Chris Patten, the last British Governor of Hong Kong and former EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner, is Chancellor of the University of Oxford and author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
We know that people infected with the virus that causes Covid-19 can experience symptoms that last weeks or months after the infection has passed. Similarly, the fall of disgraced British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the election of his successor by the Conservative Party are likely to have serious lingering effects. Call him ‘Long Boris’.
The UK is already facing the ‘Long Brexit’ – the long-term corrosive effects of the UK’s departure from the EU both on the economy and on the language and conduct of our politics. Now this disease is being exacerbated by the corrupting and debilitating impact of Johnson’s prime ministership on British politics and government.
Johnson did not respect the standards of governance, the integrity of institutions, or the crucial importance of making rational decisions between often conflicting public policy goals. His legacy of populist mendacity cannot be buried with the appointment of a new leader of the Conservative Party. On the contrary, Long Boris is shaping—and distorting—the electoral process.
TO READ Expect the unexpected in the Bank of England’s battle with inflation
We know that Brexit has badly hurt the UK economy – probably reducing our long-term potential GDP by 4% – and diminished our international influence. We also know that, contrary to the claims of Brexit supporters, it has not given Parliament more control over the fate of the United Kingdom.
Instead, a populist government has gained more power to do what it wants, with little regard for parliamentary accountability. The idea that Brexit has allowed Britons to “take back control” of their own lives is a pipe dream.
At this point, most people, even those who are as critical of Brexit as I am, probably accept that the referendum decision, now six years old, cannot be undone or reversed in the near future (one day maybe, but not yet). At the same time, as UK exports plummet and our trade deficit widens, even Brexiteers should want to cultivate a positive relationship with our European neighbours, who represent our largest market and more important.
However, while this might be the case in a more rational and calmer political environment, it is not true today. The EU is now treated as a foreign influence and even as an enemy. Any reference to strengthening UK-EU relations, however pragmatic, is considered heresy.
This has been evident in the race to succeed Johnson. Even candidates who expressed support for remaining in the EU ran a mile before giving the impression that they would take a constructive approach to our future European relationship. Meanwhile, some dyed-in-the-wool Brexiteers were thought not to be ideological enough on the issue. There is no real debate about the UK’s best interests.
The Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol discussions are an example of this failure. The Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, committed the British government to maintaining an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The protocol, which is part of the UK’s withdrawal agreement with the EU, was designed to protect that peace by allowing Northern Ireland to function almost as if it were still part of the EU’s single market and customs union, allowed for an almost open border.
Brexiteers now want to scrap the protocol. Never mind, apparently, that this would mean violating our Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, risking our membership of EU research programs (which have offered great value to our top universities) and jeopardizing the Sait Friday.
If they even suggest re-examining the question of Northern Ireland, they risk being treated as an ideological apostate. So we are adrift on a tide of silly prejudices that have nothing to do with what is best for Britain. So Long Brexit threatens our future prospects and Long Boris corrupts the debate about what should be done to minimize the risks.
We need leaders who are honest about our short, medium and long term problems. We are becoming poorer than our neighbors, with our per capita growth and productivity lagging behind theirs. We face rising energy prices, rising inflation and public sector strikes. Our fiscal deficit is uncomfortably high. Our influence is reduced.
Far from acknowledging these challenges, let alone proposing sensible solutions, the candidates to succeed Johnson have tried to win votes with reckless proposals such as ever-larger tax cuts. They ignored the fact that, without responsible spending cuts, the only way to afford an across-the-board tax cut would be to plant what conservatives used to denounce as a “magic money tree.”
TO READ Why London can’t be complacent after Brexit
These cuts would also not address rising inflation. However, they would bring more downward pressure on the pound, higher interest rates and financial turmoil. In proposing them, the leading candidates to lead the Conservatives have shown a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility which has long been regarded as a core principle of the Conservatives.
There is an exception. Former chancellor Rishi Sunak refuses to abandon the idea that spending should bear some relation to revenue. A lone Johnson supporter and long-time Brexiteer, Sunak is now being targeted by Johnson’s supporters over the tax issue.
The UK needs a government that is pragmatic, internationalist, responsible and able to offer a semblance of stability and certainty in a time of upheaval. But it is difficult to imagine how such a government could get out of the escalation of dogmatic crime that is taking place.
This article was published by Projects Union
[ad_2]
Source link
