From the day Britain left the EU, this reset was inevitable. What a pointless waste of time, money and effort | Simon Jenkins

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Critique of Conservative Hypocrisy and Labour's Role in Brexit Reset"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The article critiques the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party in attacking Keir Starmer's recent attempts to reset Brexit negotiations, particularly given their own responsible for the substantial costs associated with implementing post-EU border arrangements. According to the National Audit Office, the UK has spent approximately £4.7 billion on these measures, including a costly border post in Kent, which the author refers to as an absurdity. The commentary reflects on the notion that these barriers against trading partners have proven futile, suggesting that the time, money, and effort invested in them could have been better spent. It also criticizes former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's role in promoting a hard Brexit, which the author argues was primarily a political maneuver rather than a reflection of public sentiment regarding trade with the EU.

Furthermore, the article highlights Starmer's past complicity in the Brexit process as a key figure in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, pointing out that he previously contributed to the rejection of a softer Brexit deal proposed by Theresa May. The author notes that the consequences of Brexit have been dire, with numerous estimates indicating significant economic decline for Britain. The article discusses how the UK’s negotiating power has diminished, necessitating adherence to EU food standards for trade and acknowledging concessions made in fishing rights and labor movement. It concludes by reflecting on changing public sentiment regarding Brexit, with a growing majority of Britons expressing regret over the decision to leave the EU. The author argues that the reset process initiated by Starmer is essential but acknowledges that true reconciliation with Europe will require time and effort, as the repercussions of Brexit continue to impact various sectors in the UK economy.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a critical view of Brexit and its implications for the United Kingdom, particularly in light of recent political developments. It argues against the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party, pointing to the expenditures incurred due to Brexit and questioning the efficacy of the policies implemented post-EU departure. The author also critiques Keir Starmer’s past role in Brexit negotiations, suggesting that his actions contributed to the sustained adverse effects of Brexit.

Critique of Political Actions

The author highlights the financial burden that Brexit has placed on the UK, emphasizing the £4.7 billion spent on border arrangements which are now deemed redundant. This framing aims to provoke a sense of frustration among readers regarding the perceived wastefulness of government spending, especially in the context of ongoing economic challenges. By invoking the idea of memorial plaques for Boris Johnson, the article uses satire to underscore the perceived futility of the Brexit process and its architects.

Historical Context and Accountability

The article also delves into historical context, recalling the public's motivations for voting to leave the EU, primarily focusing on immigration rather than economic concerns. The author attributes the adoption of a hard Brexit to internal party politics rather than genuine public interest, suggesting that this has led to significant economic detriment. This perspective encourages readers to consider the historical decisions made by political leaders and their long-term impacts on society.

Public Sentiment and Economic Impact

There is a clear attempt to shape public sentiment regarding Brexit's consequences, particularly the notion that the UK has become poorer as a direct result of these policies. The author references both official and unofficial estimates to back this claim, aiming to build a consensus around the idea that Brexit has been economically harmful. This portrayal may resonate strongly with individuals and groups who are critical of Brexit, thereby reinforcing existing beliefs within these demographics.

Manipulative Language and Framing

The language used in the article could be seen as manipulative, as it employs charged terms and emotional appeals to elicit strong reactions from the audience. By framing the Conservative Party's critique of Starmer as hypocritical and highlighting their previous actions, the author seeks to delegitimize current criticisms. This rhetorical strategy may lead readers to question the integrity of political discourse surrounding Brexit.

Comparative Analysis with Other News

When comparing this article with other news pieces on Brexit, a consistent theme emerges regarding the economic ramifications and political accountability. The article fits within a broader narrative that critiques leadership decisions related to Brexit, suggesting a collective media stance that leans towards skepticism of government policies implemented post-referendum.

Potential Societal Effects

This article could influence public opinion, potentially galvanizing opposition to current governmental policies and impacting future elections. The discussion surrounding economic hardship may resonate particularly with voters facing financial difficulties, thereby shaping political discourse and voter behavior.

Target Audience

The article is likely to appeal to progressive and left-leaning readers who are critical of Brexit and its fallout. It aims to engage those who value economic stability and accountability from their leaders, potentially reinforcing existing sentiments within these communities.

Market Implications

In terms of market impact, the article may affect investor sentiment towards UK-based companies, particularly in sectors reliant on trade with the EU. Stocks of companies directly involved in international trade might be particularly sensitive to narratives surrounding Brexit's economic repercussions.

The article captures the essence of current debates surrounding Brexit while presenting a critical lens on political accountability and economic consequences. The use of satire and emotional language suggests a deliberate approach to shape public discourse, making it a compelling but potentially biased piece.

Unanalyzed Article Content

For the Tories to attack Keir Starmer’s first step towards a Brexit reset is monumental hypocrisy. Their Brexit led to£4.7bn being spenton implementing post-EU border arrangements, according to the National Audit Office, including a vastly expensive “take back control” border post at Sevington in Kent. No other country in the world can have erected such ludicrous barriers against its biggest trading partners. All are now wasted. At least the nonsense can stop. Memorial plaques to Boris Johnson should be pinned to their gates and passersby invited to sign a 50-page customs form in his memory.

Meanwhile, Starmer should hang his own head in shame. He was Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit henchman back in 2019, whenLabourvoted down Theresa May’s bid to negotiate a soft Brexit deal that would certainly have gone beyond what was signed this week. It was Starmer who helped to scotch at least a possible Commons coalition against hard Brexit and in favour of sanity. It was Corbyn and Starmer who could have stifled five years of the greatest act of self-harm by a British government since the Great Depression.

After the British public voted to leave the EU in 2016, themain reason they gave pollsters was immigration. There was little evidence of opposition to EU trade or membership of Europe’s wider economic community. So-called hard Brexit was adopted entirely by Johnson and those round him as a tool to oust May from Downing Street. Mendacious garbage was issued by his campaigners to claim it would benefit Britain. Public interest was hijacked by power.

The outcome was and is glaring. All serious estimates, official and unofficial, accept that Brexit has made Britain poorer to the tune oftens of billions of pounds. The result can be seen in slowed growth and worse public services. There is not a remote chance of recouping the losses in the foreseeable future. Deals reached with Australia, India and the US cannot begin to redress the harm of hard Brexit.

This week’s political reaction to Starmer’s deal was absurd. The UK’s negotiating strength with the EU was crippled by Brexit. Of course Britain must sign up to EU food standards if it really wants to trade. The EU is the bigger market, as is the US. Of course extended fishing rights for European fleets is a concession, though it reflects a concession already made by Johnson. So too is freer movement for Europe’s young people. Does Nigel Farage really regard this as “abject surrender”? Does he really want to keep open theSevington border checkpointand ban e-gate use at airports? Unwilling to put his case to Starmer in the Commons this week, he scurried through an e-gate for a holiday,apparently in France. To him, Brexit has always been a game.

I once opposed EU membership as I thought on balance that a looser free trade area, like the European Free Trade Association, was more in line with Britain’s place in the world. In retrospect, I was wrong. The stability of westernEuropeover the past half a century has vindicated British membership. Margaret Thatcher was right to negotiate the 1986 single market agreement, but John Major was right at Maastricht to avoid greater union, as was Tony Blair to avoid the euro. Throughout history, Britain’s relations with Europe have always been best when semi-detached.

Since Brexit, two changes should now influence the debate. First, the issue of immigration is consuming all of Europe, desperately requiring international cooperation. The EU’s internal borders have begun to harden and the open door ofSchengen has begun to close. Within Britain, theoverwhelming majority of annual immigrants are legal, authorised with government visas for work or study. Recruiting immigrants to the labour force was Tory policy. How Brexit was ever expected to reduce this is a mystery.

Meanwhile, and despite public feeling on immigration, polls show a strong majority now regrets Brexit, with55% of Britonssaying it was wrong compared with the 52% of those who voted supporting it nine years ago. Just three in 10 people now approve of Britain having left the EU. People realise they were lied to. British companies can only “take control” of trading by not trading.

That realisation has now been curbing not just farming and food, but manufacturing, services, academic and cultural exchange, and tourism. Evenorchestras have had to stop touring. Other European states outside the EU have not so isolated themselves. Hard Brexit was xenophobic, economically illiterate and narrow-minded. I am sure most public figures who supported it, for whatever reason, know this is true but lack the guts to admit it.

From the dayBrexitarrived, the laborious reset process that began this week was inevitable. When public opinion is allied to economics and common sense, something has to give. But it will be slow. The EU owes Britain nothing for its behaviour over the past decade.

An apology from the Brexit lobby is too much to hope for. Silence might be a relief. Meanwhile, Starmer should mean what he says: that this is only a first step. We don’t have to “undo Brexit” – at least in this generation – but we must re-establish civil and commercial relations with the continent of which we are a part. An appalling mistake was made. It awaits correction.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian