It seems increasingly apparent that the outside world no longer seems to really exist beyond the cliffs of Dover, as far as the government, and large swathes of the media are concerned.
Michel Barnier has reminded the UK government for what feels like the umpteenth time already what leaving the EU and the single market will mean to Britain. But time and again, the government, supported by like-minded media moguls, dismiss whatever the EU has to say as simply "Project Fear". Time and again, Barnier reminds the government that the EU is simply responding to what the UK government has said it does and doesn't want. It was May's decision to leave the single market and customs union. It was the UK's decision to leave the EU. Barnier just reminds Britain, time and again, that actions have consequences. If the British government in incapable of accepting that basic fact, then that is not the EU's fault. It is not the EU's fault that Britain's government chose to leave; it was Britain that chose to leave the EU. If "Brexit means Brexit" and "leave means leave", then the EU simply is acting according to the legal consequences of those British decisions.
But this is the unreality that passes for life in the British media and politics. As European politicians are now seeing, as Britain before wanted to be in the EU but with lots of "opt-outs", now Britain wants to be out of the EU but with lots of "opt-ins".
This is what the British government's position boils down to. European politicians can only scratch their head at this attitude. Don't the politicians in Britain understand how the EU works? As Barnier explains repeatedly (as to a small child) how can they not see that this is simply not possible? The answer is that, no, most British politicians do not understand how the organisation Britain has been a part of for forty years works. Most have just never bothered. Besides, the fact that Britain has repeatedly achieved "opt-outs" over the years while in the EU simply reinforces the "delusions of grandeur" that many in the British government now possess, Theresa May included. They cannot get their heads around the simple fact that now Britain is an exiting member of the EU, the (last-minute) compromises that worked in the favour when they were a member are legally impossible with Britain as a "third country". Again, these are facts that the British government chooses to ignore.
Theresa May makes speeches declaring her "red lines", which are largely aimed for domestic (political) consumption. But because the government makes no other effort to coach this in its true (internal) context, outside interests such as the EU or foreign multinationals can only assume she means what she says. What other evidence have they to go on?
As was once said, "idle talk costs lives"; in today's context, May's "idle talk" is costing the country its reputation. The belligerent talk at the EU from both the government and supportive areas of the media (seemingly working in concert) can only be interpreted by Brussels at face value. If Britain sees the EU as a "hostile power" that is trying to punish it for leaving, then the EU can only respond in kind, as a matter of self-interest. The damage being done to Britain's reputation and its future can only be laid at Britain's door. The EU is simply responding to what Britain is doing.
The sense that the British government and the media are ignoring reality is hard to miss. Some newspapers and some politicians are eager to explain to whoever is listening of the sheer madness of the government's "red lines" (as well as parts of industry explaining how, if implemented, they would likely wipe out segments of Britain's economy). The problem is that these facts are dismissed by the quiescent media, well-connected interest groups and the government itself as "Project Fear", again and again; these well-founded fears are further discredited by seeing such talk as defeatist or worse, borderline treasonous. Thus the average person in Britain is faced with a mainstream media industry that is simply not telling them the truth, probably because many of them either support the government ideologically, or have ulterior motives.
In this sense, the "free" press is no longer interested in facts, but the dissemination of opinion and propaganda. Reports about the EU and Brexit are only reported if they can be "spun" to suit a certain agenda, such as the wider ideological bent of the editor. For many papers, talking of the dangers of "Hard Brexit" is tantamount to career suicide, due to the symbiotic relationship (from the commercial necessity of scoops and exclusives) that they have with the government. The BBC is as guilty of this as the more usual suspects; they need to keep in the government's "good books" for the licence fee, and to ensure that their "impartial" reputation with ministers allows a steady stream of Westminster gossip to fill the airways.
This facile and self-serving relationship large parts of the media have with Westminster therefore dumbs down the tone of debate to something puerile and self-serving, where political trivialities are seen are more interesting to report on than the far more consequential "boring" technicalities. In this way, even those media outlets naturally sceptical of the government's strategy are forced to repeat their nonsense to maintain a worthwhile line of communication, or risk being black-marked. Meanwhile, in the ideologically-supportive press, the consequences of the government's "red lines" when explained by the EU are explained as either scaremongering or a "negotiation tactic". The sad truth is that if someone in Britain wants to get reliable information about Brexit, they would be better to look outside the UK.
Aside from the inherent unreliability of the mainstream media for all the reasons mentioned, the government itself is the last person to go to for information on Brexit. Apart from the obvious self-serving agenda is the fact that information is so hard to come by in any case. While the EU's negotiation strategy is published regularly for public consumption, the British government's strategy is hidden from the public eye, with access to all relevant documentation to Brexit tightly-controlled. Even parliament struggles to obtain any useful information (such as the (in)famous "impact assessments"). Again, like with the media's treatment of information on Brexit, even the government's own reports that explain the likely effect the government's "red lines" will have on the economy are dismissed by the government as scaremongering. When you are up against such an attitude to government as this, what chance is there of technical experts getting a fair hearing?
In terms of the negotiations, the British government isn't even "negotiating" with the EU in any real sense. It is arguable that it never really was, in a true sense of the word, because it saw its negotiations in a zero-sum perspective and was thus not interested in working in mutual advantage. While the government declared that it was in both the UK's and the EU's interests to avoid cross-border friction for trade, the British government refused to accept any of the suggestions that the EU offered that were feasible, such as membership of EFTA. Instead, Theresa May created her "red lines" that unilaterally reduced Britain's options, meaning that the only legal option left for the EU was some form of future FTA with Britain. And still the government insists that what it wanted was something else, more "ambitious", that took account of Britain's "unique" status as a former EU member. Thus, unable to see beyond the self-obsessed insularity of its own historical power, Britain demands that the EU break its own rules to satisfy the whims of a non-member. Unable to see that it was Theresa May's "red lines" that were creating Britain's problems for it, the government insists that it is the EU that must break its own rules to solve the problems that Britain created for itself. The abject inability of the government to see how pathologically myopic its behaviour is has demonstrated how dangerously detached from reality "Brexit Britain" has become.
The government and media's chronic insularity means that all the talk of the Brexit negotiations is about what the various British government ministers want to achieve post-Brexit, regardless of if this is even remotely acceptable to the EU. The story is repeated week after week, with the media obsessed with how the government argues with itself about what Brexit "vision" it has at that moment, with no thought at all to what the most important player in the negotiations would think: the EU. If the "negotiations" are meant to mean anything, then Britain has the obligation to find a "deal" with the EU; the alternative is "no deal". But Britain's position is so self-obsessed that they either cannot see this, or refuse to believe it. Instead, they see the EU's position as secondary to the government's own interests, which it ties itself in knots over in any case. The British government can't even negotiate with itself, let alone the EU. Meanwhile, the government's interlocutors in Brussels become more and more baffled with the aims that Britain's ministers say the country wishes post-Brexit, as they are completely incompatible with reality. To outsiders, it looks as though London is ruled by either madmen or morons.
It is this "parallel universe" that outsiders experience when they encounter the British media or political establishment. Much of the media have lost all objectivity; those who are not supportive of the government are dismissed as doing down the country, while even facts presented that are somewhat accurate fail to provide anywhere near the right level of detail. Meanwhile, the government pursues its own internal squabble over Brexit, completely detached from reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment