Will the UK's shrinking economy spoil Cameron's EU speech?

Any political high from Cameron's EU speech could be shortlived if figures released on Friday show that the UK economy shrunk in the final quarter of 2012.

In the absence of any unforseen hitches, David Cameron will finally deliver his long-delayed speech on Britain's relationship with the EU this week. It won't be today, the day of Barack Obama's second inauguration, or tomorrow, when thousands of French and German politicians and diplomats will gather in Berlin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Elysée Treaty (also known as the Treaty of Friendship) between the two countries, or at the end of the week, when Cameron travels to Davos for the 2013 World Economic Forum, leaving Wednesday as the most likely date for the address.

When Cameron gives his speech, promising that a Conservative government would seek to repatriate powers from Brussels before holding a referendum on the outcome (offering voters a choice between what Cameron calls a "new settlement" and withdrawal), he will hope, among other things, for a bounce in the polls. The last time that the Tories enjoyed a sustained lead over Labour was in December 2011 after Cameron's EU "veto". With reports of Conservative MPs reacquiring their taste for regicide, the PM is keen to show that there are things he can do to improve his party's dismal chances of victory at the next election.

But his speech risks being overshadowed by the other big event of the week: the release of the first estimate of UK quarter four GDP on Friday. After growth of 0.9 per cent in the third quarter, artifically inflated by the inclusion of the Olympic ticket sales and the bounce-back from the extra bank holiday in June, forecasters almost universally expect a negative figure. The government's own forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility, predicts that the economy shrunk by 0.1 per cent, while the National Institute of Economic and Social Research expects a contraction of 0.3 per cent.

A contraction in quarter four wouldn't represent an unprecedented "triple-dip recession" (that would require two successive quarters of negative growth), it would make it significantly harder for Cameron to claim that the economy is "healing" and embolden Labour to go on the attack. If the economy is shown to have shrunk in Q4, four of the last five quarters will have been negative.

We know from the pre-released extracts of Cameron's speech that the Prime Minister intends to bemoan the EU's "crisis of competitiveness". But if the UK economy, which has performed worse than almost any other in Europe, is shown to have shrunk again, his lecture could soon look ill-advised.

David Cameron is expected to deliver his speech on Britain's relationship with the EU on Wednesday. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: History is not written in stone

Statues have not been politicised by protest; they were always political.

When a mishmash of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Trump supporters and private militias gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August – a rally that ended in the death of a counter-protester – the ostensible reason was the city’s proposal to remove a statue of a man named Robert E Lee.

Lee was a Confederate general who surrendered to Ulysses S Grant at the Appomattox Court House in 1865, in one of the last battles of the American Civil War – a war fought to ensure that Southern whites could continue to benefit from the forced, unpaid labour of black bodies. He died five years later. It might therefore seem surprising that the contested statue of him in Virginia was not commissioned until 1917.

That knowledge, however, is vital to understanding the current debate over such statues. When the “alt-right” – many of whom have been revealed as merely old-fashioned white supremacists – talk about rewriting history, they speak as if history were an objective record arising from an organic process. However, as the American journalist Vann R Newkirk II wrote on 22 August, “obelisks don’t grow from the soil, and stone men and iron horses are never built without purpose”. The Southern Poverty Law Center found that few Confederate statues were commissioned immediately after the end of the war; instead, they arose in reaction to advances such as the foundation of the NAACP in 1909 and the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and 1960s. These monuments represent not history but backlash.

That means these statues have not been politicised by protest; they were always political. They were designed to promote the “Lost Cause” version of the Civil War, in which the conflict was driven by states’ rights rather than slavery. A similar rhetorical sleight of hand can be seen in the modern desire to keep them in place. The alt-right is unwilling to say that it wishes to retain monuments to white supremacy; instead, it claims to object to “history being rewritten”.

It seems trite to say: that is inevitable. Our understanding of the past is perpetually evolving and the hero of one era becomes a pariah in the next. Feminism, anti-colonialism, “people’s history” – all of these movements have questioned who we celebrate and whose stories we tell.

Across the world, statues have become the focus for this debate because they are visible, accessible and shape our experience of public space. There are currently 11 statues in Parliament Square – all of them male. (The suffragist Millicent Fawcett will join them soon, after a campaign led by Caroline Criado-Perez.) When a carving of a disabled artist, Alison Lapper, appeared on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, its sculptor, Marc Quinn, acknowledged its significance. “This square celebrates the courage of men in battle,” he said. “Alison’s life is a struggle to overcome much greater difficulties than many of the men we celebrate and commemorate here.”

There are valid reasons to keep statues to figures we would now rather forget. But we should acknowledge this is not a neutral choice. Tearing down our history, looking it in the face, trying to ignore it or render it unexceptional – all of these are political acts. 

The Brexit delusion

After the UK triggered Article 50 in March, the Brexiteers liked to boast that leaving the European Union would prove a simple task. The International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, claimed that a new trade deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history” to negotiate and could be agreed before the UK’s scheduled departure on 29 March 2019.

However, after the opening of the negotiations, and the loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority, reality has reasserted itself. All cabinet ministers, including Mr Fox, now acknowledge that it will be impossible to achieve a new trade deal before Brexit. As such, we are told that a “transitional period” is essential.

Yet the government has merely replaced one delusion with another. As its recent position papers show, it hopes to leave institutions such as the customs union in 2019 but to preserve their benefits. An increasingly exasperated EU, unsurprisingly, retorts that is not an option. For Britain, “taking back control” will come at a cost. Only when the Brexiteers acknowledge this truth will the UK have the debate it so desperately needs. 

This article first appeared in the 24 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Sunni vs Shia