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.
Posts
