Brexit (un)balance sheet shows cons far outweigh pros

Former top UK diplomat Anthony Cary draws up a balance sheet of the likely pros and cons of Brexit. Three years on and it’s not looking very balanced.

The likely pros of continuing with Brexit:

• Blue passports (though we are already free to have them, as members of the EU).
• Cheaper property prices (though this is likely to advantage foreigners more than an impoverished UK population).
• A bonanza for disaster capitalists and those determined to fend off EU legislation to clamp down on tax evasion.
• Theoretical ability to exclude EU citizens from entering the UK in future (though we already have the ability to address voters’ concerns with EU immigration without leaving the bloc).
• A United Ireland (possibly, medium term, though maybe not without bloodshed)
• No EU membership fee (though this is about 0.5% of GDP, and dwarfed by the economic damage of leaving the EU).

Now, the likely cons of continuing with Brexit. But first, the damage already sustained:

• Loss of investment; weakness of the UK economy relative to the global trend; loss of EU regulatory agencies for medicines and banking; opportunity costs of repeatedly stockpiling for a no-deal Brexit.
• Polarisation of the country.
• Serious damage to the UK’s reputation for competence, stability and good sense.
• Huge loss of influence already.
• Loss of scientific research projects and contracts like Galileo.
• Ongoing political paralysis: failure to address the UK’s many problems (from increasing regional disparities to funding of social care) while Brexit consumes all oxygen in Westminster.

Damage to come, if we proceed:

• Much greater economic damage to come, short and medium term, if Brexit actually goes ahead, especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Further loss of investment, migration of head offices, breakdown of supply chains, loss of jobs etc. Potential threats to public order, etc.
• No reason to expect any economic dividend in the long term, whether we end up as rule-takers in a US regulatory orbit or an EU one. 
• Long, acrimonious negotiations for a new – necessarily inferior – relationship with the EU. (A free trade agreement makes sense between trade partners divided by tariffs, quotas and regulatory obstacles. For UK and EU it would be a “new obstacles to trade agreement”. Nor would it cover services.)
• Obstacles to collaboration in scientific research, etc.
• Weakening of the UK’s ability to strike advantageous trade deals with third countries, as (outside the EU) we offer so much less in reciprocal benefits. In general we can hope to piggy-back on EU deals, but third countries will exact a price for offering us that privilege.
• Threat to the integrity of the UK, including a potential second Scottish independence referendum.
• Threat to the Good Friday Agreement and peace in Northern Ireland
• Further loss of the UK’s reputation as we squabble over our new relationship with the EU, on which negotiation has yet to begin.
• Further loss of UK influence (and maybe a threat to our UN Security Council seat). The UK will no longer be a “player” on the big transnational issues like regulation of tech giants or climate emergency.
• Loss of the UK’s ability to influence the environment in which it must make its way (i.e. “loss of control”)
• Damage to the rules-based international order, including the EU. 
• Vladimir Putin’s delight at western Europe’s discomfiture (plus Donald Trump’s delight at weakening of the EU, which he has previously called a “foe”)
• Germany left uncomfortably dominant in the EU – which they do not want, preferring a Europeanised Germany to a Germanised Europe.
• Loss of the UK as a champion of liberal market forces within the EU, with a greater tendency towards protectionism (now directed against the UK, as a “third country”).
• Loss of freedom of movement, and UK citizens’ rights in Europe.
• Further polarisation and breakdown of trust in democracy as all sides scream “betrayal”, and especially the hardest Brexiters, who will say: “This is not how it was meant to be, and the fault lies with fifth-column traitors, Remoaners, immigrants, vindictive Europeans, the Establishment / ”deep state”, lack of faith in unicorns, judges, mainstream media, Whitehall, politicians, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and/or Jeremy Hunt”.
• The rise of Nigel Farage and ethno-nationalism, and the weakening of political centre ground.
• Brexit emphatically not “resolved”. On the contrary, it will be the “end of the beginning” with years and years of this to come.

Anthony Cary served as a diplomat in Berlin, Kuala Lumpur, Washington DC, and latterly as British Ambassador to Sweden and High Commissioner to Canada. He was twice seconded to the European Commission. He is currently a Commonwealth Scholarship Commissioner and hon President of the Canada-UK Council.

The headline of this article was corrected shortly after publication to read “the cons far outweigh the pros” rather than the other way round. Apologies for any confusion!