All that would happen if you reconstituted the British Empire on an equal footing is that the English elites who run the UK would at some stage flounce out of that too because they are so accustomed to the elected dictatorship model of Westminster democracy that they are incapable of operating within structures in which they don’t get their own way all the time. Plus, why would the commonwealth countries want us anyway? We’re a medium sized power in steep decline with a track record of unreliability in international relationships.
As one federal nation (called The Commonwealth) we would be one of the world's superpowers and would have a say in affairs unlike in Europe where Britain - the 2nd biggest economic power - was powerless. PS in a world of democratic backsliding we are one of the few bastions of liberty left, 2nd tier power or not.
Sigh. Britain was the most important swing state within the EU and leveraged its position very successfully to get most of what it wanted most of the time. The Single Market was basically a British invention. If we were so powerless, how did we manage to get the CAP rebate, or an opt out from the euro, or an opt out from Schengen, or an opt out from the social chapter, or acceptance of the status quo on Gibraltar or the various British tax havens, etc etc? They’d even have put the European Central Bank in London if we’d been more enthusiastic about monetary union. I agree with you that the UK is better off out of the EU, but only for the same reasons that Cristiano Ronaldo is better off out of the Portuguese national football team. He’s an aging prima donna who’s seen better days and is just dragging the rest of the team down.
Surely a leading country in a region creates policy rather than seeking an opt out from a policy formulated by others? Ps I think that France and Germany are rather more on the way out than Britain given their recent penchant for voting for extreme right and left wing parties? (I say that unhappily and not in a gloating sense.)
Maybe, but another way of viewing the supposed moderation of UK politics compared to France or Germany is that this is just a function of first past the post, and that in a more proportional voting system people definitely would vote for extreme right or extreme left parties (we’d probably have a Tory/Reform coalition government under PR). Getting a thumping parliamentary majority on 30% of the vote is hardly a ringing endorsement of British democracy either, in my view.
I get where you’re coming from, honestly, and at least your reasons for voting Remain at the time were more considered than my now dead dad’s (COVID), who simply hated foreigners and thought there were too many blacks (not the word he used) in the England football team, but I sincerely believe that the famous Churchill quote about being with Europe but not of it pretty much described the position we had within the EU, that the EU was used as a convenient punching bag for specifically British failings (“sorry chaps, we didn’t want to do this, but Brussels made us”), and that we’ll never get a better geopolitical deal than the one we had. You used the analogy of unhappy marriage in your excellent piece, and I agree with you that it’s sometimes best to split up if it’s really not working. But equally, sometimes it’s better to stick with it even if it’s not perfect, especially if there are kids involved. All best wishes to you, and thanks for replying.
While I do agree with you that the Brexit vote was NOT about economics solely, I think it is also the case that Britain simply can't rewind the clock back to 1973. The most telling example of this is if already and in the coming years Britain continues to purchase primarily European agricultural products even with New Zealand and Australia having duty free access as well then, I think one might say the fundamentally competitiveness of Commonwealth agriculture vis a vis French agriculture has changed since 1973 and probably isn't going to change back. In order to bring back the type of deep links to Australian and Kiwi agriculture Britain once had it might only be possible to do so by existing the post Brexit FTA negotiated by the Johnson govt allowing for duty free access to the UK of French agriculture and quite explicitly choosing to instead raise food prices in the UK in order to promote more Australian imports.
Second the other three nations Commonwealth nations, Canada especially have changed their political institutions in some cases in an even more European direction than the UK has. Canada of course since 1982 has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the diminution of Parliamentary supremacy. However, even Australia and pre 1982 Canada have a certain degree of judicial activism. A Federal system such as in Australia and Canada often requires an independent judiciary to determine which Parliament (i.e. Federal or state/provincial) has supremacy with ample opportunities for judges to impose their own views. Of course, back prior to the Statute of Westminster it was the British Parliament in Westminster that essentially decided the text of the Canadian and Australian constitutions but with introduction of true independent status to both countries these decisions have to made either through complex amendment processes (which are almost never used especially in Canada) or judicial activism.
Thirdly it is not clear to me that just the four core commonwealth nations have the economic heft, industrial base, and population to aspire to superpower status. Japan has roughly the same population as the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined and I would argue in many areas Japan is closer to super power dom than the Commonwealth four are. Japan has its own space program while the UK is a passive somewhat disinterested member of the European Space Agency(ESA) and Canada is an associate member of ESA. Japan is also of course one of the world's leading electronics and automotive producers. Japan is not a nuclear weapons power but ironically has a far stronger industrial base than the UK to be true fully independent nuclear power like the UK is not.
Thank-you Tim for your detailed contribution to this debate. Just 2 points: a) Japan is a geographically bounded collection of islands. The New Commonwealth (including the Caribbean countries too and perhaps even Singapore) would be spread over the globe with huge territorial waters, natural resources and control of important waterways. b) It isn't judicial activism that concerns me so much (for another article) but rather that the EU Charter of Rights was introduced (legislatively) by the back door without any debate, even among the the elites. It has no democratic credibility and it shreds the British Constitution to bits.
The only thing I’d add is to wonder about the extent to which the Nordic (and possibly Baltic) countries share our lack of “European-ness” - our former EFTA partners such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland all seem to share many of our political traditions, attitudes and grievances with the EU, and I’d wonder if a outer sphere of Europe consisting of the Northern European countries would be a worthwhile addition to the idea of a greater Commonwealth.
Thank-you for your reply as well as the additional information. I do agree that some degree of union with the Nordic countries would be beneficial.
Vis-a-vis the economic issue, it may well be that Brexit is economically beneficial in the long term especially if my proposal of a closer Union with Canada, Australia, NZ, the Caribbean nations and Singapore is taken seriously. That would make us the world's 3rd largest power and a truly global power with huge territory, extensive territorial waters and control over the major shipping lanes.
But even if Brexit proves to be an economic downer, it will be marginal, overshadowed significantly by the 2008 depression. The economy wasn't the major issue.
I would also be tempted to add Sierra Leone, Malta, Bahrain and a few others to that list, and seek to more widely bring together the likes of Ghana, the East and Central African nations, Sri Lanka and Malaysia into a beefed up Commonwealth group if you want to take this idea to its logical conclusion.
As an outsider who watched the Brexit unfold, I have two vivid memories of it:
1) The day it was announced that the referendum won in the UK, I was in Iceland and all of the other Europeans in the hostel I stayed at were talking about how stupid the British were, and....
2) When I was in London in 2022 and they announced they were reinstituting the customs at the road border between France and England, and the response from France was "we aren't staffing that."
Was the economic case really baked in? 2 polls prior to the vote showed the opposite. Yougov had 21% leave voters thinking they would personally be financially better off after Brexit , versus 3% who thought the opposite, the rest thought no difference/don’t know. Ipso MORI had a poll on personal living standards after Brexit with leave voters 5% saying worse off and 33% better off - the rest no difference/don’t know. These are the only polls I’ve found pre vote that asked these questions and they don’t support the baked in argument
Thank-you for your reply. I am relying on Matthew Goodwin's data in this "baked in" claim. Now you may be right, he may be right; but either way ,today, as in the 1975 referendum, the economic benefit/detriment case is marginal. Frankly it is difficult to judge the economics in the light of COVID and in particular the 2008 depression from which we still haven't recovered. But logic suggests that we must have taken some kind of hit and we will continue to do so unless we go down the Commonwealth integration route.
I will check out Goodwin- but he is hardly neutral here. Logic does indeed suggest a cost - but that’s not what the leave politicians promised - ‘sunlit uplands’ is my recollection. I guess it depends on who the voters believed.
The UK was not compromised by the long list of factors you reference. You had Parlimentary autonomy, you were free to pursue any commonwealth relationships of your choosing and there were no constraints on trade and political arrangements with the rest of the world. You have your own currency and didn't have the drag of being in the Euro.
So you exchanged that for greater inward migration from asia and africa (both legal and extra-legal). Weakened Parliament as an instition and arguably allowed the Farage right wing to get a foothold.
I agree it isn't about the economy but that was obvious while the debate was underway. The question is how the political class in the UK has declined so precipitiously that the referendum happened in the first place (never mind the appaling final Brexit agreement). Good luck with your dreams of a resurrected Commonwealth. It seems as delusional as everything else the UK has proposed since the Suez crises.
Because they don’t want the nostalgia you’re selling. Also, the commonality you claim is just empire sentimentalism. You have a two thousand year common history with Europe but it’s not the one you prefer. Brexit might have been more cultural than economic for the leavers but its economics that is going to determine the UK’s destiny in the new world we appear to be entering and it isn’t New Zealand that’s going to save you.
If the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, the English-speaking Caribbean nations and Singapore combined we'd have a GDP and population about that of Japan with a far bigger global reach and military force. We'd have massive territorial waters and superrvisory control over much of the world's sea lanes. Wed be the only truly global country. Hardly economic poverty is it? Rather a guarantee of free trade!
You're not a serious person. If you combined with mainland Europe you'd have a GDP that matches the U.S. and China and military force that could actually defend democracy. Anyway, I'm out of this conversation enjoy your resurrection of the British Empire lol
Hi Guy, I understand that you love Europe, and I am relatively happy with it, but the relationship was unequal. I can tell you from personal experience that Europeans can come to work as teachers in our schools (a good thing), whilst experienced UK teachers such as myself am "unqualified " in Europe due to France/Spain's parochial laws that protect the locals. "Free movement" was one way for teachers like me. European states are highly protectionist.
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the EU regulations. The particular problem you seem to have experienced was never part of any structure that was under the control of the EU. The EU never got as far as decreeing parity between countries. It guaranteed freedom of travel and the right to work, but the right to work does not mean an absolute right to work in any job … it just means that you have a right to work in the jobs allowed by that country. Why did you expect equality?? In any case, it cut both ways; surely you are aware of that?? Not, perhaps, in education, but in other areas.
The EU was not, and is not, the monolithic draconian beast portrayed by the likes of Farage. It was a work in progress, at best. A worthy one, to which we should subscribe.
Thanks for the reply Guy. I studied EU Law at uni and live in the employment nightmare of the Spanish bureaucratic system so I speak with some authority. The EU claims to have established the mutual recognition of university and professional qualifications. But it's a lie
We recognise theirs. They don’t recognise ours. It's a 1 sided fraud.
OK. I don’t think I had that problem, but then I’m a mathematician, not a law graduate. My understanding is that there are certain professions with automatic recognition and the rest rely on assessment by the host country. I’m not sure that the EU directive on employability either guaranteed or enforced any automatic right.
All that would happen if you reconstituted the British Empire on an equal footing is that the English elites who run the UK would at some stage flounce out of that too because they are so accustomed to the elected dictatorship model of Westminster democracy that they are incapable of operating within structures in which they don’t get their own way all the time. Plus, why would the commonwealth countries want us anyway? We’re a medium sized power in steep decline with a track record of unreliability in international relationships.
As one federal nation (called The Commonwealth) we would be one of the world's superpowers and would have a say in affairs unlike in Europe where Britain - the 2nd biggest economic power - was powerless. PS in a world of democratic backsliding we are one of the few bastions of liberty left, 2nd tier power or not.
Sigh. Britain was the most important swing state within the EU and leveraged its position very successfully to get most of what it wanted most of the time. The Single Market was basically a British invention. If we were so powerless, how did we manage to get the CAP rebate, or an opt out from the euro, or an opt out from Schengen, or an opt out from the social chapter, or acceptance of the status quo on Gibraltar or the various British tax havens, etc etc? They’d even have put the European Central Bank in London if we’d been more enthusiastic about monetary union. I agree with you that the UK is better off out of the EU, but only for the same reasons that Cristiano Ronaldo is better off out of the Portuguese national football team. He’s an aging prima donna who’s seen better days and is just dragging the rest of the team down.
Surely a leading country in a region creates policy rather than seeking an opt out from a policy formulated by others? Ps I think that France and Germany are rather more on the way out than Britain given their recent penchant for voting for extreme right and left wing parties? (I say that unhappily and not in a gloating sense.)
Maybe, but another way of viewing the supposed moderation of UK politics compared to France or Germany is that this is just a function of first past the post, and that in a more proportional voting system people definitely would vote for extreme right or extreme left parties (we’d probably have a Tory/Reform coalition government under PR). Getting a thumping parliamentary majority on 30% of the vote is hardly a ringing endorsement of British democracy either, in my view.
I get where you’re coming from, honestly, and at least your reasons for voting Remain at the time were more considered than my now dead dad’s (COVID), who simply hated foreigners and thought there were too many blacks (not the word he used) in the England football team, but I sincerely believe that the famous Churchill quote about being with Europe but not of it pretty much described the position we had within the EU, that the EU was used as a convenient punching bag for specifically British failings (“sorry chaps, we didn’t want to do this, but Brussels made us”), and that we’ll never get a better geopolitical deal than the one we had. You used the analogy of unhappy marriage in your excellent piece, and I agree with you that it’s sometimes best to split up if it’s really not working. But equally, sometimes it’s better to stick with it even if it’s not perfect, especially if there are kids involved. All best wishes to you, and thanks for replying.
While I do agree with you that the Brexit vote was NOT about economics solely, I think it is also the case that Britain simply can't rewind the clock back to 1973. The most telling example of this is if already and in the coming years Britain continues to purchase primarily European agricultural products even with New Zealand and Australia having duty free access as well then, I think one might say the fundamentally competitiveness of Commonwealth agriculture vis a vis French agriculture has changed since 1973 and probably isn't going to change back. In order to bring back the type of deep links to Australian and Kiwi agriculture Britain once had it might only be possible to do so by existing the post Brexit FTA negotiated by the Johnson govt allowing for duty free access to the UK of French agriculture and quite explicitly choosing to instead raise food prices in the UK in order to promote more Australian imports.
Second the other three nations Commonwealth nations, Canada especially have changed their political institutions in some cases in an even more European direction than the UK has. Canada of course since 1982 has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the diminution of Parliamentary supremacy. However, even Australia and pre 1982 Canada have a certain degree of judicial activism. A Federal system such as in Australia and Canada often requires an independent judiciary to determine which Parliament (i.e. Federal or state/provincial) has supremacy with ample opportunities for judges to impose their own views. Of course, back prior to the Statute of Westminster it was the British Parliament in Westminster that essentially decided the text of the Canadian and Australian constitutions but with introduction of true independent status to both countries these decisions have to made either through complex amendment processes (which are almost never used especially in Canada) or judicial activism.
Thirdly it is not clear to me that just the four core commonwealth nations have the economic heft, industrial base, and population to aspire to superpower status. Japan has roughly the same population as the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined and I would argue in many areas Japan is closer to super power dom than the Commonwealth four are. Japan has its own space program while the UK is a passive somewhat disinterested member of the European Space Agency(ESA) and Canada is an associate member of ESA. Japan is also of course one of the world's leading electronics and automotive producers. Japan is not a nuclear weapons power but ironically has a far stronger industrial base than the UK to be true fully independent nuclear power like the UK is not.
Thank-you Tim for your detailed contribution to this debate. Just 2 points: a) Japan is a geographically bounded collection of islands. The New Commonwealth (including the Caribbean countries too and perhaps even Singapore) would be spread over the globe with huge territorial waters, natural resources and control of important waterways. b) It isn't judicial activism that concerns me so much (for another article) but rather that the EU Charter of Rights was introduced (legislatively) by the back door without any debate, even among the the elites. It has no democratic credibility and it shreds the British Constitution to bits.
I completely agree with your argument, and would go one step further and say Brexit was beneficial from an economic perspective as well as a national one (https://backseatpolicycritic.substack.com/p/uk-comparative-advantage-brexit).
The only thing I’d add is to wonder about the extent to which the Nordic (and possibly Baltic) countries share our lack of “European-ness” - our former EFTA partners such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland all seem to share many of our political traditions, attitudes and grievances with the EU, and I’d wonder if a outer sphere of Europe consisting of the Northern European countries would be a worthwhile addition to the idea of a greater Commonwealth.
Thank-you for your reply as well as the additional information. I do agree that some degree of union with the Nordic countries would be beneficial.
Vis-a-vis the economic issue, it may well be that Brexit is economically beneficial in the long term especially if my proposal of a closer Union with Canada, Australia, NZ, the Caribbean nations and Singapore is taken seriously. That would make us the world's 3rd largest power and a truly global power with huge territory, extensive territorial waters and control over the major shipping lanes.
But even if Brexit proves to be an economic downer, it will be marginal, overshadowed significantly by the 2008 depression. The economy wasn't the major issue.
I would also be tempted to add Sierra Leone, Malta, Bahrain and a few others to that list, and seek to more widely bring together the likes of Ghana, the East and Central African nations, Sri Lanka and Malaysia into a beefed up Commonwealth group if you want to take this idea to its logical conclusion.
As an outsider who watched the Brexit unfold, I have two vivid memories of it:
1) The day it was announced that the referendum won in the UK, I was in Iceland and all of the other Europeans in the hostel I stayed at were talking about how stupid the British were, and....
2) When I was in London in 2022 and they announced they were reinstituting the customs at the road border between France and England, and the response from France was "we aren't staffing that."
Was the economic case really baked in? 2 polls prior to the vote showed the opposite. Yougov had 21% leave voters thinking they would personally be financially better off after Brexit , versus 3% who thought the opposite, the rest thought no difference/don’t know. Ipso MORI had a poll on personal living standards after Brexit with leave voters 5% saying worse off and 33% better off - the rest no difference/don’t know. These are the only polls I’ve found pre vote that asked these questions and they don’t support the baked in argument
Thank-you for your reply. I am relying on Matthew Goodwin's data in this "baked in" claim. Now you may be right, he may be right; but either way ,today, as in the 1975 referendum, the economic benefit/detriment case is marginal. Frankly it is difficult to judge the economics in the light of COVID and in particular the 2008 depression from which we still haven't recovered. But logic suggests that we must have taken some kind of hit and we will continue to do so unless we go down the Commonwealth integration route.
I will check out Goodwin- but he is hardly neutral here. Logic does indeed suggest a cost - but that’s not what the leave politicians promised - ‘sunlit uplands’ is my recollection. I guess it depends on who the voters believed.
The UK was not compromised by the long list of factors you reference. You had Parlimentary autonomy, you were free to pursue any commonwealth relationships of your choosing and there were no constraints on trade and political arrangements with the rest of the world. You have your own currency and didn't have the drag of being in the Euro.
So you exchanged that for greater inward migration from asia and africa (both legal and extra-legal). Weakened Parliament as an instition and arguably allowed the Farage right wing to get a foothold.
I agree it isn't about the economy but that was obvious while the debate was underway. The question is how the political class in the UK has declined so precipitiously that the referendum happened in the first place (never mind the appaling final Brexit agreement). Good luck with your dreams of a resurrected Commonwealth. It seems as delusional as everything else the UK has proposed since the Suez crises.
Why is a resurrected Commonwealth so unrealistic in your view when we all have a far greater commonality with them than Europe?
Because they don’t want the nostalgia you’re selling. Also, the commonality you claim is just empire sentimentalism. You have a two thousand year common history with Europe but it’s not the one you prefer. Brexit might have been more cultural than economic for the leavers but its economics that is going to determine the UK’s destiny in the new world we appear to be entering and it isn’t New Zealand that’s going to save you.
If the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, the English-speaking Caribbean nations and Singapore combined we'd have a GDP and population about that of Japan with a far bigger global reach and military force. We'd have massive territorial waters and superrvisory control over much of the world's sea lanes. Wed be the only truly global country. Hardly economic poverty is it? Rather a guarantee of free trade!
You're not a serious person. If you combined with mainland Europe you'd have a GDP that matches the U.S. and China and military force that could actually defend democracy. Anyway, I'm out of this conversation enjoy your resurrection of the British Empire lol
Thank-you for your time.
The love was not absent.
Hi Guy, I understand that you love Europe, and I am relatively happy with it, but the relationship was unequal. I can tell you from personal experience that Europeans can come to work as teachers in our schools (a good thing), whilst experienced UK teachers such as myself am "unqualified " in Europe due to France/Spain's parochial laws that protect the locals. "Free movement" was one way for teachers like me. European states are highly protectionist.
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the EU regulations. The particular problem you seem to have experienced was never part of any structure that was under the control of the EU. The EU never got as far as decreeing parity between countries. It guaranteed freedom of travel and the right to work, but the right to work does not mean an absolute right to work in any job … it just means that you have a right to work in the jobs allowed by that country. Why did you expect equality?? In any case, it cut both ways; surely you are aware of that?? Not, perhaps, in education, but in other areas.
The EU was not, and is not, the monolithic draconian beast portrayed by the likes of Farage. It was a work in progress, at best. A worthy one, to which we should subscribe.
Thanks for the reply Guy. I studied EU Law at uni and live in the employment nightmare of the Spanish bureaucratic system so I speak with some authority. The EU claims to have established the mutual recognition of university and professional qualifications. But it's a lie
We recognise theirs. They don’t recognise ours. It's a 1 sided fraud.
OK. I don’t think I had that problem, but then I’m a mathematician, not a law graduate. My understanding is that there are certain professions with automatic recognition and the rest rely on assessment by the host country. I’m not sure that the EU directive on employability either guaranteed or enforced any automatic right.