Well, yes, Sir Simon, so let's have less of it

Simon Jenkins tells us that the entirety of British government is incompetent:

No government in Europe has had an easy ride over the past nine months, but none has had a worse one than Britain’s. Indecision on lockdown was followed by chaotic PPE supplies, the “world-beating” test-and-trace shambles, school exam confusion and now the multi-form bureaucratic deterrent to potential vaccinators.

We tend to think that’s a little unfair because the important question is always Thomas Sowell’s “Compared to what?”

Those PPE supplies may well have been make do and muddle through but that system worked rather better than the EU’s centrally coordinated efforts. As was true of the earlier dash for ventilators. The UK approved vaccines earlier and, bar Israel, seems to be getting more doses into arms more quickly than anywhere else. It’s difficult to point to anywhere that created an effective test and trace system once the coronavirus had become endemic.

But leave all that aside and consider the central point being made:

Coronavirus has revealed a country so ill-governed that current politicians cannot be blamed for all of it.

....

Come the inevitable inquiry into the events of the past year, it is not only politicians who should carry the can. All the components of Britain’s government, central and local, should be tested – the constitution as a whole should be under examination.

OK, British governance is terrible. So, let’s have less of it then. Free the people from this terrible ball and chain of incompetence, leave the money to pay for it fructifying in the pockets of the populace and watch as we become more efficient, more effective, freer and richer. We even have a little stock of plans and pointers, decades worth of them, about how exactly to do this.

We must dig up Cornwall to meet local content rules

Further evidence of the European Union - in common with all too many politicians - not understanding the point of trade.

UK carmakers face a three-year scramble to source electric car batteries locally or from the EU to avoid tariffs on exports following the Brexit free trade deal, according to industry analysts.

The Christmas Eve deal means that all UK-EU trade in cars and parts will continue to be free of tariffs or quotas after the the Brexit transition period ended on Friday, as long as they contain enough content from either UK or EU factories. The deal came as a major relief to the embattled car industry.

Batteries will at first be allowed to contain up to 70% of materials from countries outside the EU or the UK. However, from 1 January 2024 that requirement will tighten to 50%. This will mean that sourcing battery materials from within the UK or EU will be the only realistic option for UK carmakers to avoid EU tariffs from 2024 onwards, according to Alessandro Marongiu, a trade analyst at the lobby group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

The major material need for these batteries is lithium, with a substantial addition by value of cobalt. There are no mining operations in the UK for either material. Cornwall has some possibilities for lithium but that’s something to be worked upon. There’s no substantial (a very marginal operation exists in Portugal) lithium source in Europe at all. Although, obviously, more mountains can be blown up to provide one.

Global supply comes from either Australia, areas too desolate even for wombats let alone kangaroos, or salt flats in Chile and Argentina, places too desolate for any form of life. A further substantial amount is known, at high altitude, in Bolivia in again a salt flat carrying near no life of any kind.

But because people have the wrong view of trade the imperative is going to be to mine Cornwall and such other marginal European deposits while ignoring - actually, positively insisting they not be used - the cornucopian deposits elsewhere in the world.The ignorance being of the very point of trade itself, the gain being that we have access to those things done better and or cheaper by Johnny Foreigner.

As it happens the engineer The Man got in to place mineral deposits around the place didn’t place them here. So, we should go get the stuff from elsewhere. This being exactly what these local content laws insist we do not do.

That is, in order to have tariff free trade we’ve got to ignore the point of having trade at all. Only politics could make such a clusterscrum out of a simple concept.

If we want lithium batteries then we should get that lithium from wherever it is easiest or cheapest to do so. Why burden ourselves with a law insisting upon exactly the opposite?

Say Goodbye to British Fish

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement may be a good deal for the UK overall but it is a rotten one for the British fishing industry. We were led to believe that regaining sovereignty over our waters would mean that the long decline in British fishing would be reversed.  The rot set in when the UK subscribed to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 1973. The new Agreement only gives the UK a marginal increase in fishing rights by value. See Table for the shares of key fish stocks according to the new Agreement and what the shares should have been according to the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations [1] : 

UK shares of agreed total allowable catches

The government, however, claims that there will be a 25% increase “from just over half of the quota stocks in our own waters now, to two thirds of the stocks in our waters after five and a half years.”

The EU version of that is less specific: “Under the Agreement, EU fishing vessels will continue to have the current level of access to UK waters for a transition period of 5.5 years, with a gradual and balanced reduction of EU quotas in UK waters over time.”  Neither version can be confirmed from the text of the Agreement as the annexes simply show the shares of the combined UK and EU total annual catches (TACs) and not the separate shares in UK and EU waters nor the tonnes nor the values nor any totals.  The word “balanced” may well mean that the reduction of EU fishing in UK waters will be offset by a reduction of UK fishing in EU waters. 

The EU has insisted on “grandfathering” existing practices into future rights, e.g. EU boats will continue to fish in inshore UK waters between six and 12 miles out (p.271).  This is akin to saying the squatters have a legal right to own the premises in which they squat. What about our sovereign rights over our own waters?  Forget those too: the CFP is replaced by a Fisheries Specialist Committee, co-chaired by a UK minister and an EU Commission equivalent who have to agree everything.  For example, “If the Parties have not agreed a TAC [in UK or EU waters] for a stock listed in Annex FISH.1 or Annex FISH.2A or B by 10 December, they shall immediately resume consultations with the continued aim of agreeing the TAC. The Parties shall engage frequently with a view to exploring all possible options for reaching agreement in the shortest possible time.” (p.269). If either side’s claim is not agreed by the other, it will be entitled to the average of the previous three years [claimed] catches. (p.271) 

Half a loaf is better than no bread and, as fish do not respect national borders, it does make sense to manage fish stocks jointly, based on ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) science. Decisions should be made by a qualified majority based on the relative sizes of fishing areas.   

The UK may have the weaker position on the Fisheries Specialist Committee. UK secretaries of state serve an average two year term and junior ministers half that. The current UK Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis, took the role in February 2020 with no relevant experience.  UK ministers will be concerned with fair play and their co-chairs will be professionals trying to please their member state ambitions for maximising their catches.  The last 47 years have demonstrated which side wins.  The UK joined the EEC in 1973 landing almost all the fish from its own waters: it now has half that.  Stripping out the foreign owned, UK flagged vessels, the true UK share is much less: “Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests.” As a result of this decline, the UK, which should be a net exporter, imports about a third more fish than it exports.

Greenpeace has provided a good account of the reasons for the decline of UK fisheries.  Three factors were responsible: the CFP and the allocation of quotas based on claimed catches, short-termism by parts of the fishing industry and lack of stewardship by the UK government. “From the 1980s onwards...the free movement of capital enabled EU shipowners to purchase vessels and to use national quotas in other EU countries. British fishermen have called this phenomenon ‘quota hopping’.” If a UK citizen wishes to sell overseas an obscure work of art that hardly anyone has ever seen, massive scrutiny is involved whereas UK fishing rights have been just waved away.  

The Scottish government issued a scathing analysis of the fisheries deal on 29th December, showing that the UK share of most types of fish would actually reduce although the total tonnage would probably remain much the same.  However, the new Agreement loses the UK’s right to the “Hague Preference” which usefully allows the UK to up its share of quotas under certain circumstances. “In the stocks where there has been a nominal increase in UK quota share, in the majority of cases the UK has only secured access to stocks where the EU was not currently fishing its full allocation.” And the UK has been granted new rights to fish, e.g. North Sea sole, which would be good if the UK had the facility to catch that species in that area. 

The Agreement ignores the fishing in UK and EU waters by third parties. “9.3% of EU catches (2014-18) are made in the EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone] of third countries engaged with the EU in fishing agreements” notably those of Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The extent to which these match reciprocal fishing in UK and EU waters is unclear. In 1976, the UK lost the “Cod War” with Iceland essentially because the Americans told the British government to concede because Iceland was threatening the American, sorry NATO, base in Iceland and submarines lanes nearby. That established the 200 mile EEZ principle which became the international convention in 1982. The Agreement is unclear about the current extent of third party fishing in UK and EU waters, reciprocally in theirs and from whose shares third party entitlements should be taken.  All the UK and EU shares in the Annexes in the Agreement total to 100% of TACs. 

The final problem with the new Agreement is that, although the UK is allowed to set the rules for fishing in its waters, it cannot police or enforce those rules: “2. Each Party shall take all necessary measures to ensure compliance by its vessels with the rules applicable to those vessels in the other Party’s waters, including authorisation or licence conditions.” (p.268)  Here is another good idea: the British police will no longer deal with French motorists speeding on British roads. Instead, the French police will divine the culprits and decide whether to prosecute.  

In summary, the fishing deal enshrines the status quo and the decline in the UK fishing industry looks set to continue. It is sad to say but the UK negotiators were inept.  The EU position was declared in 2017, namely that they would maintain the status quo. The fishing assets acquired by the other member states during the UK’s 47 year EU sojourn were now theirs by right.  If the UK had any objections to the means by which those assets had been obtained, they should have complained at the time.  What is, is, and if the Brits want them back, they will have to pay full whack for them. Article 9 (p.272) of the Agreement seems to indicate that the party being squeezed out can claim full compensation even though its own actions were the cause.  The arbitrators, under this Article, are only allowed to consider the amount of compensation, not the equity of the whole situation. 

This negotiating failure compromises Downing Street’s defence of the union: Scotland lands 60% of the UK fish catch, by value and volume, and 72% of quota species.

Knowing the EU negotiating argument as they did, the UK team should have created maximum publicity across Europe for the equity of returning the UK to the pre-EEC position. Being discreet civil servants, they kept their cards, if they had any, close to their chests.  This is akin to the defence counsel confiding his case to the prosecution but failing to mention it to the jury.  The “sovereignty” argument was rightly mocked in the EU as any trade agreement involves some sharing of sovereignty. An indication that the government recognises its failure can be taken from the 4th January announcement that the fishing industry will get a £100M sweetener.  

The best that can be said for this fishing Agreement is that it kicks the can 5.5 years down the road.  The UK government may then do better. 

[1] Email from Barrie Deas, CEO of NFFO, 3rd January 2021. 

It isn't us having access to their market, it's their having access to our services

If we start out by thinking that trade is all about what we can export we’re going to get into such terrible trouble. A logical fallacy as a base assumption is going to lead to gross error after all.

The point of trade is to gain access to those things that Johnny Foreigner does better, cheaper, faster, shinier, than we are able to do ourselves. This is also true when we consider Johnny Foreigners’ access to those things that we do better, cheaper, faster, shinier. Only if we get this the right way around are we going to be able to make sense of the subject:

Services account for around 80% of the UK’s economic activity and about 50% of its exports by value to the EU. While Britain runs a large deficit on the export of goods to the EU, there is always a modest surplus in services – much of it accounted for by the success of London’s City financiers – to close the gap.

There may be little sympathy for bankers and insurers complaining about being left to fend for themselves. But the sheer scale of the foreign earnings that the sector brings back to the UK, which also closes the yawning balance of payments deficit Britain runs with the rest of the world, is crucial, at least in the short term.

No, that’s all the wrong way around. From our point of view if those services exports decline then the pound does too and the balance of payments will balance, as it by definition always does. Deficits on the current account - not the balance of payments, as they suggest, when they mean balance of trade - are always balanced by a surplus on the capital account after all. This being inherent in our very use of the word “balance”.

It is this though which is to be entirely wrong:

The chancellor said he hoped a planned memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the issue would reassure the EU and persuade Brussels to give the City of London the access it craves.

No, it is European businesses - consumers, economies if you prefer - which crave access to the services of the City. This is, after all, where most large scale financing is done and economies like to have a better, cheaper, faster, shiner, source of financing.

The argument is about whether they gain access to us. Not about whether we do to them.

The glories of adding just another little bit or two to the bureaucratic requirements

The Telegraph has been noting that many trained - and perhaps retired - clinical staff are having problems with being able to sign up to aid in rolling out the vaccines:

Retired doctors and nurses desperate to help with the UK's mass vaccination drive have been kept out by bureaucracy and seen their offers of assistance ignored.

Earlier this week, The Telegraph revealed that, of the 40,000 doctors and nurses who applied to return to the service in March, 30,000 were eligible but only 5,000 had been given jobs by July.

Following the approval of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine earlier this week, the Royal College of GPs warned that the "jabbing workforce" would require a significant boost in order to deliver doses to vulnerable groups as quickly as possible.

But retired medics have told The Telegraph their offers of help have either gone unanswered or the lengthy bureaucratic and "insulting" application process has prevented them from returning.

We thought it might be fun - a perverse sense of what is fun is required for being a think tanker - to find out how true this all is. So, we went off to find out.

Join the NHS vaccine team, then being a retired clinician, looking for a paid job (£11 or £12 an hour) as a vaccinator. Among the requirements is this:

NHS statutory and mandatory training

The portal that tells us what that is is here.

Level 1

Conflict Resolution – Level 1 (updated)

Data Security Awareness – Level 1 (updated)

Equality and Diversity and Human Rights – Level 1 (updated)

Fire Safety – Level 1 (due for review 2021)

Health, Safety and Welfare – Level 1 (due for review 2021)

Infection Prevention and Control – Level 1 (updated)

Moving and Handling – Level 1 (updated)

Preventing Radicalisation – Basic Prevent Awareness (updated)

Resuscitation – Level 1 (updated)

Safeguarding Children – Level 1 (updated)

Safeguarding Adults – Level 1

That’s right. In order to jab people with a vaccine in the middle of a pandemic you need to have training in human rights, diversity, equality and radicalisation prevention. Oh, and you have to have the document to prove that you have this training or no helping out in the middle of a pandemic for you.

We can’t help but think that perhaps some parts of this statutory and mandatory training might be put aside for the moment. You know, emergency, pandemic, all that? That not being, though, how bureaucracy works.

At the larger level this is the problem with the continual accretion of rules about who may do what, where and when. It might be - possibly, you understand - a good thing that all companies sign a modern slavery statement. Or, as in the US, listed companies a blood minerals one. Or here, all medics have training to aid in noting that teenagers turning up in a full body burqa might not be an entirely and solely cultural issue. But as we continue to add such requirements, each possibly justified, or sensible, or even just nice to have, then the entire system becomes incapable of actually doing anything, or of varying from the normal, run of the mill, course of events.

This being a problem because that reality outside the window doesn’t stay still. Thus one of the necessary requirements for our institutional arrangements is flexibility. Exactly the thing that the requirement for 21 different forms to jab arms doesn’t allow.

Drowning in a welter of forms, trainings and licensures just isn’t the way to run a country. Perhaps we should change our system then?

You may even be right but you can't, possibly, be allowed to say that

A claim from the United States:

America’s current disinformation crisis is the culmination of more than two decades of pollution of the country’s information ecosystem, Wardle said. The spread of disinformation on social media is one part of that story, but so is the rise of alternative rightwing media outlets, the lack of investment in public media, the demise of local news outlets, and the replacement of shuttered local newspapers with hyper-partisan online outlets.

“Disinformation” here is used in the sense of people saying things not approved of by fashionable orthodoxy. The solution, from the US, seems to be:

This “serious fragmentation” of the American media ecosystem presents a stark contrast with, say, the UK, where during some weeks of the pandemic, 94% of the UK adult population, including 86% of younger people, tuned into the BBC, a taxpayer-funded broadcaster, according to official statistics.

This would only work if that taxpayer-funded broadcaster limited expressed views to those that are fashionably approved of. We have Owen Jones for that:

But there is nothing so cruel as false hope, and during a pandemic in which people’s lives depend on adherence to social distancing measures, it can be dangerous. Sikora is not a virologist or an epidemiologist: he is a cancer specialist. That should not preclude him from commenting on coronavirus: newspapers and TV programmes abound with non-specialists discussing the government’s response to the crisis, which is as it should be in a democracy. What matters is that he dissents from the medical consensus on how the virus should be defeated.

We would say that dissent from the fashionable mantras is actually the point of that free speech. In fact, of democracy, the aim being that the people decide rather than the fashionable. This is not what Jones means, not at all:

Whether the aim is balance or sensationalism – or perhaps the latter hidden under the guise of the former – the producers and editors who provide Sikora with a platform should pause to reflect on the consequences of their decisions.

Doesn’t that just sound so Soviet? Of course all are free to speak, write and publish. But you should reflect on the consequences of your decisions as you do so for The Party is watching.

Even if we sidestep those historical overtones the claim itself is ludicrous anyway. In the utilitarian, rather than liberty, sense this free speech and information flow thing only works if all views are included. This is the lesson of the wisdom of the crowds, or further back of Galton’s Ox. It is only when all views are expressed then weighed in the balance that reality is approached. Curtailment, whether of just the extremes or more worryingly of one side or another leads only to groupthink.

And let’s be honest about it the perpetuation of groupthink is propaganda, not anything else.

It also seems to be remarkably short sighted of progressives in both the US and the UK to insist upon such Right- and Wrong-Think designations. After all, they see themselves as speaking truth to power, of educating all into overthrowing that comfortable orthodoxy. But if the orthodoxy is all that can be publicly said then how are they going to do that?

The gross exploitation of paying two pence per hour less than the minimum wage

Apparently there are grossly exploitative employers with the temerity to pay people less than the legal minimum wage:

Tesco was Britain’s worst minimum wage offender as the business department identified a raft companies that failed to pay staff in full.

The supermarket chain was among 139 firms, including Pizza Hut, Costco and Wigan Warriors, the rugby league club, named and shamed by the Government.

The companies were investigated between 2016 and 2018 and they failed to pay £6.7m to more than 95,000 employees at the time.

If we take 95,000 employees each working a 1,750 hour year (not quite right but we’ve got to make some assumption) that £6.7 million comes out to underpayment of two pence per hour.

We take it that this is indeed evidence of the gross exploitation of the workers by capitalism? Worthy of a press release and the full power of HMRC to deal with?

Or perhaps we don’t. This is not an actual exemplar, just an example of the sort of thing being argued about here. If the boss says that you must wash your hands before starting work then that time spent washing hands is a requirement of the job - and should therefore that time should be paid for. Again, that’s not an exact description but that is the sort of thing that is being complained about here.

Over those two years total incomes in the UK were some £4 trillion - that’s easy as total incomes are, by definition, the same as the annual GDP of about £2 trillion. That is, 0.00017% underpayment when taken over all incomes. We think that can usefully be described as a rounding error.

Of course, neither Tesco nor any other of those named were in fact the worst at underpaying the minimum wage. They were, at worst, the cases caught. And it’s worth noting that they’re all entirely legitimate businesses operating in the full sight of the law. The people we think who might be really violating pay rates are odd backstreet factories in Leicester, farm workers perched in caravans far from anywhere. There’s not much trumpeting about successes on those fronts. Presumably because there wasn’t much success to trump about.

Isn’t that a surprise? A vast state bureaucracy concentrates upon the trivial offences of the largely law abiding and ignores the scofflaws. Really, who would have thought such a thing could happen?

With that thought about the success of an overweening state we wish you the very best for the New Year.

So, we've left, now what?

It’s morning in the United Kingdom. Strangely, World War III has not broken out. Japanese carmakers are still investing here. House prices have not plummeted; indeed, in recent months they have surged. No punishment budgets are planned. The pound has held up, the stock market has had a bit of a surge. The banks have not left. Freight still seems to be crossing into Calais, and medicines back to Dover. 

It’s also morning in Europe. And as Boris keeps saying, we are still European. We account for 12% of Europe’s 513m population and 93,000 square miles of its land area. Not to mention 9.6m square miles of fishing grounds.

We are the largest military power in Europe by a long, long way, and the only nuclear power other than France. We account for around a quarter of European defence spending. We have a seat on the UN Security Council. We are Europe’s closest ally to the world’s largest military (and economic power), the one that bankrolls NATO, the United States. 

Britain is one of the handful of leading financial centres in the world. It is by far Europe’s most prominent one. It accounts for a third of Europe’s capital market and is essential to the operations of (probably most) European firms. It is the leader in financial technology investment, attracting more than the entire EU. It can now resist moves to transaction taxes, clearing house rules, bans on short selling and micro-management that EU chiefs were about to impose. It remains, as before, outside the eurozone and now, there is no question of it paying into the eurozone rescue fund that will be needed to avert a eurozone crisis, perhaps soon.

We are one of the world’s largest manufacturing nations. Our share of trade with the EU has fallen from 60% to 40% since 1999, leaving us with a trade deficit against them. But out trade with the rest of the world has risen, and that is where 90% of global growth now happens — not in the EU. We have signed around 60 free trade agreements with other countries in no time flat. We have historic and friendly relations with many of the world’s leading nations, and with scores of developing countries in the Commonwealth. We will henceforth be able to buy goods at world prices rather than imposing EU tariffs that in some cases (such as certain agricultural products such as cocoa and chocolate) can reach nearly 30%. 

We will also enjoy free trade with the European Union. And yet, the 95% of UK firms who do not export to the EU will not have to abide by EU regulations. It remains to be seen how far the UK will ease regulations on them, but there is no logical case while anything other than our exports to the EU should be bound by EU standards. And the EU constitutional court, the European Court of Justice, which has imposed billions of pounds worth of restrictions on our economy, will have no jurisdiction here.

Soon, the sun will be dawning over the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, and then, across the pacific, over New Zealand, Australia, and the rest of the world. We can trade and collaborate with all these nations, free of the protectionist armour we have been forced to wear for the past decades. We might even be able to organise the right to live and work throughout the CANZUK nations. If we like, we can go even further. We can recruit experts from anywhere in the world, without being obliged to accept people from EU countries whether they are needed here or not.

As Joel Rodriques recently pointed out, of the ten best universities in Europe, eight are in Britain. Culturally, we have the English language, the most widely spoken language in Europe and one of the most widely spoken in the world — the language of business, commerce, trade, aviation, shipping and much else. Paris and Vienna may have Opera Houses for the rich too, but it is to London’s West End (Covid permitting) that world tourists come to see theatre. In Edinburgh we have one of the world’s biggest arts festivals. Our Premier League is the leading soccer league in the world. Our English citizens play a game that could be mistaken for cricket, but which at least makes us part of a diverse association of countries in which we are respected for our values, if not our fielding. And they are used to our warm, flat beer.

We could brag about this. Talk about how great we are. The world’s best at so many things. Well able to stand up for ourselves, and indeed inspire the world in the direction of free trade, free markets, the rule of law, human rights, and indeed common decency. We could brag about how great we know that our future is going to be now we can choose our own path. We could talk ourselves up, and we would be well justified to do so. We could do all that. But it wouldn’t be very British, would it?

Still, we will manage.

That's it, we're out

“That’s it, we’re out!” said David Dimbleby in the early hours of Referendum night as the mathematics became inevitable. He was premature: it has taken four years to fend off the petulant determination of the deniers to overturn the result.

Now, I hate referendums. Changing the constitution — the rules by which we can be inspected, regulated, taxed, licensed, repressed, judged, censured and punished by our politicians — you should have near-unanimous agreement. And not just a small majority, as the losers keep bleating. Mind you, they didn’t bleat when giving Scotland an entire new government on the basis of a 51.6% to 48.4% vote — not so far off the Brexit majority that Nicola Sturgeon was so anxious to overturn. Wales was even slimmer, 50.3% to 49.7%. But we didn’t have four years of hissy fits trying to overturn those results. 

Nor should we have had it over the Brexit referendum, which was far more justifiable than the devolution polls. We were taken in (!) on the mere say-so of the politicians. Only later did we have a (simple majority) referendum to remain (I voted Yes, BTW). So, it’s reasonable that we should now leave on the basis of a simple majority too.

But the entire establishment, plus wealthy or state-funded, self-styled ‘world citizens’, plotted to overthrow the decision made by the majority (despite billions of EU and UK government money, plus warnings of World War III thrown at them). It was ‘only advisory’, just a ‘protest’; voters were ‘lied to’, ‘didn’t understand’. We needed a second referendum — no, think grander, advised PR guru Roland Rudd from his Georgian mansion in Somerset (or maybe his swank Holland Park townhouse), we need a People’s Referendum. Which is what we all thought we’d just had.

Then it was Gina Miller (either from her £7m home in London or her one in France, I’m not sure) spending her husband’s £40m fortune on London’s snootiest law firm to stop the government moving Article 50 without the say-so of an overwhelmingly Remainer parliament in which it had a wafer-thin majority. It was “a matter of democracy,” she declared. Pure, cynical, monied opportunism, more like. And so it went on for years, more petulance, more scares, more litigation, more machinations designed to — well, overturn democracy. It looked like the 2019 general election (oh, no, not another one!) had settled the issue, but even then, scheming merely re-focused to ensuring that the ‘deal’ pretty much maintained the status quo. There’s even dismay that the final deal exceeded expectations — because now we’re out for good.

It wasn’t leaving the EU that divided the nation, it was being in it. And now at least we can all focus on doing what is in the interests of people in the UK, and indeed the rest of the world. We can at last renew our role as the global leader in free trade, extolling the merits of free trade and the folly of protectionism. Unlike the EU, we know that trade barriers hurt our own consumers. We’ve already signed umpteen trade deals, with more to come. It’s a big world out there. We can provide markets for the produce of the poorest countries instead of walling them off with 30% tariffs. And by showing what can be achieved, we will probably have more influence on the EU than we ever could as one of 28 horse-trading countries.

More broadly, we can be the global leader promoting the rule of law internationally too. We have a pretty good record on freedom, democracy and justice that we can recommend to the world. To replace opportunism with law — on trade, treaties, arms, finance, and dispute resolution. To re-engage with the Commonwealth to consolidate liberal values and spread them more widely. To work for peace and counter threats such as cyber warfare with all our allies — instead of being split from them by submerging into the inevitable EU army. To promote international understanding through education — we have some of the best universities in the world, remember.

At home, we can grow our SMEs into world-beaters, giving them the oxygen of low corporate taxes and sympathetic, growth-aware regulation. No longer do we need to subject businesses to EU regulation, even if they export nothing to EU countries. And our financial markets can avoid the slide into transactions taxes, bans on short selling and the micro-regulation that has driven financial services to Singapore and elsewhere. Forbes Magazine already ranks us as the world’s best country for doing business, and we can build on that with business-friendly policy and opening international markets.

Perhaps the most significant benefit is one that is never noticed. We will get our legal system back. Instead of being bound into a prescriptive system, we can reassert our permissive one. Instead of having to wait for legislative permission to do things, we can get on with invention, innovation and entrepreneurship and sort out any problems in the courts when they arise. The Continental legal system imposes a detailed micro-managing rule book on individuals and businesses. Our system relies on the test of what is reasonable, not what some official decides should and should not happen.

We are not leaving Europe: Scandinavia and Continental Europe are and remain our friends, allies and partners. But our eyes, hearts and tradition range more widely. In fact, rather than being reluctant participants in a local, centralising political and economic vision that we do not share, our departure will actually make us better friends, allies and partners in the future.

Sure there are bureaucratic barriers into the EU now

The latest complaint about Brexit and the European Union appears to be about musicians and the like being able to tour Europe. We do indeed sympathise:

Actors, musicians and comedians have reacted with alarm to provisions in the Brexit trade deal that will prevent British performers moving around many European countries without a work permit.

Leaders of the culture sector fear the clauses will severely curtail the ability of performers to go on tour in Europe, and will hamper the recovery of the arts after the devastating impact of the pandemic.

The clauses in the deal will affect tens of thousands of people in the UK’s creative industries, including film-makers, technicians and models as well as performers.

We’re entirely in favour of people being able to move to work, to tour.

However, we’d still like to point out something we regard as pretty important. So, there are difficult bureaucratic rules that must be followed now that the UK is fully out of the EU.

Musicians and other performers requiring equipment face the added burden of having to fill out a carnet, a passport for goods that involves paying a deposit on the gear involved.

….

He also pointed out that from January musicians face the added risk of having their instruments confiscated if they contain rare wood or ivory and don’t have the correct paper.

Our point being that all of these rules have, all along, applied to those from outside the EU who wish to tour inside it.

That is, the EU is not some delight of a free trade area, or not only. It’s an area with very high barriers to the people outside it however lax the impositions inside it. It is, in fact, a zollverein, not a free trade area. We are now able to see the frustrations and barriers that the 160-ish countries out there not members of the EU have in trying to offer us their fine goods and services. That is, every complaint about how difficult it is now to export from the UK into the remnant-EU is a reminder of what we’ve been missing all these years from all those places outside it.

The more people complain about the new situation the stronger the argument for actual free trade is. Every mutter about how difficult it is to export British beef, or banking services, or musicians, should remind us of how difficult it has been for us to import Argentinian beef, or Antiguan banking, or American musicians. Perhaps we don’t actually want all of those but the edifice of bureaucracy which denies them to us is being brought home, no?

Certainly, we’d have rather more respect for them if those now complaining had also been complaining before.