in this government has the slightest grasp of what is underway and there's not many in the wider political scene who have a grasp on it either. Not least our media. 

At this point it's looking like no deal is all but certain. There are a number of variables in play and we have yet to see how the rumblings on the Tory right will play out in respect of the Chequers deal, which is made all the more surreal in that the EU will not agree to it. It will likely come down to the last hours and unless the government caves in, shunting the bigger questions into the transition as a fudge, it's hard to see this going well. At that point we crash out and we are in crisis management mode. 

A big part of me thinks that this needs to happen. I do not think a no deal Brexit is desirable but it might very well be necessary. The UK approach to the Brexit talks tells us a lot about the UK relationship with the EU. It tells us that our rulers in Westminster simply have no idea what they are dealing with or how to conduct a negotiation with the EU. That skillset is missing entirely. But what it really shows is that our politicians have involved us in something they have paid zero attention to.

This blog has detailed at length how our politicians have been sidelined from the important business of governance to instead fixate on their hobbyhorses be it junk foods, banning the sale of kittens, regulating London Underground advertising or fixed odds betting terminals. Our political machinery is absorbed with trivia - and so is our media. But there's actually a bigger problem here. You. Yes, you, dear reader. This is a bit of a Ratner moment. I hate my readers. 

Writing about the daily grind of the Brexit negotiations and the technical issues therein is as boring to write about as it is to read. Especially since we have made next to zero progress since December. If I want to drive readers away all I need do is write about Article 50 talks. The fastest way to do it is to write about the functioning of trade.   

Being the predictable bunch that you are, I can rescue my daily hits by churning out one of the generic "why we must leave" pieces I can write with my eyes closed. It's a sure fire way to get shares and retweets on social media. The rest of the time you couldn't be less interested.

I actually find this quite alienating. When you invest time and energy into explaining the issues and you think you're starting to make progress with people, and then you see them sharing a BrexitCentral, Spiked or Spectator article you lose the the will to live. It tells me all I need to know about media. People are not remotely interested in informing themselves and if you want an audience you have to pick a tribe and pander to their prejudices. The market for people who want to be informed and want to think is minuscule.

For all that I complain about the low grade triviality of the media, while it says stupid things, it is not run by stupid people. The media knows what I know about audiences, but unlike me it does not feel an obligation to inform or explain. Why would it when their motivation is their bottom line? We therefore have a society that chooses to be misinformed and can do so in comfort since it rarely has any consequences for them.

Being that the essentials are managed for us by the EU and the vast managerial machine it has created, the public, the media and politicians alike can engorge themselves on consequence free trivia, drifting from fad to fad, treating politics as a low grade sport and an adjunct to the entertainment industry. We cannot be at all surprised that governance is rotting from the inside out. 

One is therefore forced to conclude that we do not have the necessary equipment for a functioning democracy. We have a public who are simply prepared for the responsibility of self-governance and a political apparatus so heavily self-absorbed that only a shock to the system can bring it out of its stupor.

As a rule, government does not manage change well and stable government is government which frustrates change. This is why bureaucracy can be a good thing. The only thing worse than an inefficient government is a ruthlessly efficient one. This is something the EU has propped up for quite some time. We are not used to managing change because the EU ensures that change does not happen. 

Where we see government at its most effective is in the aftermath of a major incident. Reactive government takes far less talent. It is these such event in which lessons are learned and we reacquire knowledge in the process. It would be better if things were not that way but this is just how things are. It is too much to expect effective planned change. 

Following a no deal Brexit the government, and indeed the public, will have a sharp learning curve. The first and most obvious lesson is that you never believe the word of a Tory or a Tory newspaper. The lessons for the government, however, will be legion. The arrogance of all concerned will be richly rewarded. 

For whatever economic consequences there may be, I really can't help but feel like this is a country that really has it coming. When I see news media that gives air time to the "cultural appropriation" row and a public willing to expend a nanosecond of their attention on it, I see an electorate that should face the consequences of their choices. 

We could remain in the EU and continue to luxuriate in trivia but I think there is a longer term price for that. Every major policy we have is presently devoted to propping up a fragile status quo. Every time we have an incident like Grenfell Tower, it exposes yet more corrosion of governance. With something like Grenfell, it's relatively easy to sweep it under the rug as attention wanes, but there are other tells, not least the Birmingham prison riot, and the slow motion implosion of our so-called justice system.

I have long thought we are overdue a wake-up call. Good government in the UK is dying. And that means Britain as we know it is dying. This is a country gradually losing its grip on good civic administration - something we used to do better than anyone else on the planet. It is that very thing that feeds our sense of exceptionalism - but we are living on past glories throughout. 

Remainers often tell us how Brexit threatens "our place in the world" which of itself is a self-delusion. Brexit is not a global talking point, and if anything gives the UK an exaggerated sense of self-importance, it's the EU. The stark truth is that our "me-too" military adventures, meddling and preening on the world stage are a matter of supreme indifference to most of the world. I take the view that Brexit will be a much needed humbling national experience.

Many people have said they are shocked at how badly this government is handling Brexit. More shocked than I am, but even I've been surprised. Brexit has been a big reveal as it has shone a super-trooper light on to the ineptitude of our political class. But I don't think it's done with us yet. We're peeling an onion of incompetence, layer by layer and the worst is yet to come. 

There are big questions that we should be answering about the future of Britain. These are questions we continue to evade. Centrally planned spending and immigration are just about keeping the regions afloat but there are stresses on public services even immigration cannot plug and we have to ask questions about the sustainability of our entitlements. 

This we will not do because it is politically inconvenience. As for bold and radical reform, forget about it. We are, therefore, coasting along, taking none of the necessary decisions, addressing none of the systemic failures and in so doing condemning ourselves to a gradual descent into anarchy.

The remain movement is only really concerned with avoiding the economic inconvenience of Brexit. I can sympathise. After all, who really wants the hassle of change? The point, though, is we cannot carry on pretending all is well. 

Long before Brexit we were on a trajectory of stagnation. Food prices were creeping up. The packaging gets bigger while the contents get smaller. If you didn't get on the housing ladder in 2007 then forget about it entirely. Real wages are stagnating, job security declining and social mobility collapsing. The only thing remaining in the EU would accomplish is to mask the decline, perhaps slow the pace but ultimately do nothing to remedy it.

We are told that Brexit is a dangerous populist uprising against the age of liberalism, but that liberalism is itself a conceit, one which becomes ever more paranoid, censorious and authoritarian, desperate to keep the lid on tensions growing just about everywhere you look. We are told it threatens the Northern Ireland peace process yet the settlement was already collapsing before anyone even mentioned an EU referendum. 

The debate is all too caught up in the present dangers of leaving the EU, where the inference is that remaining is somehow a safer option. Insomuch as the establishment is only just keeping a lid on public anger and only just managing to take care of the basics, I cannot think of anything more dangerous than for that same establishment to tell us that change is not possible with votes. 

One way or another Britain is a headed for a perfect storm. One which will redefine the country for decades to come. Irrespective of Brexit, it was always on the cards. Brexit just means we choose the timing and the battlefield. 

I can tell you for nothing that Brexit is not a free trade renaissance nor are there any sunlit uplands. All Brexit is is a window of opportunity at a pivot point in history. One which allows a fundamental democratic and economic correction. One which shatters the delusions of our rulers. 

That much is no bad thing. Most of what is wrong with out economy and indeed our culture boils down to a serious of self-delusions and an overweening sense of national self-importance. Only when our political class is capable of seeing the country as it is, rather than how it imagines it to be, can we hope to build a new understanding and a new political settlement. Only then can we address the economics, which is why the economic concerns of Brexit are secondary. 

That our whole approach to Brexit is so staggeringly incompetent is really just the canary down the mine. This is the sort of thing we should be handling well. That we aren't is an indication that the rot is too deep, and only a sharp kick to the head will make them realise. It may be depressing that it should have come to this, but it's necessary all the same.