Many people will be
disappointed at the lack of success for the parties most committed, at least in
their manifestos, to action on climate change. There have been close
associations in right-wing economics and politics between Brexit-support, free
market fundamentalism and ideologically driven climate science denial,. This is
exemplified by politicians such as Lawson, Redwood, Trump and Rees Mogg, as
well as bodies such as the Institute for Economic Affairs and the “Economists
for Brexit”. Many will fear for the future of a rational approach to climate
issues. But in reality the difference in
outcomes, though significant, could be less profound.
TV climate debate with missing party leaders represented by melting ice.
The starting point will be
policies for trade.
Climate issues, although seen
as the major challenge of our time by most people, barely featured in the
election campaign. For the Tories, the issue would have led back directly to
trade and Trump, and for Labour, similarly, to the Brexit debate. These were
subjects that the main parties, for different reasons, were desperate to avoid.
But the links between trade and climate will in due course become very strong.
So I make no apologies for deviating briefly from my core themes of energy
policy and climate, and addressing the politics of trade policy. I believe
these connections will feature increasingly in international negotiations over
both trade issues and emissions targets.
The central issue for a Tory party
interested in its own long term prospects, and living up to the promises made
to its new constituencies in the North of England, returns once again to the
nature of the UK’s relationship with Europe. The rational analysis initially
assumed by most commentators was that three main pressures would operate work
to keep the UK close to the EU on trade - ie minimal divergence from single
market and customs union.
These were that:
·
major shifts in relations with the EU would
provide further ammunition to the SNP arguments for an independent Scotland
·
that similar concerns would arise in relation
to Northern Ireland, with the added complications of the border in the Irish
Sea, the commitments of the Good Friday Agreement, and continuing security dangers
· economic concern to minimise short and medium
term damage to the economy which, as well hitting Northern industrial towns
particularly hard, could compromise government finances, and its ability to pay
for NHS funding, infrastructure, and regeneration policies implicit or explicit
in the campaign
The danger of regression to
climate science denial, never too far away with the more intellectually
challenged elements of the Cabinet, is of course present if the government
wants a trade deal with the Trump administration, but climate issues are more
likely to push us closer to Europe both diplomatically and, ultimately, on
trade. Major deals with the US are
unlikely. For various reasons, such as the fact that many of our demands would
have to be negotiated state by state, they have little or nothing attractive to
offer us in return, while their demands on pharma and agriculture should be
deeply unattractive to any British government.
Although current headlines
suggest that the government may be set on an extreme “hard” no-deal Brexit,
Martin Sandbu has pointed out that, based on past experience, we might expect
some “creativity”, not to say pretence, as we move through 2020. “In 2019,
Johnson declared victory by conceding more than May while claiming he had not.” (FT, 19th December 2019, The End of the Beginning for Brexit.)
We might expect more of the
same, the illusion of as “taking back control” while avoiding the economic
disruptions that will carry a high political cost, rejection of a formal
extension of the transition period in which nothing changes, while still making
sure that in reality nothing does change. One option floated by Sandbu is “… a
trade treaty with two parts: a bare-bones trade agreement that avoids any
tariffs or quotas, plus a “placeholder” agreement that says negotiations will
continue on more ambitious trade relations and keeps everything (including the
UK’s financial and legal obligations to the EU) more or less the same for as
long as those talks continue.” In other words another pretence.
Meanwhile climate issues are
not going to disappear, with a steady stream of temperature records and more
volatile weather patterns, like those we have seen most recently in Australia.
The issues will become more and more important for younger voters, upon whom
future governments will increasingly depend, and where the current government
has polled particularly badly.
No comments:
Post a Comment