Bound by Gravity or Living in a ‘Post Geography Trading World’? Expert Knowledge and Affective Spatial Imaginaries in the Construction of the UK’s Post-Brexit Trade Policy

Gabriel Siles-Brügge

doi:10.1080/13563467.2018.1484722

Abstract

ABSTRACTA key battle has been fought within the UK cabinet on the direction of post-Brexit trade policy. The opposing sides have favoured either continued alignment or a ‘hard’ break with the European Union’s (EU’s) regulatory and customs regime, in the latter case to allow the UK to pursue an independent and ambitious trade policy agenda. Contrary to much commentary on ‘post-truth’ politics, both sides have relied on rival forms of expertise to support their claims. I argue for the need to not only re-emphasise the malleability and political nature of expert knowledge, but also appreciate its emotional bases. The Treasury has led the charge in favour of a softer Brexit by drawing on econometric (‘gravity’) models that emphasise the economic costs of looser association with the EU. In contrast to this attempt at technocratic legitimation, the specific legal expertise drawn upon by cabinet advocates of ‘hard’ Brexit has appealed to an emotive political economy of bringing the UK, and its (in this imaginary) overly regulated economy, closer to its ‘kith and kin’ in the Anglosphere, deepening the UK ‘national business model’. I conclude by calling for more explicitly emotive and values-based argumentation in the public debate on the UK’s future trade policy to improve the quality of democratic deliberation.

Highlights

Not at the heart of the European Union (EU) membership referendum vote, trade policy has been central to the post-Brexit vision of leading actors behind the official ‘Vote Leave’ campaign
The Treasury has led the charge in favour of a softer Brexit by drawing on econometric (‘gravity’) models that emphasise the economic costs of looser association with the EU
Battles within the UK Government on the nature of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU and the wider world have involved appeals to rival forms of ‘expertise’ and affective spatial political economies. This might confound the expectations of a number of commentators and scholars of the postBrexit landscape, described as ‘post-truth’, hostile to experts and marked by an appeal to ‘political bullshit’ (Hopkin and Rosamond 2017)

Summary

Introduction

Not at the heart of the European Union (EU) membership referendum vote, trade policy has been central to the post-Brexit vision of leading actors behind the official ‘Vote Leave’ campaign. In the UK, the use of trade modelling has reduced European integration to its economic contribution to the NBM, manufacturing supply chains (given the modelling of the effects of leaving the Customs Union) and services (when modelling the impact of leaving the Single Market) This transactionalist view is premised on ‘technocratically repressing’ any potential emotional bases to the EU’s political economy (as well as downplaying any distributive consequences of EU membership). The UK’s trade policy towards non-EU parties appears to be premised on promoting such mutual recognition/equivalence as opposed to harmonisation (see International Trade Committee 2017, p. 14, Fox 2018)

Conclusion

Findings

Notes on contributor