jump to navigation

A former diplomat writes… January 25, 2017

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
trackback

I’ve mentioned Tom McGurk’s remarkable contribution to the Brexit debate earlier this week. Also in the SBP is a similar enough piece by former Irish diplomat Ray Bassett. Bassett takes a similar line, but as with McGurk it is remarkable how disinterested he is in the reality that it is the UK that is leaving a body with – for all its flaws – fairly clear conceptual and actual underpinnings. So for him if the EU attempts in its relationships seek freedom of movement for labour that is the EU ‘punishing’ others rather than the UK attempting to impose its will on an EU it has left. He goes further and suggests ‘It is not good enough to stand for the status quo and announce that we will try to inflict damage on the British if they don’t measure up to our demands’. This is so far from the reality one has to wonder at why he would use such hyperbole. Who is suggesting any such thing, and who by the way are ‘we’? Ireland, the EU? Our, i.e. Ireland’s, ability to inflict damage is surely limited.

In the Observer a Spanish commentator is quoted as suggesting that the real dynamic in play in terms of ‘punishment’ and damage is rather different… that the UK wants ‘hard Brexit for the Europeans and soft for them’. And that means actual European citizens. When framed in that way, rather than simple ‘freedom of movement’, a phrase that is in its own way somewhat opaque it brings the reality of Brexit and its implications on people to the fore.

Or more broadly Andrew Rawnsley in the same paper writes that ‘it can never been in the EU’s interest to grant Britain a continuation of most of the advantages of being a member while releasing it from all obligations’. Rawnsley, and I’m not his greatest fan by the by, also notes that Theresa May ‘made the habitual mistake of British politicians when talking about Europe, which is to forget that other countries have interests to protect and other leaders have parliaments to face and voters to answer to’. That’s a mistake I think Bassett and his like also fall into in their curious rush to identify overmuch with British interests (not that he’d put it that way, but how else to explain his concentration on freedom of movement?).

Actually it’s fascinating how Bassett can say ‘freedom of movement was originally designed and accepted as a concept among a small group of like-minded countries in Western Europe. It may have passed its sell-by date and probably does not suit the present environment’. What does he mean by any of that – particularly the last? It would appear that he is perfectly happy on immigration control. Though note he avoids that particular term.

But what is striking is how quickly he moves from those arguments and points to a broader one. For while he initially frames his points in the context of the EU as is – very rapidly he moves to this:

The EU needs to reconnect with its people. Across Europe there is a rejection of a Brussels-centric approach and a desire to return to the older arrangement of a grouping of sovereign nations, bound together in a free association designed to further their economic and social development. This was the organisation we originally joined with Britain in 1973 as the EEC.

However there are huge vested interest which will fight tooth and nail against any infringement of the EU dogma on free movement and any reversal of the deepening integration model.

Now the contradictions between the first and second paragraph are enormous. Because he’s actually not supporting the status quo but implicitly, well actually quite explicitly, arguing that the position in 1973 was optimal.

That’s a position, but what I find troubling is that he doesn’t start there from the off, rather hedging and dodging before moving towards it. Worse again he can’t quite seem to stay with it. And let’s keep in mind that his line on freedom of movement, and other matters, is near enough indistinguishable from those of the far right parties lining up in various elections across Europe that he name-checks, France, Holland, Italy.

And as with McGurk he can’t quite seem to grasp what he is saying. On the one hand FDI is important and we have to protect ourselves, on the other the world is changing under Trump and FDI may be a thing of the past. How on earth are we to profit in the context of a UK that attempts to emulate our current role? He doesn’t say.

And there’s the problem. For all that he criticises the Irish government for perceived failings his proscriptions are utterly unconvincing given that there is no detail to them. We’re meant to take it as read that non-membership or ‘half-membership’ of the EU is superior in the context of Brexit to pretty much all else short of the UK clawing back free trade with the EU without freedom of movement.

Finally I find it hard to take much of this seriously. He knows that the government, as was put to me recently by a very clear sighted observer, hasn’t much leverage in all this (particularly after Apple etc), whether with the EU or the UK. Indeed close enough to none. He also knows that the leverage the UK has is actually remarkably limited. They’ve decided to leave, their ability to exert any pressure on the r27 is much much less than they seem to think. He knows that we’re unable to conduct bilateral negotiations – neither is the UK, and really, how can we persuade the UK to do what it does not want to? The experience of the relationship of this state with that across the years prior to 1973 don’t offer much optimism in that context. So what fundamentally is he suggesting ‘we’ do? Position ourselves away from a block of multiple nations in the hope we get a ‘better’ deal? There’s a basic truth here, this issue may be insoluble – that the nature of Brexit as pursued by this British government is such that all the options that might be open to them, EFTA/EEA, some sort of Switzerland deal, are off the table because of freedom of movement. That’s their choice. We, unfortunately, are stuck with the result. No options are great, all are bad to one degree or another.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Ghyl Tarvoke - January 25, 2017

It is simply not true that we have no leverage. Any trade agreement of any sort between the EU and the UK will have to be ratified by all 27 other EU members. This includes ourselves. This is separate from the Article 50 agreement, which finalizes the divorce, which is decided by QMV. We absolutely have leverage, and we should use it.

(* – There is some legal ambiguity about the EEA/Single Market after Brexit, and whether the UK can stay in the Single Market after Mar 2019 even if it doesn’t join EFTA. However, as the UK seems set on leaving the SM this is now an academic point).

Like

WorldbyStorm - January 25, 2017

You’re right, we have leverage but I wrote in the OP not that we had none but instead not much o. The EU. And in relation to the UK much less again because the UK is as you say determined go take a hard brexit route.

Like

John Goodwillie - January 25, 2017

So: we have no leverage on finalising the divorce; but we have leverage on a trade agreement. The divorce can take place without our agreement, but we can refuse to agree to a trade agreement. So if we refuse to agree to the trade agreement, it won’t happen, and the UK will be outside the Single Market and subject only to WTO rules. Which surely is even less in our interest than having some sort of relationship.

Like

WorldbyStorm - January 25, 2017

I think that’s a good summing up of it JG.

Like

2. DOCR - January 25, 2017

Very fair piece. Brexit is catnip to media because it is clearly a “big thing” but nothing much happening yet and for a bit yet, so endless scope for ethereal speculation and pontification, verbal candyfloss. Paper and ink remain good bedfellows. The truth is there is pretty well nothing much the Irish government can “do” for the time being that will actually advance Ireland’s interest, as opposed to just wing flapping. But to admit that would imply there was no point in writing lengthy op ed pieces on the matter either.

Liked by 1 person

3. Jim Monaghan - January 25, 2017

“However there are huge vested interest which will fight tooth and nail against any infringement of the EU dogma on free movement and any reversal of the deepening integration model.”
I wonder why the elites would worry. They are always welcome in vert country, so not of personal interest. Oh the bosses want cheap labour. Well they can always move the factory, eg Dell from Limerick to Lodz. I regard free movement as a gain of the EU.
Oh abysmal footnote, the SP across the water figured there would be a revolution in Poland if the Polish workers were forced to stay at home.

Like

CMK - January 25, 2017

Do you have a link for that, Jim?

Like

Jim Monaghan - January 25, 2017

“If they were forced to stay, she and the Polish capitalists would be confronted by a massive rebellion of Polish workers, which is coming in any case.” http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/20815

Mind you Like the Communist Party here they are talking of migrant controls as well. http://politicaleconomy.ie/?p=1148
Which given that the UK and Ireland are the most migrant hostile is a bit rich.
Oh maybe the SP here should have advocated migrant controls against Irish workers in order to hasten the revolution here.

Like

WorldbyStorm - January 26, 2017

The biggest problem with the analysis offered in the link is that it doesn’t actually offer any clear strategy with achievable aims based on actual forces. It’s entirely aspirational. Aspiration is good but it cannot be positioned in a vacuum. Nor does it work through whose Brexit one led by reactionary forces and overseen by the Tories would be or how that would sideline already marginal groups on the left. And it doesn’t begin to address the clear fractures in the LP and how that would function as a prop to the Tories. I cannot doubt its sincerity or how well meaning it is but it’s unconvincing.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - January 26, 2017

Ah now Jim – it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that an article that points out that if migrant controls existed that prevented workers leaving Poland it would lead to a social explosion – equates with actually advocating migrant controls – but I suspect that you are smart enough to recognise that yourself.

Like

CMK - January 26, 2017

F- for trolling, Jim. Do try harder.

‘Only common action across national boundaries, as well as within nations, can allow us to build a strong workers’ movement to confront the bosses and stop them from exploiting and gaining from divisions within the working class.’

I presume you oppose that sentiment?

Like

WorldbyStorm - January 26, 2017

Jim overstates the case but there is a strand running through the article that seems, I guess, sceptical is the word I’m looking for, of movements of people outside their nations. It’s as if it is implicitly saying that the natural order is to stay closer to ‘home’. Take the following…

“At the same time, if the workers’ movement was taking on and defeating the bosses across Europe, many workers would choose to return to the country they were forced to move from by mass impoverishment and unemployment.”

I don’t doubt that’s true for many but I’m not certain it’s true for all or even a substantial minority and I’m not suggesting the piece is anti immigrant, indeed there’s an excellent defence of workers who are in other states, but I just feel it conveys an implicit line that it might not intend to.

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: