“Brexit is over, but what’s next?”

Mr Tombs, a year ago Brexit was definitely completed with the end of the transition period. What has actually improved for the British?

First of all, I would like to state that the demise scenarios of the Brexit opponents have not come true. We have seen neither economic collapse nor mass unemployment. At the same time, 2021 has been overshadowed by the pandemic, and Brexit has brought little tangible improvements for citizens. I would mention two exceptions: Firstly, our corona vaccination program got off to a much better start than that of the EU. It would have been possible to go it alone within the EU, but as a member we would certainly have joined the joint procurement program.

The second example is the Aukus security pact with Australia and the USA. We could have concluded this agreement as an EU member, but we would almost certainly not have done it. In view of the threat from Russia, we remain committed to security policy in Europe. But Aukus shows that our interests are now further away from Europe and that we are again focusing more on the “Anglosphere”.

In your Book “This Sovereign Isle” argue that UK EU membership was an anomaly. Is Britain now finding its way back to its historic role?

I think so, even if this statement is of course controversial. The EU advocates consider Brexit to be a purely nostalgic project, although I have never met a Brexiteer who wants to revive the British Empire. Above all, however, the focus on Asia and the “Anglosphere” is also future-oriented, since the Indo-Pacific region is the most dynamic region of the world.

To person

PD

Brexiteer and Cambridge Historians

nn. · Robert Tombs, 72, is a History Professor Emeritus and Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge University. His specialties were French history and Anglo-French relations, where he was awarded an Ordre des Palmes Académiques by the French government. In 2016 he was one of the few renowned British academics to support Brexit. Today he works as the publisher of platforms for conservative and Brexit-friendly scientists and as a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, the Spectator and the Times. His book on Brexit entitled “This Sovereign Isle” was published in 2021 by Penguin Books.

You write that geography shapes history. To what extent is Brexit the result of Britain’s island existence?

An island or an archipelago has a completely different view of the European idea than a landlocked country like Austria or the Czech Republic. Geography creates a way of thinking and economic connections. But there is always a political choice. In 2016, the Brexit referendum could just as easily have turned out differently. The decisive factor was that Great Britain was not in the euro zone, otherwise we would not have been able to afford to leave. The fact that we had never joined the euro was the result of our skepticism towards a European federal state.

Where do you see the reasons for the EU skepticism in Switzerland, a landlocked country in the heart of Europe?

In the case of Switzerland, it was the mountains that gave the country such a long history of independence. In addition, Switzerland is probably the most democratic country in the world, at least much more democratic than Great Britain. We only question the people very seldom, Switzerland has a living tradition of referendums. It is therefore understandable that the Swiss do not want to give up power to institutions over which they have no control. Ultimately, you cannot share sovereignty, you can only give it up.

With the hard Brexit, the British government weighted sovereignty higher than the connection to the EU market. In 2021, the country experienced queues at gas stations, a shortage of labor, bottlenecks in supermarkets.

Some of these bottlenecks may be due to Brexit. But there are reports of labor shortages across Europe and even in China. Many problems are a consequence of the pandemic and the media coverage is often very biased. It is also written that our trade with the EU has collapsed, but it has declined to the same extent as our global trade, which suggests that it is a consequence of Covid-19.

Not only the media are reporting on the negative consequences of Brexit. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility Brexit will reduce gross domestic product (GDP) more than the pandemic. and according to the Bank of England the global orientation of the UK economy is declining, while the EU countries’ share of GDP remains stable.

There are forces in administration, in the media, but also in institutions like the Bank of England, who have always been against Brexit. If the share of trade in GDP falls, it can also mean that fewer goods of the same type are exchanged and more is produced for the home market. The British economy has in the past relied too heavily on the import of cheap labor, with young people from the continent working in every London restaurant. We have neglected to properly train the young British for too long, which is why the government is now talking about expanding vocational training.

The free movement of persons expired a year ago. Shouldn’t such a training offensive as part of the Brexit preparation have been launched much earlier?

You’re right. And I have to tell you that more and more Brexiteers are wondering whether we have simply not realized for years how incompetent our state apparatus has become. The British administration was once considered a Rolls-Royce, and today we are far from that.

It is the politicians who control the administration. Boris Johnson’s Brexit-friendly government does not seem to know what it is using the new sovereignty for and how it intends to deviate from EU rules.

This is reflected in the dissatisfaction in large parts of the conservative party. Brexit is over and the government has kept this promise. But what’s next? The answer seems to be: unfortunately not a lot in a hurry. Many Brexiteers note with impatience that we have not yet gone far in deviating from EU regulations.

In mid-December, Brexit Minister Lord Frost resigned in protest against corona restrictions, tax increases and social expansion. Have the Brexiteers got rid of the EU bureaucracy in order to rebuild it in their own country?

Lord Frost’s resignation is a bad sign. But the role of the state can certainly be discussed. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, we went through a long phase of neoliberalism and globalization that now seems to have come to an end. The state may have to invest more because other actors are not. The pandemic has also shown that we cannot outsource the production of medical equipment to China without consequences. Boris Johnson seems to have understood intuitively that in a time of constant change, people are looking for a sense of security that the state can offer.

The lockdown party affair and the slump in a lower house by-election have weakened Johnson. Is he still the right man to lead Britain into the future?

The self-inflicted affairs of the last few weeks are evidence of political ineptitude and weak leadership. One wonders what the Johnson government actually stands for and whether it is still capable of running the country efficiently. Johnson doesn’t have much time to prove himself. Many observers believe that he has only a few months as Prime Minister and I am inclined to agree with them. Johnson’s greatest strength right now is the lack of an obvious successor.

Brexit fueled the centrifugal forces in Great Britain. Will Scotland still be part of the UK in ten years?

I hope so. And I belong to the minority of those who believe that Scottish independence has become less likely after Brexit. Separating from England under the common EU umbrella would have been relatively painless. With Brexit, however, the practical problems would be much greater, even if independence has become much more emotionally attractive for the nationalists. It would be very unhealthy if the Scots developed an ever greater hatred of the United Kingdom but believed they could not afford the separation.

In Northern Ireland, Brexit is creating tension between denominational groups. Did the Brexiteers underestimate the explosive power of leaving the EU for Northern Ireland?

It is true that England did not care much about what Northern Ireland wanted. The majority of the Northern Irish voted against Brexit because they feared problems. Most British people also feel nothing of the fact that Northern Ireland has now more or less remained in the EU internal market and has been separated from Great Britain in a certain way. However, we Brexiteers believe that the practical problems surrounding border controls were not unsolvable and were used by the EU to put the UK under pressure. I judge the chances of a united Ireland after Brexit to be similar to the prospect of an independent Scotland. The nationalists’ emotional attractiveness has increased, but not their practical attractiveness.

What effects will Brexit have on the EU? And how do you, as an expert on France, assess the consequences for the relationship between Paris and London?

In the short term, Brexit seems to have strengthened cohesion in the EU. It has to do with the way the UK handled Brexit, but also with the way it was reported. This allows President Emmanuel Macron to claim that the UK is in dire straits after Brexit. Only when people believe that Brexit will not fail or even be successful can the initial situation change. Brexit is just the latest episode in the rivalry between France and Great Britain. This is based on historical conflicts, but also on cultural exchange and a mixture of admiration and dislike. If we had a fishing dispute with Portugal or the Netherlands, we would resolve it as soon as possible. But there is always jealousy at play between France and Great Britain.