I hope everyone enjoyed the holidays and has manged to endure, as best as possible, a very long January this year with lockdown in full flow.
I hadn’t purposely given myself a break on the blog front. Truth be told I’d started a new job and struggled to find a new rhythm for when to fit in my blog writing and research alongside everything else. Thankfully, I think I’ve sorted that and while silent on posts I’ve hopefully got some interesting topics to share and discuss in the coming weeks.
To this week’s post though and the small matter of Brexit. I’m sure the EU vaccine story hasn’t escaped you. A story that any objective observer can only conclude saw the EU have a shocker.
Inevitably though, and I do think sadly, this episode very quickly became the latest example for one side to declare victory in the great ‘Brexit Battle’. I say sadly as I think anyone seeking to achieve a definitive verdict on the topic misses the point entirely. No side will ever be proven ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ on Brexit. It is impossible. This is because neither model on offer – EU member or independent sovereign nation – are perfect anyway. An independent UK will have its moments. Just as the EU model will. We have just seen our first major example of one.
Even if we try to identify on balance which model is ‘best’ it is impossible to see how one model can be declared ‘the winner’. Why? Because each person places fundamentally different values on different aspects of what each model entails. For example, sovereignty was crucial for many who advocated Brexit. They wanted those representatives directly elected by them to be responsible for the laws that rule over them. They didn’t like the idea of having laws passed where officials elected directly by them (UK MEPs) represent only a portion of the Parliament. Where the issues of Polish citizens or any other EU member dilute their voice.
For those who wanted to remain this issue simply wasn’t a concern. They saw no issue with a European Parliament elected and empowered to act in this way. These differences in preference won’t ever be resolved in a ‘victory’ moment. No matter how hard any side tries to claim otherwise.
The vaccine saga does though demonstrate a real benefit of Brexit that should allow both sides to agree. That an independent UK should raise the bar of governance for all in Europe.
Why? Put simply, there is another game in town. There is now competition in a market where there was none. Consider the events of the last week and how they may have unfolded very differently were it not for Brexit.
Had the UK not left it is almost certain we too would have agreed, like all other 27 members did, to take part in the EU vaccine procurement process. There is no basis to think that the outcome of that process (delays, supply shortages) would be any different had we joined. There would be one crucial difference however, there would have been no counter-factual to hold the EU to account and expose, on this issue, its failings.
Comparisons to Israel or US vaccination levels would have been dismissed or explained away by the EU as not fair comparatives. As a consequence the EU’s failings and their scale would likely be unknown to voters. Anyone who doubts this should look no further than a tweet by Martyn Selmar this week. Here a key EU technocrat championed the EU vaccine scheme and its progress by comparing the EU’s scheme to Africa, the poorest continent on Earth. This despite everyone knowing all too well the UK comparison that existed and of which he failed to mention. Deliberately so.
The UK making different choices therefore offers competing ideas. On this issue it has exposed failings in the EU model that otherwise could have been left unexposed. In the future the EU collective approach may demonstrate benefits in dealing with an issue and expose UK thinking. Either way everyone wins. Two models of democracy now exist at scale in Europe for the first time in decades. The monopoly of the EU and its groupthink are over. Centralisation as the secret to success on almost any issue is now facing a real challenge to its historic monopoly position. Which model you prefer is irrelevant. Both models are on notice that each can be embarrassed by the other. So shape up.
As we speak EU citizens are benefiting. The EU is seeking harder than ever to secure new supplies, but also individual nations have taken it upon themselves to source their own vaccine supplies where possible. The end result will be more people being vaccinated than otherwise may have been the case had the EU failings not been so starkly exposed by the UK’s comparative success. The EU bruised and now, hopefully, more motivated than ever to deliver for who matters most, the people.
When you think about competition, be that in Sport or Business, we universally understand the benefits of it. Would Senna have driven as well without Prost and vice versa? No. Is your weekly shop better off for the presence of competition in the sector? The price you pay and the choice available says yes. Would you do as good a job if you knew your employer had no other choice? Probably not.
Brexit was many different things to many different people. You either supported it or you didn’t. But one thing we should all be able to agree after the last week’s events is that there is now a real competition in governance that exists that didn’t before. That in the long run that should mean only one winner, irrespective of which model you live under or prefer, versus before. Citizens in the UK and the EU alike.