Democracy and Brexit

by Sean Rickard

The UK election raised a concern over the health of our democracy.   Under our First Past the Post system Labour secured a stonking majority with 411 seats to the Conservatives 121, yet the gap between the share of the popular vote and share of parliamentary seats is the largest on record.   Labour secured 63 per cent of the 650 Parliamentary seats but less than 34 per cent of the popular vote.   The Green Party, the Scottish National Party and Reform between them received more than 23 per cent of the votes cast, yet they shared just 2.7 per cent of seats.   Thus, Parliament does not reflect the way people voted.   One downside to this democratic conundrum is a lack of candour.   Leading parties resort to mantras rather than debate and fringe parties e.g., Reform, can safely make incredible, impractical policy claims, knowing they will never be put to the test.   A more representative system would, I believe, bring more honesty and transparency to electioneering.

Parliamentary elections that seek to avoid discussion of the issues impacting voters adversely brings us to Brexit.   Without doubt the Brexit debacle was not only the biggest and most divisive political upheaval in the post-war period but also, by common consent it has been a costly failure for the UK’s reputation and its economy.   Far from being ‘done’ the costs mount by the day and a clear majority who voted to leave the EU now believe they were misled.   Yet both major Parties were determined that Brexit – largely supported by supine media – would not be discussed.   In its 24,000-word manifesto, Labour only briefly mentioned Brexit once.   The Tory party that brought us Brexit, lacking evidence of any benefits, did its best to remain silent on the issue and even Farage’s Reform, née Brexit, party, said little other than to repeat the scurrilous claim that Brexit ‘hadn’t been done right’ – the harder Brexit Farage wanted would have done even greater damage.  

The election result was in large part the electorate’s reaction to the cumulative impact of the Tory policies of austerity and Brexit – both combined to reduce real living standards over the last 14 years.   Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, know that raising living standards means restoring economic growth to something like its pre-2008 rate.   But both have said rejoining the single market and customs union are red lines they will not cross.   Even with a change to the fiscal rules to support increased public investment, they have surely been advised that outside the single market their growth aspiration is a fiction.   Starmer says he wants closer relations with the EU and he is investing time and effort into forging a good rapport with the EU while seeking what he calls a ‘structured dialogue’ involving regular summits and even invitations for British ministers to join EU council meetings as observers.   The world has suffered an escalation in geopolitical risks since 2016 and this will undoubtedly aid Starmer in negotiating a ‘security pact’ with the EU, which his Foreign Secretary vaguely opined could be extended to cover ‘economic security and climate security’.  

But gaining more access to the benefits of the single market is quite another matter.   As second-tier Frost and an indifferent Johnson discovered when negotiating their inglorious Brexit deal, simply declaring what one wants and what one gets depends on what the other side is prepared to accept and demand in return.   Those looking for something more concrete might take comfort in the new Chancellor’s apparent more pragmatic approach than suggested by Starmer’s red lines.    Reeves has pointed out that no one ‘voted Leave because they were not happy that chemicals regulations were the same across Europe’ and the government’s briefing notes on its product safety bill, states it will ‘enable us to make the sovereign choice to mirror . . . updated EU rules’.   Continuing to align with EU standards is sensible, even inevitable, but reaping the benefits of ‘dynamic regulatory alignment’ to improve trade with the EU will involve once again accepting UK European Court of Justice rulings.   On this basis, we can expect the UK to reach agreement in the areas of veterinary and food standards – in essence return to the pre-2020 position – and sign up to the pending EU ‘s emissions trading and carbon tariffs schemes.   These steps would amount to a worthwhile reduction in existing or imminent costs to trade but they are not sufficient.   Administrative costs would be reduced but border checks would remain.   To restore anything like the ease of economic exchange once enjoyed with EU members – so vital for ubiquitous supply chains and inward business investment – the UK would at the very least have to join the European Economic Area (EEA) and accept its obligatory free movement.

Starmer may be only days into a five-year programme, yet time is short if living standards are to be on a rising plane by 2029.   Commenting on the IMF projections for the UK, the chair of European Movement, said they made for ‘grim reading …. cutting off our relationship with the EU has simply drained the life out of the country’.   Now in government Starmer has declared that he will be open and honest with the country, but his veracity will remain problematic as long as he continues to suppress the true costs of Brexit.   The new government cannot have an honest discussion about improving economic prosperity, defence and security, environmental protection or immigration without revealing the damage to these areas wrought by Brexit.   This brings us back to democracy: how long can the government ignore the fact that a growing majority of people believe that Brexit was a bad idea.   The numbers open to rejoining the EU is likely to increase particularly as younger voters have very positive attitudes towards Europe.   Between now, and what Starmer hopes will be his second term he must respond to this growing pressure.   Failure to do so could result in a further deterioration in the credibility of parliamentary democracy.