15/03/2021
"When the British people narrowly voted to leave the EU in 2016, they did not give the government a mandate to wreck our economic and political relationship with Europe", says the
Observer in its editorial on Sunday, telling us that "the grim effects of Brexit" are "impossible to hide".
I suppose that, one of these days, the newspaper will get over the referendum. After all, it is nearly five years ago. One wonders, though, why it doesn't obsess over the Norwegian 1994 EU membership referendum. After all, the Norwegians only voted narrowly by a margin of 52-48 percent, a ratio some might recognise.
But opening on a cheap shot sets the scene, as does the assertion that leave voters "did not give the government a mandate to wreck our economic and political relationship with Europe". Mind you, it's probably true to say that leave voters didn't vote for nuclear Armageddon either, or for draining the oceans and filling them with solid waste.
The paper also has a highly selective memory when it adds some more assertions to its collection: "When Boris Johnson won the general election in 2019", it claims, "he was expected to forge workable new arrangements with the UK's largest trading partner, not allow exporters to be strangled by red tape and ruinous extra costs. Nor was he given a green light to break legally binding promises".
Here, one can never be sure precisely what was expected of Johnson, other than his vainglorious promise to "get Brexit done". But it should be said that, after Mrs May's Lancaster House speech in January 2017, there was very little prospect of "workable arrangements" being negotiated with the EU. The die was already cast, long before Johnson was voted leader of the Conservative Party.
And this is something that not only caught out the Observer but most other papers, the rest of the media, most politicians, virtually all of the trade associations and many businesses. Very few people fully understood what was coming but, had they paid more attention, they would have known. They should have known and, if they had, things might have been different.
Nevertheless, we would not disagree with the
Observer's assertion that, when Johnson and his right-wing Leave campaign pals claimed to have "got Brexit done" on 31 January last year, they failed to say the patchwork agreement they signed had more holes in it than a Cumbrian coal mine.
Nor would we disagree that Johnson failed to admit he had fudged crucial issues such as Northern Ireland's borders, and sold out Britainâs fisheries, in order to claim a bogus victory.
But then, since Johnson is a congenital liar, who was surprised? Elect a liar and you get lies â simples. Still, the paper believes that "truth will out". Day by bleak day, it says, "the epic damage caused by this execrable deception, this shameful Conservative con, becomes ever more evident. No amount of Michael Gove spin can hide the facts".
"No amount of distortion of official statistics can conceal the harm", it adds. "Feeble claims by David Frost, Brexit booster-in-chief, that Covid and EU hostility are to blame will not wash. It's clear where responsibility lies, the paper says. And 'lies' is the operative word".
But, if there is one thing the
Observer really isn't interested in, it is the truth, and nor has it show any inclination to apportion responsibility to where it belongs. It could start with Farage, it could take in the IEA and it could take a hard look at Dominic Cummings and Vote Leave, all of whom conspired to prevent an adequate (or any) exit plan being lodged as part of the referendum campaign.
But then, where was the media; where was the "remain campaign"; where was Cameron? Why didn't they point out the fatal lack of an exit plan? Why were they so quiet about the central failing of the "leave" campaign?
Now, of course, the paper wants to make a big deal about Johnson and his team. They cannot dissemble away alarming figures showing UK exports of goods to the EU plunged by 40.7 percent in January, the cause of which it claims is, in large part, Brexit bureaucracy, incompetence and delays.
From there, we don't need to go much further with the
Observer. It has its narrative, and it's sticking to it. But, in its own way, it is no more interested in the truth than is, say, the
Telegraph or the
Daily Express. And that makes it just another contributor to the noise.
That much is evident from the contribution of the UK's chief statistician, Ian Diamond, speaking on the
Andrew Marr Show, yesterday. As to the fall in trade with the EU, Diamond has a number of suggestions to explain what has been happening.
He points to the border disruption at the end of December and beginning of January, partly due to Covid and partly due to the end of the transition period. Secondly, there were a number of companies preparing for the end of the transition period which had stockpiled goods.
Diamond thus considers that there are a number of reasons why we should not take January as indicative of the long term. Furthermore, data on lorry flows from the end of January and beginning of February are starting to see a pickup.
Overall, he thinks that it is simply "too early to say" what is happening. Only over the next couple of months we will we see things start to work through to a long term place.
The
Observer, though, desperately wants us to think that Johnson "sold Britain a botched EU deal and no amount of spin or downright lies can conceal that it is falling apart". But, sadly, its sister paper is forced to concede that the outrage isn't working.
This, of course, is the
Guardian, which is reporting on an
Opinium poll which has Johnson's personal approval rating surpassing that of Keir Starmer for the first time since May last year.
Approval of the job Johnson is doing has increased by six percentage points to 45 percent over the past fortnight, while 38 percent disapprove â down three points. Starmer's ratings have held steady, with 34 percent approving, up one point, and 29 percent disapproving, also up one point.
The prime minister's net approval rating of seven is his best since last May and, at two points higher than Starmer's net rating of five. It is also the first time Johnson's ratings have been above the Labour leader's since then. He has also established a clear lead when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister, with 37 percent opting for him, against 25 percent for Starmer.
There is little doubt as to what is driving this recovery: the vaccine rollout. As many people now approve (41 percent) as disapprove (41 percent) of how the government is responding to the Covid crisis, the first time this has been true since last May.
Clearly, at the moment, there is no mileage in bitching about a referendum which is on its way to becoming history. Brexit is settled policy and even a poll for the
Independent has 54 percent wanting to stay out of the EU, compared with 46 percent wanting to rejoin. This is despite twice as many people saying that leaving the EU has been bad for trade as those who say it has been good.
With the Tories enjoying a six-point lead over Labour, with 43 percent of the vote compared with Labourâs 37 percent, Starmer would be on a hiding to nothing beating an anti-Brexit drum.
Where his party could possibly score is by picking up individual policy failures, such as Defra's inexplicable reluctance to take action against the Commission for refusing to supply a model EHC for unpurified live molluscs.
Equally, with UK businesses having to establish bases in EU member states in order to facilitate exports, Labour could be asking for specific relocation funding to keep trade flowing, on the basis that EU-based firms will also soon have to establish bases in the UK.
In other words, strategy needs to change. Accepting that Brexit is here to stay for the foreseeable future, opposition politicians and media need to be picking holes in the government's performance, rather than opposing (or defending) Brexit as a whole.
In particular, the eternal whinge-fest about the referendum has lost its traction. It is time to move on.
Also published on
Turbulent Times.
