Was man beim Brexit verstehen muss

Heute Morgen habe ich an dieser Stelle meine Sicht auf den Brexit gebracht. Lohnend ist auch der Blick aus Großbritannien auf das Thema. Da ich mich auf eine TV-Diskussion zu dem Thema vorbereite, habe ich viel gelesen und fand letztlich den Kommentar des ehemaligen Chefs der Bank of England am besten. Deshalb lasse ich Mervin King hier zu Wort kommen und zitiere Auszüge eines Beitrags, den er für Bloomberg geschrieben hat:

  • “When Tony Blair and Boris Johnson unite in their condemnation of the deal under which Theresa May proposes that the U.K. should leave the EU, you know something has gone badly wrong. The withdrawal agreement is less a carefully crafted diplomatic compromise and more the result of incompetence of a high order. I have friends who are passionate Remainers and others who are passionate Leavers. None of them believe this deal makes any sense. It is time to think again, and the first step is to reject a deal that is the worst of all worlds.” – bto: Das ist wie gesagt nicht von irgendeinem Journalisten, sondern vom ehemaligen Chef der britischen Notenbank.
  • “Britain is not facing an economic crisis. It is confronting a deep political crisis. Parliament has brought this on the country. It voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum. The public were told they would decide. And the rules of the game were clear: Fifty percent of the vote plus one would settle the matter. The prime minister and the chancellor of the exchequer at the time said unequivocally that Brexit meant leaving Europe’s single market and customs union. This was the Brexit that, after the referendum, both main political parties promised to deliver.” – bto: Das deckt sich überhaupt nicht mit dem jetzigen Vertrag.
  • “(…) there is no case whatever for giving up the benefits of remaining without obtaining the benefits of leaving. Yet that is exactly what the government is now proposing. It simply beggars belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the U.K. indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.” – bto: Ich denke, der Punkt stimmt und zeigt, wie kurzsichtig die EU mit ihrer Verhandlungsstrategie ist.
  • Preparations for Brexit based on trade under WTO terms should have started in 2016, immediately after the referendum, as I said at the time. Britain needed a fall-back position — it is foolish to negotiate without one — and that was the form it should have taken. An immigration policy for the post-Brexit world could and should have been published in 2016. But there was no such planning. Instead, the government pretended that everything could be postponed until an imaginary long-term deal could be negotiated. This was naïve at best, and in the event has proven disastrous. (…) It is incompetence on a monumental scale.” – bto: was mich etwas darin tröstet, dass nicht nur wir hier so schlecht regiert werden.
  • It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank’s latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10 percent of GDP. Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible.” – bto: Hinzukommt, dass die Bank auch annimmt, dass die Zinsen deutlich steigen. Ein ebenso implausibler Gedanke. 
  • “(…) the political nature of the EU has changed since monetary union. The EU failed to recognize that the euro would demand fiscal and political integration if it was to succeed, and that countries outside the euro area would require a different kind of EU membership. It was inevitable, therefore, that, sooner or later, Britain would decide to withdraw from a political project in which it had little interest apart from the shared desire for free trade.” – bto: weil die Briten klarer erkennen als die anderen, dass dieses Schiff nur sinken kann.
  • “This deal will not end the divisiveness of the debate about Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Remain camp will continue to argue, correctly, that to align the country indefinitely with laws over which it has no influence is madness, and a second referendum is vital to escape from this continuing nightmare. And the Leave camp will argue, also correctly, that it is intolerable for the fifth largest economy in the world to continue indefinitely as a fiefdom.” – bto: Und das mag wie simple Rhetorik klingen, bringt es aber sehr gut auf den Punkt.

→ bloomberg.com: “May’s Brexit Deal Is a Betrayal of Britain”, 4. Dezember 2018