In addition to the split between the left and the right, there’s also a split between people who favor incremental change and those who want to “blow it all up.” In 2016, the British voted in a referendum in favor of exiting the EU. The referendum did not have the force of law, but the government (quite reasonably) was reluctant to ignore the results of this poll. After all, why even have a referendum if you plan to ignore it?
The supporters of the Brexit campaign promised that there would be no “hard Brexit”, as the EU would want to negotiate free trade with the UK. But they also promised that the UK would make a substantial break, with a much greater degree of freedom than before. In other words, it would not be merely a symbolic break where (like Norway) the UK still adheres to almost all the EU rules. The government of Theresa May found it impossible to negotiate an agreement with the EU that achieved all these objectives. The EU demanded substantial concessions (adhering to many EU rules) in exchange for the UK continuing to have relatively free access to the EU market.
Thus May negotiated a compromise that pleases neither the “leave” nor the “remain” supporters. As of now, it clearly does not have enough support in Parliament, although that might change. Most people in Parliament actually favored keeping Britain in the EU, and there are not enough votes for the “hard Brexit” option, a clean break. Many fear that a hard Brexit would be extremely disruptive to the UK economy, which has close trading relations with the EU.
So how should Parliament vote? The subtitle of a recent Economist article suggests that there is radical uncertainty as to the impact of a no vote on Theresa May’s negotiated agreement with the EU:
The consequences of saying no to Theresa May’s Brexit deal
If Parliament rejects the prime minister’s deal next week, the result could be no deal—or no Brexit
That sort of uncertainty is actually rather unusual, and reflects a change in our politics. Most votes are between option A and B, where it’s pretty clear which option will advance each agenda. Not in this case. The odds markets confirm this, showing a significant probability of any number of possible outcomes, including an entirely new referendum. Lurking in the background is the possibility of a new election, which (far left) Labour might win. Making things even more complicated, it’s not clear what Labour would do.
In retrospect, many believe that complicated legislative problems should not be solved via referenda. Alternatively, the UK government should have said from the beginning that after the new treaty was negotiated, the British public would have another referendum where they’d choose between the negotiated agreement and the status quo. This is because referenda are suited to deal with binary choices, and there seemed to be no majority in the UK in favor of any of the various possibilities. Thus in 2016, those favoring a hard Brexit and those favoring a soft Brexit both voted to leave the EU, but neither group was large enough to later put together a compromise that would attract 50% of the public, or 50% of the MPs.
While this dilemma is rather unusual, the exact same thing is now occurring in the US. Donald Trump ran for President promising to (metaphorically) “blow up” the existing way of doing things. He was unable to get rid of Obamacare, but did have enough power to renegotiate Nafta. Once in office, he seemed to realize that Nafta was actually a pretty good deal, as the new version is not much different from the old version. But he’s also a sort of prisoner of his populist rhetoric, and doesn’t want to stick with the old Nafta.
The problem here is that it’s not at all clear that there are enough votes in Congress to pass the new Nafta agreement. Then what? Trump has promised to blow up the old Nafta if Congress rejects his proposal. Similarly, Theresa May has suggested that a hard Brexit would lead to economic chaos, and the UK government has done little to plan for a hard Brexit. (The don’t even have customs facilities in place in Dover, and there’d be massive lines for trucks from France.) She claims that there is no plausible alternative to her negotiated agreement with the EU. Some think this is bluffing, and that there might be a softer Brexit option, such as Norway’s arrangement. This is complicated by the weak position of the Conservative government, and by Labour’s unwillingness to give the Tories a win. Labour would rather see the Conservatives tear each other apart, opening the door to a new Labour government. (And I won’t even try to explain the complicated Northern Ireland problem.)
And what about President Trump? Is the promise to blow up the old Nafta a bluff? Perhaps if Congress rejected his plan he’d actually keep the old Nafta in place, and add a few “national defense” tariffs on Mexico and Canada, as a face saving gesture. After all, completely blowing up Nafta might cause a severe disruption in US supply chains, and perhaps a stock market slump.
I’m actually not sure how bad it would be if Trump ended Nafta, as US tariffs tend to be pretty low, even on goods from countries outside Nafta. But it would certainly be quite controversial, and perhaps not what Trump wants as he’s in delicate negotiations with China. The point here is that just as with the UK politicians contemplating their vote on Brexit, it’s not clear whether Congressional supporters of the old Nafta should reject Trump’s proposal, or vote for it.
Our politics is increasingly full of this sort of brinksmanship. Trump has told Congress that he’ll shut down the government if they don’t approve his wall, a tactic that has become increasingly popular in recent decades. Furthermore, this new brinksmanship seems to be a global phenomenon. Here’s The Economist describing a dramatic change in Australia’s (conservative) Liberal Party.
In politics, says one senior party member, you used to make progress through compromise. “Now, it’s, ‘If you don’t give me something I want, I’ll blow the place up.’” Perhaps Mr Abbott and his like really do have a death wish. Perhaps they fancy that defeat by the Labor Party will have a wonderfully purgative effect, clearing the wets out of the Liberal Party and allowing their faction to enjoy unadulterated rule. What is nearly certain is that a grand old party faces a whipping next year. The question is whether it can survive at all.
Politics has never been polite, but it seems to be getting even rougher.
PS. I’m agnostic on both the Brexit and Nafta votes, for the reasons explained above. That’s very unusual for someone as opinionated as me.
PPS. Here’s a picture of Theresa May along with Boris Johnson, a somewhat Trumpian politician who would like to take her place as leader of the Conservatives.
READER COMMENTS
James D
Dec 14 2018 at 2:06pm
During the 2016 election I sought to articulate a similar sentiment to that of your first sentence, which read:
In addition to the split between the left and the right, there’s also a split between people who favor incremental change and those who want to “blow it all up.”
At the time I wrote most political tests feature two axis, but a third would be appropriate. The first two would be economic and social freedom and the third would be the political action axis. I described it as so:
I think this is an often overlooked aspect of political organization and though we could add nuance after nuance, this helps to clarify the picture more than just complicate it.
robc
Dec 14 2018 at 3:41pm
I like that 3rd axis.
I fall somewhere towards the radical end (a centrist-radicalist) of the libertarian spectrum.
In 2008, I preferred “let them fail” to “too big to fail”.
Robert EV
Dec 17 2018 at 12:34am
I think a primary issue is that people vary in the things they want radical change on and the things they want incremental (or no) change on.
Everyone wants radical action after they’ve spilled boiling water on themselves. No one wants radical action when they’ve finally arrived in a nice situation. (I.e. we focus our effort on certain things, and leave other things to other parties to handle. We are willing to tolerate the radical on those things we put effort into, but want the stuff we don’t pay attention to to remain things we don’t have to direct effort toward.)
Scott Sumner
Dec 14 2018 at 2:52pm
James, Good observation.
derek
Dec 17 2018 at 4:35pm
I think James is describing something a little different than the dynamic you describe. A conservative, as described by James, would take drastic measures to keep things the same and might even take drastic measures to return things to how they used to be (e.g. traditionalists, reactionaries, Trumpian nostalgia). To me, you are describing people who accept that drastic actions might have drastic consequences and indeed like the escalation/polarization of politics recently since it seems to ensure a break with the status quo (e.g. Sanders/Trump vs Clinton, Brexit/socialist swing vs Remain/negotiate). This is a contrast with people like me (and I think you), who would favor monotonic incremental improvements rather than changes that attempt to shift the world into a worse immediate state but a hopefully better long-term equilibrium.
To advance an example of me opposing my political allies, some Obamacare supporters ceded the criticism that it was worse than the status quo, saying that it was worth it to open the way for more robust healthcare reform in the direction of single-payer. This would be more in line with “blowing it all up” rather than just making things better.
Brian Donohue
Dec 14 2018 at 4:13pm
As you say, there’s not much difference between new NAFTA and old NAFTA. Seems like an easily surmounted molehill compared to Brexit.
As to Boris, I’ve heard the Trump comparisons, but I recently watched him debate Mary Beard on the subject of “Greece vs. Rome”. Check it out. Can you imagine Trump even sitting through such a debater, let alone leading one side?
Scott Sumner
Dec 14 2018 at 5:55pm
Brian, I should say he’s Trumpian by UK standards. Obviously their standards for political discourse are far higher than ours. 🙂
OW
Dec 17 2018 at 6:08am
He shares similarities with Trump – such as the way he uses populist techniques – but the big, big difference with Boris is that he’s a genuine internationalist, free-trading, classical liberal. In that sense, he is very far from Trumpian.
Indeed, Boris’ liberal-but-populist nature upsets a lot of cosmopolitan types (not least in his own party) who see him as a “traitor” to the cause. They think he should be “one of them” and resent his popularity. Many are therefore at pains to paint him as the nativist he is not.
Benjamin Cole
Dec 14 2018 at 7:35pm
Maybe there is more brinksmanship now.
I am old enough to remember the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. That sort of brinksmanship makes today’s version look like tiddlywinks.
Is it a loss of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and lower living standards that are behind much of this dissent we see in western developed nations?
Thaomas
Dec 15 2018 at 11:13am
The new NAFTA is a (small) movement away from open and free trade, but it should be rejected unless it is renegotiated to make it a net positive.
May dithered from 2.5 years before sort of telling people the truth that there is no cost-less Brexit, one that does not infringe on free movement of goods, services and people. Even the least costly deal, the Norway like deal, leaves UK with less influence in setting ruled for the economic area. Ideally, if the compromise fails, May should just rescind the withdrawal memorandum.
Mark Z
Dec 15 2018 at 4:30pm
And then just pretend like the referendum never happened?
Scott Sumner
Dec 15 2018 at 12:40pm
Thaomas, I don’t like May, but this isn’t her fault. She was dealt an impossible hand.
Unfortunately, “telling the truth” is so 20th century. We are in a post-truth century where politics in the English-speaking countries is dominated by nonstop lying. Even if a politician told the truth, no one would believe it. Again, May took on an impossible job.
Mark Z
Dec 15 2018 at 4:38pm
Incremental change vs. radical change isn’t necessarily a difference of disposition or preferred method, but of circumstance. Incremental change requires that the opposing forces be willing to (or have no choice but to) ‘budge.’
Regarding what you say supporters of Brexit promised, I think laying all of this at their door is inaccurate. One of the biggest mistakes supporters of Brexit made was naively expecting the EU to behave rationally and in accord with its own interests if the UK decided to leave, rather than behaving with vindictive intransigence. Since the referendum, the EU has done little to strengthen the merit of the pro-EU position.
Scott Sumner
Dec 15 2018 at 10:57pm
Mark, The EU has behaved extremely rationally and extremely predictably, so I most certainly do blame the Brexit promoters for making unrealistic claims. Of course the EU would demand tough terms, as it would be a major problem if more countries left, and they want to discourage that from occurring. This was all very predictable, and indeed was predicted by opponents of Brexit.
Weir
Dec 16 2018 at 5:23am
Should we blame Trump’s critics for what Trump does? Just by analogy, or for the sake of consistency.
If this is the correct, morally neutral perspective, won’t we all have to start saying that Trump is simply behaving extremely rationally and extremely predictably in responding to the incentives in front of him?
We could say that the EU is playing hardball, and that the EU’s insistence on running a border through Ireland is not something that any of the EU’s cheerleaders need to defend specifically.
We could say there’s a vague and symbolic but also crucial sense in which none of the EU’s specific actions or tariffs or competition-strangling regulations or environmentally-destructive subsidies can diminish the noumenal reality in which the EU is the very paragon of the open society. Thus the EU’s insistence on preventing the Brits from being allowed to make free trade deals with the hundred-odd countries outside the EU is entirely irrelevant to the greatness of the EU, a greatness which is undiminished by its actions.
Yes, if what the EU does is irrelevant to any analysis of the EU, then it’s futile to make any criticism of the EU. That’s in addition to the traditional futility of making any criticism of the EU, which is that the EU doesn’t accept criticism, or electoral defeat, or the evident failure of any EU policy.
It would be futile to advocate any improvement or alteration to the EU’s illiberal policies. It would be unrealistic, even hopelessly utopian, nihilistic and terroristic, to hope that politicians would put their own interests second behind the well-being of those consumers and taxpayers and car-drivers and electricity-users living in Europe and Britain. That’s one view.
Here’s another: “We need to try to figure out and clearly describe the ideal policy regime, and then use that as a lodestar to aim at with the full understanding that human nature will never allow us to get 100% of the way to an ideal society.”
derek
Dec 17 2018 at 4:40pm
The EU seems to be attempting to maximize the utility of its member states. Is Trump trying to maximize the utility of Americans? I say no – he is only trying to maximize his own utility, and his utility function, while it includes affection for coal mining and US steel manufacturing, does not really seem to include a very large weight on Americans in general or their perception of how well of a job running America he is doing. I used to take solace in thinking he cared about asset prices and headline GDP growth, but no longer.
Mark Z
Dec 16 2018 at 7:32am
Scott,
If they are imposing “tough terms” to punish the UK so as to deter other countries from leaving, then sure, that’s rational tyranny, I suppose. It’s a tacit concession that the EU doesn’t derive its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
One might fault someone for naively thinking they could civilly leave an abusive relationship without incurring the wrath of their partner, but that doesn’t exactly morally vindicate the abusive partner. Nor do I think it is in the interest of the EU in the long run. Sure, trying to punish the the UK may deter current members from leaving, but it will also deter other prospective members from joining.
I think you’re ascribing greater moral agency to the group you oppose (Brexit supporters) while treating the group you support (the EU) as not being an agent at all, and treating its behavior entirely as entirely reactive. Of course, one could just as easily characterize Brexit itself as a reaction to the EU’s policies prior to the referendum.
ChrisA
Dec 16 2018 at 12:18pm
+1 to Mark
Scott Sumner
Dec 17 2018 at 12:52am
I think the Brexit proponents were extremely naive in assuming that the EU would let Britain cherry pick all the benefits, and not accept any of the responsibilities of membership. Look at the relationships with Norway and Switzerland. What made the UK Brexiteers think they’d get a sweeter deal?
Now the same people who drove the UK into a ditch with their foolish predictions are claiming that the EU is being mean, because it won’t give the UK the sort of special treatment that it provides to no other country on Earth. Sorry, but I have no sympathy. The Brexiteers are to blame for this mess.
Mark Z
Dec 18 2018 at 12:49pm
Cherrypick which laws and regulations of another state they follow? It seems most states reserve that right. Moreover, it’s strange that a libertarian economist would agree with a state making free trade with another country conditional on that country following its regulations. Especially when the same libertarian economist recently wrote a post criticizing the US for making free trade with China conditional on it following our regulations. Would unilateral free trade by the EU be bad for the EU in your opinion?
Weir
Dec 16 2018 at 5:04am
“What is nearly certain is that a grand old party faces a whipping next year. The question is whether it can survive at all.”
But that party already took a whipping in 2016. Under Turnbull.
Turnbull scraped through with a one-seat majority. Whereas Abbott (with what The Economist calls his “death wish”) took power in the 2013 election from opposition, picking up 18 seats, and giving the party a 35-seat majority. Turnbull, like I said, whittled that majority down to a single seat. The narrowest possible victory.
So when you read The Economist, remember to check with Wikipedia too.
“In politics, says one senior party member, you used to make progress through compromise. ‘Now, it’s, ‘If you don’t give me something I want, I’ll blow the place up.'”
Was that guy describing Turnbull? That would make more sense than the spin that The Economist chose to put on those words.
Turnbull didn’t have to abandon his electorate as the local MP for the seat of Wentworth, but he did. Remember that one-seat majority? Instead of sticking around until next year’s election, he made his electorate go to the polling booth twice in twelve months, not just in a few months from now but this year too.
And governments always lose when there’s a by-election. So Turnbull’s campaigning against his own party was unnecessary.
But that’s what he did. He supported one of the independent candidates, not the Liberal candidate. And in the 2016 election he didn’t even campaign as the leader of the Liberal Party anyway. He came up with his own logo, in yellow and blue, putting himself at the head of something he called The Malcolm Turnbull Coalition.
So read The Economist, by all means. But you’ll learn more about the journalists who write these stories than about their enemies (“Mr Abbott and his like”) for all the name-calling and the insults that The Economist can pack into a single article. (Did you notice how light-on for facts that article was? It’s pretty much just a string of put-downs about these “nutjobs” and that “vituperative populist” and all those “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers.” And yet it was Turnbull, as a matter of fact, who scraped through with a single seat two years ago.)
Scott Sumner
Dec 17 2018 at 12:45am
Weir, I don’t rely on the Economist for my opinions on Australia, indeed I once lived there. I am well aware of what kind of person Abbott is.
Comments are closed.