Prime Minister Mark Carney recently compared Brexit and the Alberta independence movement. He described the Alberta referendum as similar to the Brexit vote, calling Albertans exercising their constitutional right a “dangerous bluff.” He supported his statement by pointing to Brexit and referring to the difficulties the UK has had since voting to leave the European Union (EU). For him, Brexit is a cautionary tale.Shockingly, I agree with him. Brexit is a cautionary tale, but for different reasons than those he alluded to. A closer analysis of the UK situation reveals very different causes for the troubles that followed the exit.Here is what drove the vote to leave. Under EU rules, British fishermen were limited in the fishing they could do in British waters. However, Portuguese fishermen were allowed to fish in those waters. Any EU citizen was permitted to work in the UK, creating downward pressure on wages, straining public services, and limiting opportunities for British citizens. Brexit was also propelled by criticisms of EU regulations, the net financial contribution from the UK to the union, and continuous interference by EU bureaucrats in UK law and business practices. Fifty-two percent of voters in the UK voted to leave.Negotiations between the UK and the EU were difficult and prolonged, lasting more than two years. This was intentional on the EU side; they seemed to have wanted to make an example of the UK so that other countries would not leave the union. In short, the EU did not negotiate in good faith. For two plus years, the UK was limited in many ways from acting in its own best interest by the EU rules governing departure from the union and the slow progress being made. One of the most devastating EU rules was that only the EU could negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries while the process was ongoing. The UK was prevented from making new trade agreements, a restriction that many critics argued severely damaged its standing. In particular, the US made repeated public statements about its desire to trade with the UK. Without the limiting EU regulations, a major trade deal with the US would have made the transition away from the EU much smoother than what actually transpired..However, this background explains only part of the story of why the last decade has been difficult for the UK. Another factor was the previous passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, which was amended in 2019 to establish a net-zero target by 2050. This Act includes binding targets, carbon budgets, independent oversight, and enforcement mechanisms. Critics argue that these policies have successfully contributed to the decline of energy-intensive industries in the UK and have produced negative effects similar to those seen in Germany’s economy. Many sectors of the economy, particularly manufacturing, transportation, and technology enterprises, depend on affordable energy. The technology promoted to achieve net-zero emissions, absent a major expansion of nuclear power, is highly unlikely to deliver sufficiently low-cost energy. Further, solar cells and wind turbines may not produce carbon emissions during operation, but they generate considerable pollution both before and after their life cycle.The final part of the problem, often not emphasized but potentially more significant in understanding why the UK economy has faced difficulties, relates to political attitudes and institutional dynamics. Figures such as the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, MP Ken Clarke, and the current Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have opposed Brexit or advocated closer alignment with the EU. Some have also supported frameworks that could be interpreted as facilitating closer future integration, though formal proposals for re-admission into the EU have not been advanced in government policy. Much of the post-Brexit challenges faced by the UK have been attributed to ministerial indecision, policy failures, and institutional inertia. There were claims from some commentators that elements within the civil service were systematically acting against the exit; however, there is no evidence supporting any widespread resistance, and the civil service overall acted in its usual professional manner. However, there were exceptions. The most prominent is the case of the Governor of the Bank of England possibly engaging in politics. Engaging in politics would be a stretch of the governor’s role (i.e. job description), and pushing the limits of interpretation of the Bank of England Act 1998, which calls for political neutrality. In fact, the Governor’s public statements at the time of Brexit were considered by some to breach normal procedures, and he was called before House of Commons committees to justify his actions. Who was this public servant supposedly flippant about the rules? Mark Carney. Governor Carney was a strong advocate of “Remain” and was questioned for using his position to influence the referendum debate.In Prime Minister Carney’s recent comparison of the Brexit vote and the discussion around Alberta independence, he suggested the British electorate was ill-informed about the consequences. The suggestion that the public may not fully reason through future outcomes infers that they voted out of incomplete understanding. This implied that Albertans were also being asked to vote out of ignorance in a proposed referendum. This reflects a long-used justification for the need for political elites. The implication that citizens are insufficiently capable of making political decisions without elite direction undermines democratic self-government. This is nothing more than the arrogance of elites. The British public has repeatedly proven that it can responsibly participate in political decisions through electoral processes. Similarly, discussions of Alberta independence have persisted for decades. Of late, these discussions have become more frequent, with larger gatherings, and are a testament to democratic engagement. Betting on the average Albertan who attends these meetings knowing more than the Prime Minister assumes is a safe bet.So yes, Brexit is a cautionary tale. It is not about the idea of ignorant masses needing elites like Prime Minister Carney and his European counterparts to inform them what is in their best interest. That is not the lesson. The lesson is about what happens when elites are seen as actively trying to thwart the expressed will of the people.Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
