Yves here. We’ve covered most of the Brexit issues presented here, but this is a very useful high-level take that could be helpful as a recap of the state of play for curious friends and colleagues.
By Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now. Originally published at openDemocracy
The fallout of coronavirus only adds to Britain’s problems as the country tries to extricate itself from 40 years of EU membership. We already know that Boris Johnson, rather than taking the easy route and remaining part of institutions which can ensure air travel safety or facilitate approval of new medicines – at least until such institutions can be created anew in the UK – is risking the most extreme version of Brexit imaginable. Even British membership of the European Convention on Human Rights, has been thrown into doubt by Johnson’s team, an institution which has nothing to do with the EU, and in fact includes Russia and Turkey.
Johnson has said he wants a ‘Canada style’ trade deal with the EU, but he wants such a shallow relationship with the EU that he will accept a no deal Brexit (now referred to as an ‘Australian option’) if that falls through. By the government’s own reckoning this would wipe between 5% off the UK economy in the government’s best case scenario, and up to 9% in the event of no deal.
Not content with negotiating one immense deal this year, Johnson has set himself a second mammoth objective – a trade deal with the USA. Some suggest that this is a negotiating ploy – to play off the world’s two biggest trading blocks against one another in their desire for a deal with Britain. Sinn Fein pointed out the “glaring contradictions” in “publishing their objectives for parallel talks with the US”. They’re right in that it isn’t possible to do deep trade deals with both the EU and US – let alone in a year. That’s because modern trade deals are less about the tariff reductions most people associate with ‘free trade’, and far more to do with how a government regulates its economy. EU and US regulations are very different, and as a relatively small country, broadly speaking, Britain needs to decide which system it will adopt, which block it wants to be closer to.
If this is all a negotiating ploy, Johnson has massively overplayed his hand. The EU would love a deal with the UK, but it cannot breach fundamental principles of the block, and neither can it offer Britain significantly better terms than it would any other third country. If Britain moves towards the US ‘market know best’ economic model, the EU will only be able to offer the lightest of trade deals. On the other side, Trump’s real interest in a trade deal with Britain is precisely to weaken and thumb his nose at the EU, which he sees as America’s main trade competitor. For him, unless Britain accepts the US regulatory model, a trade deal is of no interest to him, something his negotiators have said clearly in the papers from the preliminary trade talks leaked before Christmas.
So it’s a choice. And from what we’ve seen to date, Johnson has already made up his mind which path he prefers. Never before in history must trade talks have begun amid the levels of distrust and hostility that currently exist between Britain and the EU. Speeches by Johnson and his lead negotiator David Frost went out of their way to irritate European negotiators. Far from the normal warm words, Frost’s speech was a lament to an outdated vision of national sovereignty in which he quoted extensively from Edmund Burke and seemed to imply the EU was the ultimate toxic outgrowth of the French Revolution.
The British approach to Trump has been quite different, although even here Johnson seems to have underestimated just how difficult an operator Trump is. His decision to adopt Huwei technology led to a temporary breakdown in relations between the two sides, and civil servants were said to be aghast at the level of Trump’s anger.
But that aside, Johnson clearly favours the transatlantic relationship. And this shouldn’t surprise us. After all, a central driver for Brexit for a section of Britain’s ruling class has always been that the EU is an over-regulated bureaucratic nightmare akin to a communist dictatorship. Brexit, for them, represented a desire to break free from Europe, slash regulations and become a free market US proxy floating in the North Atlantic.
A trade deal is a key mechanism for locking in this right-wing dream, and for fundamentally and irreversibly shifting power away from ordinary people and towards international capital.
That’s precisely because trade deals today are really about so much more than ‘trade’. Indeed in many ways trade rules are the fundamental laws of the global economy. And unlike international agreements on human rights or climate changes, they are highly enforceable.
By their nature, they’re largely written behind closed doors, especially in post-Brexit Britain where we have no accountability mechanisms. MPs have no rights to vote on the government’s objectives, no ability to properly scrutinise the negotiations, and can’t even stop a trade deal when it’s been agreed. Ironically, while our potential trade deal with the EU would have to be passed through the European Council and the European Parliament, and in all likelihood member state parliaments and even regional assemblies in Belgium, our MPs will have no power over that deal.
‘Science-Based’ Chlorine Chicken
Chlorine chicken has become a symbol of a US trade deal, and this isn’t as frivolous as it might sound. Rather these poor birds are a great symbol of the downward pressure which modern trade deals exert on our hard-fought for rights, standards and protections. How does it work? Imagine I’m a chicken farmer in the US. I think my chicken is just as good and just as safe as British chicken, but I farm it in a different way. I see British food standards, which don’t allow me to wash my chicken in chemicals like chlorine, as simply a form of trade protectionism. So I lobby my government to ensure that in the trade deal my chicken is seen as ‘equivalent’ to British chicken, and can enter the British market even though it’s made in ways not allowed here.
This might be acceptable if the chicken genuinely was the same. But US food standards are radically different to those practiced in Britain. US agriculture is dominated by massive corporations, farming animals on an industrial scale, with intensive use of antibiotics, hormones and steroids to promote rapid growth and prevent illness in what are often extremely unpleasant and unhealthy conditions. It isn’t the chlorine that’s the problem per se, more that it conceals a non-existent animal welfare system.
Chicken is just an example. Across the board, big business has subverted the US system of consumer protection, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Small farmers have been decimated by this system. Astonishingly, it’s a model that has become known as ‘science-based’, in contrast to the ‘precautionary based’ model practiced here, which takes a cautious approach to health risks and bans foods where there’s a substantial and credible risk to health. A good example of what this means in practice is that lead-based paint, banned in most of Europe before the Second World War, was not prohibited in the US until 1978.
Worryingly, Johnson has endorsed this ‘science-based’ approach. Food standards here will change. And farmers, unable to compete against the lower standard food being imported here, will have to themselves push for lower standards. This is how trade deals exert downward pressure on regulations.
Regulations aren’t the end of it. There’s been much talk of the NHS in relation to US trade talks. Is it on the table? In a word, yes. This doesn’t mean a US multinational will come over and buy up the NHS lock, stock and barrel. It means that modern trade deals embed the liberalisation of services across the board. For the NHS, this means locking in and ‘ratcheting up’ (an actual trade term) liberalisation. Renationalising privatised services can become nearly impossible.
Medicine prices are a core element of many trade deals which extend the monopoly power of big pharmaceutical corporations. Already so bloated as to be dysfunctional, as we’ve seen in the current Coronavirus crisis, modern trade deals give Big Pharma longer patent terms, make them easier to extend and keep their research secret, making medical collaboration impossible. And Big Pharma isn’t alone. Increasingly trade deals give similar privileges to Big Tech companies, and even incorporate special ‘corporate courts’ which allow foreign investors to sue governments for any policy they don’t like. In one recent case an energy multinational took action against the Netherlands in one of these ‘courts’ for daring to announce a phase out of coal power.
As far as the US government is concerned, this is all ‘on the table’ – it’s there in black and white in their own mandate or in the leaked version of those censored trade papers which Jeremy Corbyn held up during the general election.
Fundamental principles of the block, like open borders? Think we’ve just seen that isn’t so fundamental
Countries effectively erect borders inside their territory currently to decrease the spreading. So blocking borders to tourists is not exactly noteworthy.
The reason borders are used for the blocking is precisely because they are existing borders which can be blocked. There already is infrastructure there as opposed to block one area of the country from the other.
And yes, for the EU the four freedoms are essential. Without them we could all follow the UK’s lead and not need any negotiations anymore.
But by sheer coincidence, the COVID-19 hotspots just so happen to align nicely to national borders, assuming you’re correct and that it is science, rather than national politics, which is determining the demarcation lines. That was a bit of good luck, wasn’t it? Otherwise, one would have to conclude that France viewed, say, Italian or German healthcare problems as Italy’s or Germany’s problem to solve, not theirs.
What a huge shame that, gosh, there you go, who’d have thunk it, France doesn’t have to make a tricky decision that, if faced with a contention in ICU beds and they have a French patient needing care and a German patient needing care, who gets the bed.
I have to admire the zealotry of EU-bots clinging onto notions of EU solidarity in the face of grim reality.
Brexiteers believes the EU is all-powerful and DICTATE to nation states … who’d ever would have thunk that it kinda works the opposite way round (and there are different layers of responsibilities)?
Brexiteers are funny people: The more they feel they are Winning, the angrier they seem to get!
If the EU continues to act like the worst sort of insurance policy — taking the premiums when you don’t need the benefits, refusing to honour the policy’s terms when you need it to pay out — Brexit’eers might well then be entitled to think they’re well shot of a bad deal.
While the author has bolted on a reference or two to Coronavirus, the article seems to induce in the reader a strange sense of being rather like a relic from a bygone era.
When all this is over, it will be a long, long time before anyone in industry wants to hear concepts like just-in-time-delivery, rightsourcing of manufacturing processes, remote single-source supplier dependency because of economies of scale and other holy writs of globalisation again.
In a crunch — and there are always periodic crunches of one sort or another — it isn’t adherence to some highbrow treaty or the edicts of a supranational authority which hold sway. It is the primacy of the national government which determines what resources are available, be they material or financial, how they are allocated and how the national effort (note the wording there’s deliberate) will be directed.
I say this not as some abstract, theoretical concept, but a practical, observed reality. Where are those German-made ventilators? In Germany, that’s where. Just ask Italy. And possibly soon, just ask the U.K. And if I need a bed in a high dependency unit, can I use one of the four freedoms to hop across the channel to see if there’s one available in Austria they might let me have? No.
Yes, eventually the acute phase of the COVID-19 crisis will abate and old patterns will reassert themselves. But any notion, as alluded to in the article, the the U.K. will see any benefit in continuing to cede sovereignty to the EU in order to maintain “frictionless trade” (oh, how hollow that phrase now seems) is going to be, ahem, a tough sell.
Now, I’ll postulate here another possible trajectory for the EU. What the current situation might give impetus to is a renewed sense and realisation that, as currently constituted, the EU is, as demonstration of administrative and governance capabilities, a bad joke. And a joke on the population of the Member States, as anyone wanting to “enjoy” the four freedoms can now attest. What is required is a move to full political and fiscal union — a last, final treaty to create a genuine state out of the EU. One treaty, to rule them all.
It will need to be put the people of Europe in a make-or-break choice. No more faffing around in the manner which has been done for the past 50 years. It’s make up your minds time. Are you in this, for real? Are you actually serious about the ultimate union? Well, now is your chance. If not, there’s no more squishy middle available on this.
Oh, and I’d finish by adding that I’d hope the U.K. would, and it it would be pretty bizarre I do admit, but I’d happy champion this, be also invited to join this new, true union. I’d vote for it, anyway. It would be a high stakes, make-or-break choice for the peoples of Europe. But that would truly be an exercise in open democracy. I suspect it would though give most of the contributors at openDemocracy a heart attack.
I get what your saying but I fear you underestimate a UK Tory gov.
Remember in Ireland there was plenty of food being exported during the famine.
Also many third world countries export vitally needed resources from their countries.
I agree and I think that this is probably one of those articles which the author started writing back in the prehistoric days BC (before Coronavirus) and had to rapidly adapt for a changing world. It all seems charmingly old-fasioned. No-one in a position of authority in Europe is suggesting that the medical solution to the virus should be handled at 27.
It’s worth pointing out that the NGO-Industrial Complex, which the author is clearly part of, is completely a creature of globalization, and in many ways is its ideological apparatus, forcing liberal social and economic changes on poor countries. It’s about to go, um belly-up, like so many others.
Its not even being handled at 27 level, regional governments/health authorities are doing their own thing – as Scotland has done in the UK. In China there were bitter arguments about the failure of national and regional governments to send medical supplies to Hubei (something those countries promised equipment by China should remember). In a situation like this each level of authority bunkers down.
:-)
What is proposed is the United States of Europe, somewhat modeled after the United States of America. I’m over 70 and can remember those proposals as far back as I can, which is when I was about 5 or 6.
I suggest that path is NOT followed, because, the US and Washington DC is a bastion of shady legality and hidden deals, that one should take great pause before copying it.
The German border, at least, is not completely closed. You need a ‘valid reason’ to cross. The two reported principal reasons being commerce (truck drivers and others) or going to work. Yes, there are many people in the border regions, who commute cross border every day. Even prior to Schengen and common market.
I don’t think that federal police (they do border, airports and rail stations) would stop your ambulance if you had a confirmed bed waiting for you. It wouldn’t be confirmed if you didn’t really need it and you wouldn’t want it if you could get it closer by.
Wow. Just wow. Arguing with a (presumably armed, stressed and time-constrained) German and then an Austrian border guard brandishing a copy of the Acquis Communautaire and some hopefully-convincing paperwork from a hospital while on my stretcher in the back of an ambulance.
I’ll put that one on my bucket list of “a hundred things I must do before I die”!
And to think, Brexit’eers get criticised for exhibiting wishful thinking and seeing unicorns.
I’d be careful here.
The current situation is that a number of border crossings have been closed entirely.
There are some that are still open, and you can cross them if you are:
– truck driver or similar making a delivery
– a commuter going to your place of work, which cannot be further than 100k from the border.
– emergency services
So, basically, all commerce is still ok – but tourism and “just visit” or “just shopping”. But that is severely regulated even intra-country.
Your temperature might be taken (as I understand, it’s sort of random sampling), and in case it looks even marginal, you might end up in an enforced quarantine.
So, in your specific case, if you were in an ambulance, you’d be waved through.
The ambulance case actually works very well for communities near the borders, my daughter studied it as part of her BSc in European Public Health at Maastricht University. Vaals is a Dutch town right next to the German city of Aachen and if you phone 911 from Vaals you are often picked up by a German ambulance and taken to an Aachen hospital. It is similar for other NL/DE border areas. It is clear from their innate ramblings that many Brexiteers have little idea how the EU, CU or SM actually work in practice and I am very glad that I left the UK for NL.
As the article claims, and as how many here write, the UK has two choices: does it want to go the EU way or does it want to go the US way. Both times they cede sovereignity, no way around that.
Only with the EU way they had a seat at the table, had their own politicians in Brussels, had a codified way to decide on every decision made. How many envoys of her Majesty sit in Congress?
If the UK goes the US way, they truly have a reverse “no taxation without representation” cause :)
And look, there even is a mad monarch on the other side again, at least for now.
But, the current UK leadership and a good chunk of the voters, doesn’t want to have any responsibility for anything. With Brexit came responsibly, this pisses off the Brexiteers no end because that part was “not what they voted for”! They had hoped to lose and to feed of “The Betrayal” for years after!
It is so much easier if everything that happens can be blamed on everyone else. Going the US way solves that problem nicely because then they can blame the US for taking the decisions, the EU for existing and of course Immigrants for every home-made failure there will be!
Boris Johnson is flopping around with the handling of the coronavirus crisis exactly because it is all entirely “on him” and this is not something he wanted to happen. His taskmaster, Dominick Cummings, OTOH, has become invisible, probably hoping to emerge when the UK has been cleansed of weak people under “herd immunity theory”.
At least the US banned lead paint. They still allow the use of asbestos
“More than 50 countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and all 28 countries of the European Union, have banned the use of asbestos.
But the U.S. continues to import and use asbestos with no plan for stricter regulations in place.” https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma-lawyer/legislation/ban/
Asbestos has been known to be hazardous to health for over 100 years.
” That’s because modern trade deals are less about the tariff reductions most people associate with ‘free trade’, and far more to do with how a government regulates its economy.”
Usefully clarifying. IOW, they aren’t about trade at all; they’re about deregulation in favor of corporate interests (the EU system seems a bit less so, but it’s a matter of degree.) Or regulation in favor of corporate interests, like the Intellectual Property rules.
As it stands, a no-deal exit would be costly for Britain; but the above considerations weigh against making “trade deals” at all, pending a more human-friendly government.
“Never before in history must trade talks have begun amid the levels of distrust and hostility that currently exist between Britain and the EU”, – from 1533 to 1601, a simpler time, some may think, ah we had any number or armed skirmishes, including the Spanish Armada. Seems a lot of hostility then. Of course the U.K. circa 1780 – 1815 had a total economic blockade with France, so there’s that. I think every age seems to think it is the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ of times (nod to Dickens), but stepping back over the last thousand years some times really were ‘worse’. The article presupposes trump will be re-elected, I doubt that very much. And takes no notice of climate heating. The past is not prologue.
Science-Based’ Chlorine Chicken
let me correct that for y’all
$cience-Based’ Chlorine Chicken
Well, as a Pom, I sympathise with my children and grand-children (and nearly great grand-children) but my generation will be leaving the stage JIT. There is no democratic response possible to the combination of news media, entertainments, financial wizardry and politics.