In March 2003, 149
MPs voted against
the Iraq war. They comprised the then much bigger Liberal Democrat party,
the then much smaller SNP, 84 Labour MPs, Plaid and the SDLP, and the
odd Conservative. Those voting against triggering Article 50
comprised
the LibDems, the SNP, 47 Labour MPs, Plaid, the SDLP, one Green and a
single Conservative. Is the similarity between these votes just a
coincidence? I want to suggest not.
Let us begin by
making an obvious point. You may think Iraq is different because so
many lives were lost in the chaos after the war. But how many lives
will be brought to a premature end because Brexit means we will have
to live with an NHS in permanent crisis? Many people have not
realised what a disaster Brexit could turn out to be. With a hard
Brexit the CEP estimates an eventual cost of almost 10% of GDP each year. [1]
That is huge: much bigger than the loss in real incomes already
experienced as a result of the Brexit induced sterling depreciation. That alone
could mean a 10% cut in money available for the NHS, if the share of
NHS spending in GDP remained constant. But it is worse than that. If
immigration falls, as the OBR expects it to, and because immigration
improves the public finances, the cut in NHS spending could be a
lot greater than 10%. Of course it may turn out to be not quite as
bad as that, but we need to ask what exactly is the point of taking such a huge
risk, just as people now ask what was the point of the Iraq war?
Iraq involved the US
and the UK, whereas Brexit is just a UK affair. But think of the
following mapping. The Neocons who pushed for the war are like the
Brexiteers. May is George Bush, and Corbyn is Blair. Whereas Blair
felt he had to go along with Bush, he also must have felt that
getting rid of Saddam would be no bad thing. Whereas Corbyn and many
MPs feel they have to follow the referendum result, Corbyn may also
think that leaving the EU is no bad thing.
Does the referendum
not make the two events distinct? The first point to make is that a
clear majority
of UK popular opinion (and US opinion) supported the war. Everyone of
Murdoch’s papers around the world strongly supported it. However a
minority of people were passionate in their desire for the war not to happen,
with many taking part in the largest demonstration the UK had ever
seen.
More importantly,
the referendum was advisory, whatever politicians may have said.
After an election the opposition does not feel obliged to start
voting for all the government’s policies that they used to oppose?
The idea that the Brexiteers, if they had narrowly lost, would have
said ‘fair enough, we will keep quiet for 30 years’ is laughable.
Most people voting Leave expect to be no worse off as a result, and
would not have voted Leave if they thought otherwise. In these
circumstances, the idea that the 52% majority will remain the ‘will
of the people’ for very long is ridiculous.
The most important
similarity between Iraq and Brexit is that both were huge decisions
that were politically driven and which went against the available
evidence. Hans Blix, who had been in Iraq looking for chemical
weapons, thought
it was a huge mistake. Chicot confirmed
that the UK chose to invade Iraq “before
peaceful options for disarmament” had been exhausted. Military
action was “not a last resort”. The British knew
that there were no serious plans for post-war reconstruction and
reconciliation, but we joined Bush’s war nevertheless. It was not
just a disaster, it was also a widely predicted disaster. Brexit is an almost universally predicted disaster among experts. For both
Blair and Corbyn, their own misguided political views overrode expert
opinion.
Just as Iraq
destroyed Blair’s support among Labour party members, Brexit is
likely to do the same
to Corbyn. I expect the process will continue steadily over time, as
bad Brexit news is greeted by Labour ministers not with a confident
and resounding I told you so, but rather with feeble claims that May
is enacting the wrong kind of Brexit. As the popular tide turns on
Brexit, just as it did on Iraq (a majority of people now think they
were always against the war), the opportunity Labour has missed by
supporting Brexit will become clear. One difference is that Blair had
enough popularity in the country to win a general election after
Iraq, but the support of Labour Party members is pretty well all the
political capital Corbyn has.
Thus the only
interesting question is when Corbyn will go, and what the manner of
his departure will be. I surprised a few people by saying in an
earlier post
that he needed to stay on for a while if we were to have any chance
of stopping Brexit. My reasoning is as follows. The longer he stays,
the greater will be the opportunity for the LibDems to achieve some
eye catching victories like Richmond. (In the May council elections,
for example.) Only then will it become clear to MPs from all parties
that a Brexit backlash is the real threat, not UKIP winning in Labour heartlands. At present they and political commentators are in a Westminster bubble which is strongly influenced by the pro-Brexit press. That bubble needs to be pricked by events. If Labour switch leader and start opposing
Brexit too soon, any Conservative losses could be put down to
countless factors. It is vital that that a significant number of MPs
begin to fear that a Brexit backlash will lose them their seat. Once
(and if) that change in perception comes about, what happens next is
anyone’s guess.
[1] This estimate is
produced by a team led by one of our top applied economists, John Van
Reenen, who has just moved to MIT.
