Wednesday 19 June 2019

Rights which can't be exercised aren't rights at all


Whilst he hasn’t exactly been converted to the cause of independence, statements made this week by former First Minister Carwyn Jones are certainly a step forward in terms of the debate which we need to have.  And there is much in what he says with which I can readily agree.
Firstly, there’s nothing wrong or unpatriotic about believing that Wales might actually be better off economically not being independent.  It’s a conclusion with which I profoundly disagree and it ignores the non-economic arguments about accepting responsibility for managing our own destiny, but there’s nothing anti-Welsh or unpatriotic about it.  But the mere recognition that the choice exists and that there is scope for debate about whether or not we should choose it is a significant change, and a welcome one.
And secondly, I agree with him about the difficulties (post-Brexit) associated with the idea that an independent Wales could negotiate its own deal with the EU, whether it chose membership or not.  He is absolutely right, in my view, when he says that "There's very little point in having, shall we say, market access to the single market and finding we can't export to England."  Whether we like it or not, the facts of history and geography mean that the economy in Wales has developed in a way which makes it something of an appendage of England, and breaking that economic union would be a bigger shock for Wales than breaking the union between the UK and the EU. 
Within the EU, ‘independence’ (defined as that status enjoyed by all member states) within a single market where the trading arrangements with our largest markets remain unchanged is a comparatively easy state to achieve.  Yes, of course, there’s a lot of negotiation required in terms of splitting the UK’s representation in various bodies, agreeing budgetary contributions etc.  But it’s a conceptually simple process which can be achieved without major economic shock, precisely because it would not create a separate economic jurisdiction.
To achieve the same level of ‘independence’ in post-Brexit UK is also conceptually quite simple, as long as the trading arrangements with our largest markets remain unchanged.  In effect, however, that requires continued regulatory alignment with England for the foreseeable future; the ability to escape that alignment (if it were ever agreed to be a desirable objective) would depend on a long term refocussing of the Welsh economy which would be ‘challenging’ to say the least.  For an ‘independent’ Wales, in such a scenario, negotiating its own trade deals with the EU or anyone else raises all the same issues over border controls between England and Wales as leaving the EU does in respect of Ireland, and that is, surely, all that the former First Minister is saying.
There are some independentistas who see the second scenario as being better than the first, because it represents a greater degree of ‘independence’.  And it’s true that the second scenario, unlike the first, would give Wales the right to negotiate its own trading arrangements with the rest of the world.  But a ‘right’ which exists de jure but which it is impossible to exercise de facto isn’t much of a right at all; the reality is that our trading arrangements would be largely determined by the whim of our neighbour who would be under no obligation at all even to consult us, whereas within the EU we would have an equal seat at the table.
The biggest problem with ‘independence’ isn’t about its achievability or practicality; it’s about defining what it means.  In an interconnected world, it cannot mean what it used to mean two centuries ago, not even for a medium-sized state like the UK (something which the Brexiteers are still struggling to comprehend).  The level of ‘independence’ enjoyed by Eire, Malta and Latvia, coupled with a seat at the table, is enough for them, and should be enough for Wales too.  And in practical – if not strictly constitutional terms – it looks a lot more like ‘independence’ than being tightly tied to England in any imaginable post-Brexit scenario.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you are misguided.

The biggest problem we have is determining how we decide whether the population has an appetite for independence. I don't think just one referendum could be accepted by any political party here in Wales (other than UKIP and the Conservatives).

No, we need to be thorough and rigorous in our attempts to work out what the majority want and we need to keep in mind that the demographic changes every few years.

How are we going to cope with all this?

John Dixon said...

CapM said... (Comment re-posted from another post)

First of all I'd like to say that I'm a regular reader of your blog and look forward to reading your perceptive comments. In the past you've drawn attention to how it would be more difficult for Cymru to become independent if the UK leaves the EU. Your argument convinced me. Painful because accepting it removed an - increased likelihood of independence "silver lining" - to my Brexit cloud.

Years later we still don't know what the future UK EU relationship will be but the UK having the status of a third country to the EU is at least a possibility. If a reality, any movement for an independent Cymru would have to address that reality.

As the narrative - that an independent Cymru is impossible if England is outside the EU is already being applied to this potential reality it needs to be countered now. Later will be too late.

"There's very little point in having, shall we say, market access to the single market and finding we can't export to England."
An independent Cymru whatever it's relationship with the EU could export/import/re-export/re-import to an independent England whatever their relationships with the EU were.
Different and varied relationships with the EU are possible and all can change over time. Some relationships would result in more costs being associated with trade others less.

None outside the realms of dystopian fantasy would mean that Cymru could not export to England.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

"The biggest problem we have is determining how we decide whether the population has an appetite for independence." From the perspective of an independentista, the issue is creating that appetite rather than merely measuring it. But I'll accept your basic point that on the question of independence (albeit not restricted to that issue), how we decide what 'the people' want when not only who constitutes 'the people' but also their opinions are constantly changing is a far from straightforward question; too complex to be dealt with in a brief comment here. For now, I'll just say that the fact that it's difficult and dynamic is not an adequate argument for 'no change'.

John Dixon said...

CapM,

"An independent Cymru whatever it's relationship with the EU could export/import/re-export/re-import to an independent England whatever their relationships with the EU were ... None outside the realms of dystopian fantasy would mean that Cymru could not export to England." I agree, and in using the word "can't" the former First Minister (and by extension, myself, in agreeing with him) was going further than the facts allow.

What is true though is that two neighbouring economic jurisdictions which accept imports from a third party on different terms (whether the difference is in terms of standards, tariffs, or other regulations) cannot both have a fully open border and ensure that their own agreements with that third party are fully complied with. This is the essential truth which seems to be escaping the grasp of Brexiteers, and would require, in such circumstances, what is over-simplistically referred to as a 'hard border' between England and Wales. Whilst such a border does not make cross-border trade 'impossible' it does raise serious obstacles, and they don't only apply to those goods imported from that third party, since prevention of smuggling requires verification of the actual content of any shipment to ensure that it does not include such goods. Turn a single third party into a multiplicity of third parties, all with slightly different terms of trade, and the border necessarily becomes harder. But, as you say, no matter how hard that border is, it doesn't make trade impossible, merely harder or more expensive.

But the issue isn't just economic - it's also political. Would the people of Wales ever vote for a future in which there was a high degree of certainty of border checks along the length of Offa's Dyke? I'm a committed independentista, and I'd hesitate to vote for that. It's certainly not an argument that I'd like to have on the doorstep.

CapM said...


Regarding the doorstep. It might well be that either that is the argument or there is no argument.

I think the argument needs the base line to be - independence for Cymru is better for Cymru. How much better will depend in part on the relationship England has with the EU. As far as trade/movement/services goes this is not completely different to the situation ex-USSR republics currently in the EU faced a few years ago.

I think people to a large degree tend to adopt an opinion and then select reasons to support the opinion. If people adopt the opinion that an independent Cymru is best for Cymru then even the extreme scenario of border checks along Offa's Dyke could be a reason they select to support that opinion.

What England decides the future of England or Englandandwales and the EU will be is out of our hands anyway. It's a big task to convince enough people in Cymru to support independence without in addition attempting to convince England that it should facilitate our task by developing a relationship with the EU favourable to an independence project.

John Dixon said...

"I think the argument needs the base line to be - independence for Cymru is better for Cymru. How much better will depend in part on the relationship England has with the EU." Agree with the first part of that; the second is true only in terms of economics. There are definitions of 'better' which do not wholly depend on economics and it has been a failing of the independence cause in Wales over many years that we have allowed others (including, in this context, Carwyn Jones) to set the context in terms solely of economics.

"As far as trade/movement/services goes this is not completely different to the situation ex-USSR republics currently in the EU faced a few years ago." Not sure that the similarity is a close one because of the relative state of development of the EU economy and the Soviet bloc economy, but I accept that the principle is valid.

CapM said...

I agree that "better" encompasses much more than just economics.