Remain lost — but who really won? | thearticle

The biggest constitutional change in recent British history is upon us — but the question “_Cui Bono_?” remains unanswered. Who actually gains from Brexit? In the wealth of commentary and

advocacy since 2016, there has never been a clear answer. The consensus among reputable economists is that removing ourselves from the huge market provided by the EU has a multitude of

negative consequences for our manufacturing, agricultural, fishing and financial sectors. This will mean significant GDP losses over the next few years measured in the ten of billions.

Already the big corporates and banks are opening up or looking at office space in Frankfurt, Dublin and Paris. Farmers are being offered compensatory payments, assured only for five years.

Severed supply chains mean intense pressures on future production, most obviously in the car and chemical industries. Sajid Javid’s announcement that Britain has every intention of diverging

from EU regulations and standards should come as no surprise. What would be the point of leaving the Customs Union were this not the case? Whatever our Little England Chancellor says, car

makers and other manufacturers must now plough their own furrow, and comply with European regulations if they wish to sell without losses into the European market. A trade deal with the US

is dangled as the great prize from Brexit. But trade experts, and common sense, indicate that any UK trade deal with the US, given the gross disparity of power between the negotiating

partners, will be predominantly in US interests. We may have to accept higher rates of food poisoning or drug prices, or other negative consequences, if any deal is to emerge in the short

time available before our proclaimed — idiotic — deadline. And do we really expect that other economically powerful countries, such as India and China, are going to agree terms with an

isolated Britain better than those we already enjoyed as a member of a 27-country trading bloc? Will Hutton, a notable and eloquent economist, described Brexit in the_ Observer_ as taking

Britain further into a “vortex of decline”. The decline is not only economic but also in our capacity to “punch above our weight” in international affairs. Torn between kowtowing to Trump

and sharing an effective, peaceful policy towards Iran with our European allies, we adopt a fanciful role — as mediator — a pattern set to persist during UK-US trade negotiations. Given the

enduring possibility of a second term for Trump, do we really want to tie our wagon to this meandering US administration? And we will have lost all influence over the future policy

directions of the EU. Meanwhile, back home Brexit will, and already has, opened up a Pandora’s box of destabilising rival nationalisms within our four nation state. If the SNP’s push for a

second referendum on independence is mishandled, it could result in Catalonian levels of disruption. Ulster Unionism and Irish nationalism retain considerable potential for renewed violence.

Years of uncertainty lie ahead with little sign of any future benefit. There are no winners so far, except for perhaps Vladimir Putin. But couldn’t it be argued that democracy is the

winner? Don’t “the people”, or at least the 52 per cent of them who voted Leave, finally win? If you believe that a divided and damaged country is worth the price of honouring a narrow

popular vote, partly influenced by systematic misinformation, thus weakening representative parliamentary democracy — then yes. There _are_ some notable beneficiaries from Britain leaving

the EU. A number of small to tiny blocs of elected parliamentarians, the ERG and the DUP, and also individuals: Farage, Rees-Mogg and Johnson drove the country to this point in the absence

of an effective opposition. These three also represent the emergent global phenomenon of the “entertainer” politician. While we are laughing, they are — in Bolshevik style — riding the

accidents of history. They are directing rising public anger and hatred of the Establishment — from which they magically manage to dissociate themselves — for their own personal advantage.

The ERG and DUP simply got lucky on the electoral arithmetic and were able to swing government in their direction and lever advantage with a handful of votes, at least for a while. This does

not correspond to any palatable idea of what a democratic culture looks like. A gain for democracy? I don’t think so. Are these entertainers the agents of transnational capital as Will

Hutton suggests? This would mean the only winner becomes transnational capital. Well maybe. But we should be suspicious of proposing abstract nouns as historical causes. It seems much more,

as Harold Macmillan probably didn’t say, a matter of “events, dear boy, events”. In other words accidents: Cameron, an arrogant Etonian believing he had the 2016 referendum in the bag,

coinciding with Corbyn, a hangover from the 1970s, who believed in a “Socialist States of Europe” rather than the EU. Then his Etonian nemesis, Johnson, at the 11th hour gambled correctly on

Leave winning, and it got him into No. 10. Alexander Hamilton’s question is pertinent: whether human societies can establish “good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are

forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.” Does anyone win from Brexit? Except for a few currency speculators, investors in the tax-avoiding,

data-hoarding IT companies and others, _nobody _wins. So there we are. We just have to get on with it and take the self-inflicted punishment.