Why not, if you believe the exit was a wrong and chaotic turn? It seems quite logical. Reeves' approach is exactly what you would do if you want to reverse Brexit without the hassle or risk of seeking public approval. However, full membership is undoubtedly what we will eventually end up with, once it is marketed as a simple arrangement that restores Britons' freedom of travel to the EU without needing to pay £20 for a visa waiver, but without any other significant practical consequences, as they are tied to EU rules anyway. GDP There are other points in Reeves' speech that cannot be left unanswered. She cited a fictional number, claiming Brexit cost the UK 8% of GDP. Given that the UK has grown at the same rate as France since leaving the EU and even overtaken Germany, this seems unlikely. It proves the opposite hypothesis: that the UK would have prospered had it not left the EU. The reason for the current slowdown is not Brexit, but employer National Insurance, which has killed job creation, and employment rights law. Reeves also repeated the old claim that 'austerity' harmed growth in the first decade of the 21st century by starving the economy of investment. For Britons to believe this, they must believe that only the UK's public sector can provide the investment that drives economic growth, despite the poor track record of public investment. If the government had not cut spending, it would have required increased borrowing or sharp tax hikes, which would have killed investment even more, whereas cutting spending would have dangerously increased the cost of government borrowing amid a sovereign debt crisis that was consuming Greece, Spain, and other European countries. The reason for the slowdown The UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer looked truly desperate in her attempts to blame anyone other than herself for her country's poor economic performance. And so, Brexit ends—not with a bang, but with a 'grumbling' submission to EU standards in everything and billions in contributions to the EU treasury, while pretending the UK is not actually joining the single market or customs union. This was the position presented by UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her speech last week, stating that the government will seek a 'bespoke' deal with the EU without its membership, where the exception is the rule, not the norm. What does this mean in practice? The EU has made it crystal clear that it will not accept a pick-and-choose list for the single market. If the UK wants to be in the European club, it will have to accept all its rules and pay all its dues. This means freedom of movement and accepting all social directives, although the current government seems determined not to bow to the EU on employment rights. In any case, it probably won't mean much. 'Wrong turn' The government's position on Brexit now seems illogical. Reeves describes the exit as a 'wrong and chaotic turn,' yet insists there will be no return to the single market or customs union. To correct this, the UK doesn't need to rejoin the EU; it needs a more competent Chancellor of the Exchequer. From 'The Spectator'
