Skip to main content

Brexit does not mean Brexit

Over the past few days, the UK government’s department for exiting the European Union has been publishing a series of position papers which provide some clarity in the country’s stance over some of the most critical issues it will need to reach an agreement with the EU.

Brexit Feature Image

These papers cover a variety of very important topics ranging from customs, the borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland, judicial frameworks and access to information.

Although my academic expertise allows me, strictly speaking, to evaluate in more detail the content of the papers related to custom arrangements and the continuity in the availability of goods, I believe the conclusion that can be validly drawn from all the documents released so far is crystal clear: Brexit does not mean Brexit. Not really.

That may seem odd when one considers both the stated aim of Brexit and the intensive way it has been communicated by government officials. Yet the conclusion is inescapable. Examples of the oxymoronic language used in the papers include:

The admission that leaving the European Union also means leaving the EU customs union but that the new customs arrangement should remove any need for a customs border (i.e., just like still being part of the customs union).

The aim for a highly streamlined customs arrangement with facilitations to reduce or remove barriers to trade. So essentially, once more, being a member of the customs union without being a member of the customs union.

The goal that all the goods (or accompanying services related to those goods) placed on the Single Market before exit should continue to circulate freely in the UK, without additional requirements or restrictions.

The target for a continued oversight of EU (as well as UK) supply chain and market surveillance authorities for goods in both markets.

The above examples clearly highlight two things. Firstly, that the British government is trying to provide more certainty that it does not wish a radically (if at all) changed economic landscape in the post-Brexit era.

Secondly, that this message cannot conflict with its motto that “Brexit means Brexit”. Unfortunately, it cannot succeed in both accounts. European officials are quick to point this out and I expect they will continue to do so in an unwavering fashion.

Ultimately, either the stance or the motto of the British government will have to change. Let’s see which one it will be.

Published 29 August 2017

You might also like

How I became a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum – The origins and success story of the PRI

31 October 2013
We are delighted to present JAMES GIFFORD, who founded the PRI initiative which now has nearly 1,200 institutions from more than 50 countries as signatories, including many of the world’s largest pension funds, insurance companies, and investment managers. They manage combined assets of more than US $34 trillion. James Gifford was also named in 2010 by the World Economic Forum as one of 200 Young Global Leaders.
Business News

Flash Crash: Explained - with Dr Chardin Wese Simen

7 October 2016

Peer to Peer (P2P) Lending – ‘Bank on Dave’ and many others

4 March 2013
If you live in the UK, you may have seen the Channel 4 television programme on 28th February this year (2013) entitled ‘Bank on Dave’. Burnley Savings and Loans to give it its other name, is a company (not a bank) which offers 5% ‘deposit’ rates to lenders and offers loans to those who cannot obtain funding from the high street banks. So how does Dave do this when the high street banks offer no interest at all or perhaps only ½ or 1%? In fact ‘Dave’ is one of a new breed of ‘brokers’ who simply introduce lenders and borrowers to each other. The key difference from banks is that banks have a balance sheet with a depositor contract on one side and a separate contract with its borrowers on the other whereas a peer to peer company has no such contracts and indeed is not even involved at all in borrowing or lending! This is because in P2P, lending contracts are directly between borrower and lenders and the P2P company does not take ‘deposits’ on to its own balance sheet or keep the loans its customers make on its balance sheet.