These pigeons can’t come home to roost

 

For some 120 years pigeon fanciers in the UK have held long distance races starting in France, Spain or some other European country, but the complicated logistics imposed by Brexit may signal the end of this traditional pastime. Since the UK left the EU pigeon owners must register with the UK’s Department for Rural Affairs. Their pigeon lofts must be inspected annually by a vet and the clubs of which they are members must complete export health paperwork.  A vet has to certify the birds at the point of departure in mainland Europe and at registration points along the course of the race. The bureaucracy and costs involved have made races uneconomic. A club in Leeds that usually holds six or seven races a year plans none this year.

 

This sad little tale is but one example of the many ways in which Brexit has inflicted considerable cultural, educational, and social damage on the UK. The economic consequences are proving equally harmful. The Conservatives declare themselves to be the party of low taxes and low regulation. Yet Brexit has entangled our trade with our largest market in complex, onerous and costly bureaucracy and regulation, and new taxes. The website of my former employer, Thames & Hudson, proclaims two years after Brexit “EU shipping is temporarily suspended.” Sales to individual consumers, like the pigeons, are too costly. This is true of many small and medium sized export businesses: shipping to the EU has become so expensive that businesses either abandon exports or set up distribution centres in an EU nation.

 

You might think that the consequences of a radical rupture of the UK’s relationships with dozens of countries on our continent would merit sober reflection and analysis as to whether in practice this has proved to be a wise decision, and how to address any negative consequences. However, if you were a candidate in the process to choose the next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore our next Prime minister, you would avoid any comments about Brexit that were not entirely positive, regardless of the evidence. To do otherwise would be terminal for your career. Nor would you talk about Brexit if you were a senior figure in the Labour Party. And if you subscribe to the newspapers with the largest circulation, you will find little or no analysis of the negatives of Brexit. Rather our political class seems determined to ensure that the consequences of Brexit, like the pigeons, will not come home to roost.

 

My country has been ruled since 2010 by the Conservative and Unionist Party (from 2010-2015 in coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party and since then in sole control of the government). The Conservative Party likes to think of itself as the party of law and order, prudent economic management and competence, defending the country from the menace of socialism. However, since 2015 there have been three (soon four) Conservative Prime Ministers, which would seem to indicate that something has not gone quite right and that the party is not very adept at choosing leaders.

 

The first to be dethroned was David Cameron, who called a referendum about Brexit in 2016, ran a complacent (very much his style) campaign to remain in the EU and lost. He had underestimated the extent to which a determined (some might say fanatical) Brexit had become a majority in his party. His successor was Teresa May, an uncharismatic, earnest character who had a substantial record in ministerial office as a Home Secretary who built her reputation on hostility to immigrants. She endeavoured to solve the fundamental conundrum of Brexit: how to carry out a political project whose consequences are essentially damaging, without incurring damage, or at least as little as possible. Her problem was that this involved an agreement with the EU that was insufficiently aggressive for the Brexiters, who had formed a clique known as the Brexit Research Group. She could not win their support, and of course the opposition parties also rejected her attempts to resolve the conundrum. Furthermore, she made a disastrous calculation to call a general election on the question of concluding Brexit, but proved to be a spectacularly incompetent campaigner. She committed the cardinal sin of losing her majority in Parliament in an election that she did not need to call. Moreover, she was betrayed by Boris Johnson (who had earlier betrayed David Cameron). She was forced to resign and replaced by Johnson, who in turn has been forced to resign.

 

Now, a reasonable observer might conclude that a party that has recommended a Prime Minister to the country three times on average every 2.3 years, and then itself announce that it has no confidence in the Prime Ministers that it chose, may not be as prudent and competent as it proclaims itself to be. Especially, after the disastrous tenure of Boris Johnson.

 

That observer might also reflect on some of the consequences of Conservative rule since 2010. These include:

·      An increase in child poverty and in poverty in general.

·      A transfer of wealth from wage earners to asset owners.

·      A decline in the real value of waged employment.

·      A radical reduction of the real value of financial support for the unemployed, sick and disabled.

·      An increase in the provision by charities and other NGOs of foodbanks, a reflection of increased poverty and hunger.

·      An unusually low state pension compared to most other European countries.

·      A reduction in the real value of spending on health, already low by European standards.

 

Leaving to one side, the Johnson regime’s (not merely Johnson himself) use of lies, unlawful acts, breaches of an international treaty that Johnson himself signed and declared to be a political marvel, and the stoking of division, this most recent Conservative administration has undermined some of our most cherished freedoms:

·      An untrammelled freedom to vote: for the first time in the history of British democracy, voters will be required to produce photo ID. This change was made to “protect our democracy” despite the lack of evidence of any threat to democracy in the absence of photo ID. The intent of this measure is to deter those who vote for opposition parties from casting their vote.

·      Ending the independence of the Electoral Commission by giving a government minister the powers to set its objectives.

·      Restrictions on the right of protest.

·      The undermining of the BBC for being insufficiently pro-Brexit and because its programming does not “reflect the views of the British people.” The BBC is not a state broadcaster and is not obliged to adhere to a particular political line, but the government funds it and can thus intimidate the BBC. More supine coverage of government policies and actions is already apparent.

·      Selling to the private sector the only other national public broadcaster (Channel 4), which frequently challenges the government line (of any government) with no requirement that the public broadcasting element of its programming is sustained.

·      Judicial reforms to reduce the ability of citizens to challenge government actions and policies, including a new British Human Rights Act to remove some of the protections provided by the European Convention of Human Rights and restricting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

·      An intolerance of dissent, attacking those who disagree with the government as remoaners/remainiacs (for refusing to believe that Brexit = Nirvana), or as ‘woke”.

·      The government regulation of free speech in universities. A government agency can now fine universities if it deems that free speech has been restricted.

·      A punitive sentence for a new crime of damaging public statues, prompted by a single incident of the removal by protesters of a statue of a former slave owner in Bristol. This incident was the consequence of very local conditions and circumstances, not a general trend, but the government exploited the incident to create fear of “rewriting our history”.

·      The appointment of figures ideologically aligned to the Johnson regime to the boards of museums and other cultural bodies and the denial of appointments to individuals who espoused ideas and approaches not approved by the government.

·      The abuse of independent processes to appoint people to government agencies contrary to regulations and traditional norms of public governance.

 

The removal of Johnson has not made our democracy safe.