Brexit and Trump

This past month I have been traveling in Europe, but still reading the media and reflecting on the American election and the British government’s dealing with an exit from the European Union.  My English friend, David Lott, a sincere British patriot, has devoted several decades to urging a break with the E.U. He shares with us his latest optimistic observations, two months on after the momentous British exit vote. As a leader in the United Kingdom Independent Party, his views are important for the historical record.

A contrary view to David’s appeared in the Washington Post yesterday.  In the interest of balance and reflection, I offer it for reading also.  My belief is that we are all better informed, dare I say wiser, if we listen closely to the arguments of others, ponder, not necessarily agreeing but seeking to find those common threads that improve the human condition. – Glenn N. Holliman

Some thoughts from the Last Month – 31 August 2016

by David Lott

In the United Kingdom

It is now 2 months since the spectacular success of the Leave campaign in the UK’s referendum and we can see the unravelling of the Remain campaign’s project fear strategy.

-        Some 27 countries have contacted the UK government to open free trade discussions.

-        The London stock market has had its best month since the 2008 economic crisis. 

-        Overseas investment in the UK as a whole has forged ahead with the exception of Scotland where investment has substantially dropped.

-        House prices are rising not falling.

-        There has been no emergency budget.

-        The August monthly budget deficit showed a £3 billion improvement compared to 2015.

-        Fears of a break up of the UK have faded to nothing.

On the other hand, confidence in sterling dropped and the pound with it in comparison to the US dollar and the Euro fell by some 15% to 20% but it is rising a little as I write. Considering the amount of debt in the UK it now more properly reflects its value.

Many argued that the victory was very tight and it would lead to the emergence of long delays Brexit bringing on, perhaps, a second referendum or some sort of Brexit lite. However, this view is abating as it appears the new Prime Minister realises not only the opportunities arising from the UK regaining its independence but also the nitty gritty of the figures that underlie the political importance of her sticking to a clear break with the EU.

Not least because when this small 4% margin in the result is examined on a Parliamentary constituency basis, it is clear that if the Leave campaign were a political party it would have won some 63% of all the parliamentary seats in the UK as a whole and with 421 seats in parliament would have had a truly massive majority using the system employed in normal general elections. In England and Wales it would have been a whopping 75% win!

Right now the odds upon Brexit not meaning Brexit are shortening day by day. The prospect of a free trade deal with the EU brighten as industrialists, one after another, in Europe realise the difficulties they would face economically if their governments and the EU decided to be spiteful and bloody minded.

All this is, of course, of enormous satisfaction to me after over 20 years of campaigning for this result.

In your country I have watched with great interest your extraordinary Presidential election. On the one hand an insider with massive media, financial and celebrity support. She had a substantial lead after the convention but now seeing it starting to erode as I write.

 On the other hand, we have Donald Trump who has made gaffe after gaffe but has still emerged from the Republican convention as their flag bearer. He had little media support, raised a tiny amount of money compared to his opponent but who has motivated huge numbers of previously non-voters to support him.

It is ironic the President Obama won his term upon the watchword change. But it in this election Trump is the biggest proponent of change in a presidential race for a long time. It is a bitter fight which many say is divisive. I do not see it that way but I think it is normal and healthy. Political agenda for Republicans and Democrats have merged and almost become one; just as left and right have done in the UK. Leaving the poor old voter with no choice at all!

In the UK we were told during the referendum that the respective campaigns would lead to appalling divisions in society and during the immediate aftermath it appeared that the losers were very sore indeed but as time goes on that poison is gradually dissipating and many Remainers are settling down to a future they had scorned but which actually may not turn out too bad at all. No one can say there had not been a democratic process.

In the USA

My friend Nigel Farage was invited out to the States to a dinner in the State of Mississippi, to discuss how we had gone about the vote to leave the EU only to find himself having a serious conversation with Donald Trump. He was asked to speak at the next day’s rally in a very minor warm up role only to find at the last minute that he was to be introduced to the audience by Trump himself.

He gave a barnstorming performance and was not at all kind to Hilary. Whilst he stopped short of endorsing Trump at the rally he did outline some extraordinary similarities between the Trump campaign and the of the Leave campaign in the UK. The crowd loved him.

From and outsider’s standpoint I believe Hilary Clinton to be in trouble for two reasons. The first is her past which although she tries, she simply cannot change and it will dog her throughout the remaining days to the election.

All Trump has to do is to avoid any more gaffes! Impossible you may say but not so impossible as changing the past. There are signs coming through that he is sticking much more to the script and instead of reacting Hilary Clinton says, he is going on the front foot and putting her on the defensive. Also he has Mr Steve Bannon taking over a very leading role in his campaign. Behind the scenes he was most helpful to us here in the UK with our referendum battle and the man is not to be underestimated. If Mr Trump follows his advice he will win. – David Lott, a founder of the United Kingdom Independent Party

 

A Contrary View from the Washington Post, 2 September 2016, by Sebastian Mallaby

Donald Trump’s ungainly back-and-forth on immigration has a parallel in Britain, which is struggling to make sense of its own impetuous resolution to take control of its borders. Indeed, if Britain after the Brexit referendum is anything to go by, a Trump presidency would be dominated by zigzagging: sometimes to dilute past promises, sometimes to double down. In the terrifying event that Trump actually became president, you’d hear supporters grumbling bitterly about treachery — even as critics wondered furiously why impractical campaign pronouncements were so seductive for so long.

More than two months after their vote to leave the European Union, the British are no closer to understanding what they have done. Theresa May, the sensible prime minister, assures the public firmly that “Brexit means Brexit,” much as parents tell their children that bedtime means bedtime. But May stoutly refuses to specify what she means by this. On Wednesday she summoned her cabinet for a special off-site meeting, and her spokeswoman declared afterward that Britain wanted the right to curb migration from Europe — but also a “positive outcome” on trade. What if these goals are incompatible? The prime minister does not say.

May’s problem is that the Brexit referendum, like the Trump phenomenon, was largely an expression of hostility to immigrants. A survey of more than 12,000 voters on the day of the referendum found that the most common reason to support Brexit was an urge to assert sovereignty; second came the desire to control national borders. Although May herself was a quiet Brexit opponent, she understands the public’s view on immigration. And that makes it almost impossible to envisage a “positive outcome” for trade.

In the European Union, the principle of free movement is nearly as sacrosanct as the Commerce Clause in the United States. This is not necessary or logical: For members of the euro zone, there is an argument that a common currency requires a single labor market; but for E.U. countries outside the euro, you could imagine a union with borders and passports. Yet Norway, which is not in the E.U. but is a member of the E.U. single market, is required to accept unlimited numbers of E.U. migrants as a condition of its trade access. Switzerland, another E.U. outsider that enjoys many of the advantages of single-market membership, wants to control its border but faces similar constraints.

Since the Norwegian and Swiss trade models are incompatible with the Brexit mandate on migration, British politicians have become instant experts on Canada’s free-trade deal with the E.U. But this has its own problems. Aside from the fact that its ratification is uncertain, Canada’s deal mostly excludes services, which account for a hefty four-fifths of British GDP. A copy-Canada deal would not help Britain’s chief exports: financial services, legal advice, architecture and so on.

Faced with no attractive way forward, May is shuffling sideways. She has cannily appointed three leading Brexiteers to cabinet positions dealing with Europe and invited them to propose a solution to their mess. 

The Brexiteers dislike each other and are generally clueless, so progress has been glacial — the more so because the British civil service has yet to recruit the trade experts and lawyers necessary to make Brexit happen. If the 3.5 million other Europeans in Britain all suddenly applied for permanent residence, it would take the existing immigration staff 140 years to deal with the onslaught.

Before the Brexit referendum, Britain’s Trump-like fantasists assured voters that it would be easy to negotiate a great trade deal with Europe. Now that reality is dawning, there is delicious speculation that Britain might postpone Brexit — perhaps indefinitely. Before formal negotiations begin, Britain must trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, and May has always said that this won’t happen before January.

But the combination of confusion in London and elections next year in France and Germany makes further can-kicking quite plausible. Much as Turkey has been negotiating E.U. accession for years without joining, Britain could proclaim that Brexit means Brexit but not actually leave.

Of course, the prime minister denies this. “There’s no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the E.U. by the back door,” she reiterated Wednesday. But the embarrassing fact is that more than three-quarters of her cabinet opposed Brexit, and for excellent reasons. More than 40 percent of Britain’s exports go to the E.U. The country benefits from collaboration with its neighbors on everything from scientific research to counter-terrorism.

However, things turn out for Britain, the lesson for Americans is stark: Refuse to be seduced by campaign pledges that could not possibly be implemented without damaging the nation. Whatever the glib talk of post-truth politics, the truth still matters when it comes to governing. – Sebastian Mallaby, columnist

Comments always welcome - GNH