Ross Clark

Whatever happened to all those great liberal internationalists who damned the vote for Brexit as a case of isolationist Britain turning its back on the outside world? Julian Barnes, for example, is so pro-EU that not only was he against Brexit, he recently told the FT that he would still like Britain to join the Euro. It is a somewhat different story, though, when the literary establishment sees a threat to its cosy little world. Then, they come over all protectionist. Barnes is now bleating about the Booker prize being opened up to US writers. 'The Americans have got enough prizes of their own,' he complains. Novelist Amanda Craig was quick to play the internationalist over Brexit.

Facebook and Barack Obama have said they both want to tackle ‘fake news’ on the internet. The battle should start with government economic forecasts. Does anyone really believe the figures for economic growth up to 2020 made by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) and pumped out by Philip Hammond in his Autumn Statement? Growth for next year, claims the OBR, will be 1.4 per cent, down from 2.2 per cent. In 2018 it will be 1.7 per cent, followed by 2.1 per cent in 2019 and 2020 and two per cent in 2021. How very precise. And how utterly improbable. What is the point in making these forecasts when they have proved so wide of the mark in the past? A year ago, the OBR forecast growth in 2016 at 2.4 per cent.

So, austerity is to end. Or that is what the briefings for Wednesday’s Autumn Statement seem to indicate: Philip Hammond will loosen the purse strings, relax his fiscal targets and give the economy a big public spending-induced buzz – if indeed buzz is quite the right word for what happens when governments spend money. There is just one problem with what Hammond appears to be proposing. No, not that it almost certainly won’t be enough to please Ed Balls, Yanis Varoufakis, the unions, the Guardian and everyone else on the left who accused George Osborne of trashing the economy by making ‘cuts’ – or, more accurately, by refusing to grow public spending in line with what they think it ought to grow by.

The BBC was recently exposed for buying more copies of the Guardian than of any other paper. I imagine they must get through quote a pile of Guardians at Oxford Dictionaries, too. How else could they have come up with the idea of making ‘post-truth’ their word of the year? The trouble with the concept of ‘post-truth’ is that it is itself untrue. It implies that there was a golden age of scientific reason which has now passed. There wasn’t. People have always been prone to superstition, prejudice and to making emotional judgements. They still are, but if anything, scientific evidence is treated with far more reverence than it ever has been.

So, another post-Brexit horror story fails to materialise. When the stock market failed to crash and the economy failed to slump, the continuing Remain campaign hit on another fear: inflation. When the CPI rose in September to one per cent, it was predicted to be merely the beginning of a trend which would see prices surge as a result of the fall in the pound. Instead, the CPI fell back slightly last month to 0.9 per cent. It may well rise again in the coming months, but it is already clear that it is going to be hard to maintain the narrative of a Brexit-inspired inflationary spiral. At 0.9 per cent, CPI remains below the nadir it reached in the midst of the 2008/09 crisis – a time when many economists were warning of the spectre of deflation.

One searches in vain on the Guardian website for the name Nissar Hussain. This is odd because the newspaper seems to have spent the past few months engaged in a campaign against hate. Virtually every day there is a column or leader grimly claiming that the vote for Brexit has unleashed a spate of hate. Its archives brim with news stories trying to infer a causal link between Brexit and a reported rise in hate crime – even to the point of absurdity. Last month, the paper carried a story claiming that there had been a 147 per cent rise in homophobic attacks since Brexit.

If there were any doubt that there are too many lawyers in Parliament it has been removed by the meeting, on Monday evening, between backbench Conservative MPs and the justice secretary Liz Truss. The subject was Truss’s alleged failure to defend the judiciary from criticism of last week’s High Court judgement on the enactment of Article 50. One MP was reported as saying: 'Her job is to defend the judiciary from attack.' No it isn’t. Liz Truss has special duties as Lord Chancellor – but she is the government's justice secretary, not CEO of a judges' trade association. Her duty as Lord Chancellor is to uphold the continued independence (from the government) of the judiciary - not to protect it from public criticism.

Is there anything more absurd than hearing a bunch of Remainers claiming that they have achieved a great victory for Parliamentary democracy in today’s High Court ruling that Parliament should vote on the exercise of Article 50, beginning Britain’s exit from the EU? Parliament voted for a referendum, in which the British people voted to leave the EU. All that today’s judgement does is frustrate that process. As I wrote last week over Heathrow, the judicial review system is fast-turning Britain into a Krytocracy, in which judges wield the real power. All that said, why is the government bothering to fight the judgement? If the Remainers want more Parliamentary democracy, Theresa May should give it to them.

So, there will be no public inquiry into the Battle of Orgreave in 1984, and no left-wing lawyers making a fortune. Maybe Andy Burnham, who seems to have appointed himself as Shadow Minister for Ancient Grievances, would have got further had he demanded an inquiry that was less overtly political, and looked at the violence of striking miners as well as misconduct by the police, but do we really have to trawl back through all of that? No-one died at Orgreave, unlike in South Wales where taxi driver David Wilkie was killed when a concrete block was dropped on his car while taking a ‘scab’ to work. The striking miners responsible ended up serving just four years in jail, their murder sentence reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

So now we know. The recession that we were told would be ‘inevitable’ if we voted to leave the EU was not quite so inevitable after all. In fact, it hasn’t happened at all. The Office of National Statistics’ first estimate of economic growth for the third quarter has the economy growing by 0.5 per cent. Though this is just an early estimate and could well be revised – revision upwards or downwards of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent are perfectly normal – it is certainly not indicating a recession, which would be two quarters of negative growth. It is pretty much in line with how the economy was growing prior to the vote – a healthy annualised growth of around two per cent.

Another day, another backtracking in the doom-laden predictions of what would happen as a result of a vote for Brexit. Back in May, World Trade Organisation (WTO) chief Roberto Azevedo told the Financial Times that Britain would not simply be allowed to ‘cut and paste’ its terms of membership with the WTO. We would, he suggested, effectively have to negotiate from scratch – a process which could take years, as it did when Liberia joined. Today he has recanted, somewhat. 'The UK is a member of the WTO today, it will continue to be a member tomorrow,' he told Sky News. 'There will be no discontinuity in membership. They have to renegotiate but that doesn't mean they are not members.

When the history comes to be written of Britain’s descent from a democracy to a krytocracy, the story of Heathrow’s third runway will mark an important point. Is there anyone who really believes that either today’s decision by the government to make Heathrow its preferred option, or the parliamentary vote in perhaps a year’s time, will really be the last word on the matter? It is already 67 years since extra runways to the north of the Bath Road were first proposed for London Airport. It might well be another 67 years before the legal challenges have concluded. Never have quite so many interests been lined up to challenge in the courts a decision which, until fairly recent times, would have been accepted as a political decision.