Britain’s Hard Brexit Strategy – Unraveling of the European Union?
by Naagesh Padmanaban on 27 Jan 2017 1 Comment

In a hard-hitting speech on 17 January 2017, British Prime Minister Theresa May clearly spelt out the country’s stand on Brexit. She made it clear that the UK will come out of the single market as well as the customs union and promised to build a truly “global Britain” that would reach out beyond Europe to build  “new partnerships with old friends and new allies”.  Mrs. May cited discontent over directives coming from Brussels that weakened local democracy, tensions over jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, record immigration et al – all of which fueled the Brexit vote last year – as the driving factors for Britain’s decision.

 

Prime Minister May underscored Britain’s relationships across the world, specifically outside Europe. She hinted that Britain would revitalize trade relations with the erstwhile British colonial ecosystem of the mid-twentieth century and seek to regain its preeminence as a great trading nation. Specifically, she talked about the new trade negotiations underway with Australia, New Zealand and India to drive home the point that Britain will not be seriously impacted by Brexit.

 

Mrs May also warned the EU against resorting to “punishing” the UK. This, she warned, would be calamitous for the Union. Not surprisingly, the hard-hitting speech was meant for the local British constituency as well as the EU, particularly Germany and France who have advocated a tough line against Britain. Following last years’ referendum in Britain, there has been a lot of sound, fury and venting from Europe. Worried that other countries may follow Britain, several EU ministers had demanded punitive measures that would showcase to other nations that leaving the EU could be very expensive an affair.

 

The Prime Minister’s speech did not wave an olive branch as many observers had expected. It definitely looked more like a resolute leader preparing for war. Indeed, the Brits appear to have done their homework and are prepared to take big risks.

 

Two developments that have spawned the new-found confidence in Prime Minister May are the election of Donald Trump as the President of the US and the resilience of the British economy in that order.

 

The election of Donald J Trump as the US President has an obvious role in the tough stand on Brexit. Trump has been a vocal supporter of Brexit. He has also come out openly in support of the UK. His opposition to Transatlantic Trade Partnerships is also well known. 

 

Secondly, the strong performance of the economy is a key factor that has emboldened Prime Minister May. Data on the performance of the British economy in 2016, and in particular post-Brexit is indeed revealing. Most European nations, including Britain, continue to face a sluggish economy. But latest statistics released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that Brexit, by and large has had minimal impact on the UK.

 

For example, unemployment was at a record low - in fact the lowest in a decade. Unemployment fell by 52,000 to 1.6 million in the three months post-Brexit. Per the ONS, unemployment hovered at 4.8% - an 11year low. Average weekly earnings, excluding bonuses, increased by 2.7% compared to a year earlier. Overall employment rate hovered at an encouraging 74.5%

 

In an update to its biannual World Outlook published on 16 January 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast that the British economy will grow by 1.5 percent this year, 0.4 points more than expected in October, after 1.6 percent growth in 2016. The IMF says that “domestic demand held up better than expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote”. But it has revised its 2018 forecast for the UK down by 0.3 points to 1.4 percent growth.

 

I have maintained all along that Brexit will have negative consequences only in the short term and had disagreed with many pundits who talked about a collapse of international trade and globalisation. Brexit is a trade dispute between the UK and the EU and projecting this as a global trade malaise is an exaggeration. It is a local contagion and will have minimal impact on world trade.

 

Britain has had a complicated relationship with the EU. The EU continues to be dominated by Germany and France giving it little say. The UK has always harbored an ambition to re-emerge as a world leader and has consistently sought to use every opportunity to project its military, political and economic leadership. Given this agenda, it would be only logical to not expect the UK to play second fiddle in the EU for long.

 

While the bravado may be applauded back at home, the UK is definitely taking a big risk. Non-EU exports for November 2016 stood at $18.6 billion while EU exports stood at $17.34 billion. On the other hand, non-EU imports stood at 24.2 billion while imports from EU stood at $28 billion. (Data: UK Trade Info). In other words, give or take, 50% of UK trade is with EU. This is a sizeable chunk and the UK will have to work hard to protect this trade.

 

I am of the view that human ingenuity and innovation will take the lead in crisis situations. I had already expressed this in my earlier piece. My guess is that a new trade deal will be carved out by the UK with its “old friends and new allies”. It is too early to predict an unraveling of the European Union. But suffice it to say it will no longer be the same again. But from what appears in my crystal ball, I can safely say a new trade order and tariff regime is in the offing.

 

The powerful economies of China and India have been bystanders to this awesome spectacle called “Brexit”. Britain seems to be working overtime to woo these two economic power houses. And rightly so, as any future trade grouping and tariff regime can no longer ignore them.

 

For now, Brexit is not truly any exit. It is the ushering in of a new era in international trade. 

User Comments Post a Comment
"The area also looked like a war zone, with hundreds of armed security personnel, armoured vehicles, water-cannon trucks, teargas equipment and riot-control vehicles ready to thwart any attempts to enter the state. Wire fencing augmented the blockade. "...........This sentence speaks volumes about the situation,nothing more to add.
observer
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
Omar Abdullah deserves dismissal for insulting grace of Parliament. The hauling of two leaders of opposition in
Parliament and then treating them as enemy agents by detaining for five hours at the landing pavement of Jammu Airport yesterday as most outrageous act of the Government of J&K and deserves immediate and urgent attention of Prime Minister of India to bring Chief Minister of J&K to justice. Mrs. Sushma Swaraj (Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha), Mr. Arun Jaitley (Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha) and Mr. Anant Kumar (M.P. from Karnataka) were made to stand
inside the Airport while arrival doors were shut by the police depriving the opposition leaders to use toilets even for five hours. We invite the attention of the Speaker of the Lok
Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to take cognizance of this authoritarian act of J&K Chief Minister who acted as ‘Sultan’ of Kashmir to hurt the grace of the Parliament.
Bhim Singh
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
I am completely at a loss. When Narsimha Rao was Prime Minister, if I remember correctly, Indian Parliament pased a resolution that Pakistan occupied Kashmir was an integral part of India. What has govt of India done to enforce its resolution? Was it just an exercise in futility? Forget about Muzaffarabad for a moment, even in Srinagar the mighty Indian super power -- at least dreaming to be -- cannot unfurl the symbol of India -- why is it? Is even Srinagar part of India or not/ Why is it wrong to unfurl Indian flag? If it is not part of India then why waste national resources on it? Will there be same situation if Kashmir was not a Muslim majority state? Before 1947 Punjab, Sindh, Bengal, NWF had Muslim majority areas -- parts of these are no longer not part of India. What does it tell to a person with even an iota of common sense? Can someone please explain why is it a bad idea to unfurl Indian flag in its own territory? Can someone give me at one simple sensible reason.
Vinod
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
"Can someone give me at one simple sensible reason",Vinod yes i can!Does a "DISPUTED" teritory ring any bells for you?Does those United Nation's resolution agreed upon by the democratically elected Indian goverenments has any weight on you?Does those promises/speaches made by your elected Prime Minister in Lal chowk has any meaning to you?Does those Green flags hoisted by Kashmiris tells you any thing?Does those rules (agreed upon by Hindu and Muslim leaders of the time) by which the partion was to take place means any thing to you,just to jog your memory let me repeat them again ,all the Muslim majority areas would go to Pakistan and the other to India.If still you are not clear then you could be suffering from a retrograde amnesia,with best regards.
observer
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
The facts of the resolution is as follows. It was Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then Leader of the Opposition, had introduced a resolution in the Lok Sabha reiterating that the whole of Jammu & Kashmir is part of India. Narsimha Rao suggested to Atalji that instead of the latter, the resolution should be moved by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, at the time it was Shivraj Patil. The Lok Sabha then passed the resolution unanimously. In this context, it is also necessary another resolution which Atalji
wanted to introduce. It was during the early 1960s, when Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister. The resolution was to delete Article 370 from the constitution. Jawaharlalji said that it was not necessary, since many aspects of the article had already been deleted, and that it will eventually disappear (the words used were 'ghiste ghiste ghis jayega). It should be remembered that the title of the article is "Temporary provisions regarding Jammu & Kashmir". Clearly the framers
of the constitution wanted the article to be eventually eliminated.
It is a tragedy of Indian politics that very little was done by the BJP since. However, what it more forcefully exposes is the hypocrisy of the class of people (both politicians and non-politicians) that go under the rubric 'secular'.
Ashok
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
Thanks for giving the details. It is better not to make a law than to make a law and not enforce it. It weakens the power of the state. By passing a resolution in parliament and then not enforcing it sends a clear message to the world that the GOI itself does not believe in what it says. It now does not even have a fig leaf to cover itself.

India's problems are its own creation -- it is naive to blame others.

What credibility does the GOI can have abroad when its government itself declines to hoist its own national flag in its own boundaries. Is the mighty GOI afraid of a few hoodlums? What right such an administration have to run a country -- whether it is BJP or Congress. It is not a question of party -- it is a matter whether J&K is part of India or not and what does the administration think of it.
Vinod
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
I think such a statement is a blanket condemnation of the people at large, and, if so, is most unfair on the population. It should be understood that the ones creating the problems are those who think that they are guiding the destiny of the nation. And, here, the major culprits are those who are supposed to occupy the intellectual space in the society, and not so much the politicians. It is these 'intellectuals' who are expected to explain the issues to the people in a dispassionate manner. But they use their position to push forward their own personal agenda, and not the truth.
Ashok
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
One is horrified to learn that J&K police entered the Durganath mandir, Chinar Mandir and Hanuman Mandir in Srinagar to look for the hidden Hindus who may hoist the flag. Some nationalists who reached the venue later with flag were badly roughed up by the secular CM's men. Shame. Would he dare to have men in uniform enter churches and mosques to look for terrorists and would the great secular media have blocked out the news? Shame
Rajan
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
I am astonished to learn that Omar Abdullah has broken the established conventiont that the National flag at Jammu (winter capital of J&K) is hoisted by the Governor of the state whereas in Srinagar it is hoisted by the Chief Minister. Today however one learns with astonishment that Omar Abdullah deputed a minister to perform this ‘ritual’ at Srinagar Bakhshi Stadium at a cosmetic ceremony attended by 40 civilians mostly Govt employees. The NC Chief Minister has given a clear message to his patrons in Delhi and elsewhere that he means business and to the separatists thatNC stands by his commitment to champion the cause of the terrorists by challenging the states integration with the Union of India and daring to stop BJP’s entry to J&K
Addy
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
Pls read foll. links:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/01/25/disturb-sleep/
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2011/01/25/lal-chowk-today-lal-qila-tomorrow/
and especially
http://vinodksharma.blogspot.com/2010/09/for-today-of-few-tomorrow-of-india.html

Jai Hind!
seadog4227
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
observer seems to be suffering from some selective amnesia. With 40% of J&K being non-sunni and desperately wanting to remain in India, you have no locus standi. Do you think India will send them into the fundamentalist maw of pakistan where they will be butchered or converted like the 10% of pakistani hindus who remained after partition? Don't quote rules and agreements when civilized nations all agree that genocide is a crime against humanity. Your wretched pakistan is guilty of it both within its boundaries and within the boundaries of bangladesh where it snuffed out the lives of 3 million people. you have no moral authority and are just making a laughingstock of yourself. Ethnic kashmiri hindus, sikhs, shias, christians and buddhists all wish to remain in India and want no part of your fundamentalist vision of kashmir--remember that.
Nagabhatta I
January 26, 2011
Report Abuse
BJP did a great thing by taking up the flag hoisting issue at Lal Chowk. We understand what this event conveyed. A Muslim majority area will not allow the tri colour to be unfurled. Those who understand the significance of this will get the picture clearly. Slowly but surely more and more areas in India will not see the tri colour hoisted.
Shivram
January 27, 2011
Report Abuse