George Smid

By George Smid georgesmid

Listen carefully to music: the beat is made of the sound – and pause. It is the pause which makes the rhythm. What you don’t hear is more important than the sound itself. The silence is everything.

Now listen carefully to reactions to the draft agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. What is not said is more important than the words written. The silence is everything.

The agreement is what was to be expected. The EU point of view prevailed. And Theresa May was forced to execute yet another of her now famous U-turns. On EU citizens’ rights and Irish ‘back up clause’ in this case.

Transition/implementation was defined as a period of two years to prepare for post-Brexit trade agreements with the EU. Assuming, of course, that a new trade agreement between UK and EU would be in place, this will be to implement the new rules and regulations. Who called it ‘implementation’ period? The UK.

Now the 21 months allowed for the withdrawal from the EU will be used to hammer out the yet unspecified trade deal. As of today there is nothing to implement. The EU term ‘transition’ won the day. It’s not surprising businesses are calling for “a second transition” after December 31, 2020.

It is ‘cliff edge scenario’ postponed.

We should remember how we got here: First we were promised immediate benefits and a quick execution. No deal is better than bad deal, remember?

Then we were to reap the riches after March 2019 – we were going to strike free trade agreements all over the word during Article 50 negotiations. (The easiest trade negotiations in the world, remember?) Now the benefits of ‘free trading’ global Britain can happen only after 2021.

Whilst Brexit benefits are projected further and further in the future, Brexit costs pile up now. We might be better off only after 2026.  If ever.

Despite all those promises not being kept, all those red lines being broken, all the posturing leading to a climb-down, there is hardly any dissenting sound from pro-Brexit camp.

The silence is ominous and is the result of the whole string of unfulfilled Brexit aspirations, like the £350 million per week for the NHS. The list is much longer: fisheries, control of our borders (immigration will continue), control of our money (UK contributions will continue for 45 years), control of our laws (definitely under the European jurisdiction).

Listening to the silence of the Messrs. Davis, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Fox there is an obvious change in their strategy. No more promises. The narrative of ‘no deal is better than bad deal’ is out – even they realise the dire consequences for the UK with a cliff edge scenario. ‘Any deal is better than no deal’ is in. That is the only way it can still be sold to the public.

For the anti-EU camp the important thing is to leave on midnight (EU time) on March 30, 2019.  Whatever the deal – as long as it placates the public, the business community, the society into silence. With the principle of superiority of the British Parliament, the Brexiteers know that the current one cannot tie up the future parliaments. Once we leave, all hell can break loose and nobody can do anything about it. We are out, out, out. And they will be in, in, in.

The public seems to be silenced too. Partly, there is a Brexit fatigue; partly the arguments are getting more and more technical; partly the negative impact is only slowly working its way through: remember how project fear was discredited because nothing happened on the morning of June 24, 2016? The sun rose, the sky did not fall in.

A lot of things happened since: the Bank of England had to pump in billions into the economy, the pound lost almost 20% of its value, inflation is indeed up, real wages down (with the exception of migrant workers whose wages are rising, a nice irony), house prices are coming down, the companies are moving out and foreign direct investment is getting smaller.

The pattern is here: the benefits of Brexit are doubtful, diminishing with every single day and delayed to yet unspecified future. In contrast, the costs are rising now. Project fear is now project real.

This is the worst time for the public to become quiet. We did not accept ‘no deal’ scenario. We should not acquiesce to ‘any deal’ either. If the whole purpose of ‘any deal is better than no deal’ is to get UK out of EU without a proper discussion, we should rise and be counted.

We need to discuss the issues, the impact, the impending possibilities. That is why the European Movement Lincolnshire is organising Whatever you wanted to know about Brexit but were afraid to ask debates about inn Lincoln on March 24, in Holbeach on April 20 and in Spalding on May 25. Pencil the dates in and check their website – anybody from the Leave as well as Remain camps is welcome.

George Smid is chair of the European Movement East Midlands.

By George Smid georgesmid

Once upon a time there was a happily married couple. She liked summer sun and sea. He liked winter snow and ski. They overcame their differences and compromised – they spent their holidays together in autumn or spring. Despite the fact that both of them suffered by hay fever in the spring and both of them loathed autumn damp.

Which is what I was thinking when I listened to Theresa May’s speech last week. There was something for everyone and a firm promise to no-one. He might get a bit of snow in a late autumn. She might spend a few hours in spring sunbathing. But otherwise both of them will be pretty miserable either because of their running noses or because of the soggy fog getting under their skin.

The analogy of the conflict between summer sun and winter snow is clear. And here is the parallel to autumn and spring:

During the referendum campaign the Leavers were so obsessed with the concept of the EU as a superstate that they now see the EU as a state entity. It is not such a thing. There are 27 independent countries. Each single nation does have a say about the negotiation with the UK. They delegate the negotiations to Mr. Barnier’s team. They do not surrender the negotiations. To treat the EU like another state with which we might sign a free trade agreement is a complete and utter misunderstanding.

This is a misunderstanding which might destroy the dynamic of the negotiations. We must remember that each member states’ parliament has to approve the deal. For the UK to actually see itself as an equal partner to the remaining 27 nations is automatically perceived as the UK elevating itself above all and any of the remaining nations. Effectively proposing that one vote (of the UK) carries the same weight as 27 votes. That is bound to solicit a frosty response from the remaining 27 states.

The required time-scale was also overlooked. The argument that ‘we have a unique starting point, where … we both have the same laws and rules’ is flawed. The issue is how the ‘collective EU’ will balance one set of preferences against another. The Spaniards with their big fishing fleet will see things differently from the Dutch with their huge merchant fleet when talking about arrangements on the sea. The Dutch and Spanish governments will take time to agree on a common ‘EU approach’ – regardless of the ‘unique starting point’.

Perhaps to understand the speech, we need to notice only the specific announcements and the specific omissions. The announcement is that the Government intention is to leave the custom union and single market. Forget about close alignment in this, associate memberships in that and innovative solutions all around. You cannot be a partial virgin. You are either in or out.

What the PM did not mention was any of the inspirational statements of the past. ‘A free trading nation’ was missing, only a fleeting reference to Global Britain. There was no promise of a ‘proud, confident and prosperous UK’. Only that we might ‘emerge’ as ‘a stronger, more cohesive nation’. The control of the ‘money, laws and borders’ was reduced to the British Parliament passing the same EU laws which we will not be able to influence now. Bearing in mind the importance of the subject during the referendum, not once the word ‘immigration’ was mentioned.

The previous promises were not only absent from the speech they were contradicted: There was a thinly veiled warning we will be actually worse off. The Parliament will not follow EU laws only at our perils (‘If the Parliament [will] not achieve the same outcomes as EU law, it would be in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access.’ – Imagine the outcry if the same sentence came out of Michel Barnier’s mouth).

And, of course, the immigration will continue – ‘EU citizens will [come] here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise’. It must be stressed again and again that the EU does not provide for ‘free movement of people’ even now. Any EU national wishing to settle in the UK must prove within three months that he/she can shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. Otherwise they have to leave. It was Theresa May as the Home Secretary who did not enforce this principle.

Despite the absence of aspirational goals, the ‘Mansion Speech’ will become a watershed. For the first time the British public has Brexit options in front of them. We now have the Tories who will leave the custom union and single market. We have Labour who will campaign on staying in the custom union and ‘almost’ being in single market. And we have Liberal Democrats and Greens who wish to Remain in the EU.

The choice is ours. But to exercise that choice we must secure a referendum which would confirm or reject the deal. Brexit can be reversed: the UK can still remain in the EU. If Theresa May speech was good for anything it was to confirm just that: like the couple above we might get something which suits nobody. To avoid that, we must have a vote on it.

George Smid is chair of the European Movement East Midlands.