Brexit crumbles
by
Malcolm
Potter-Brown
Auksford, 2018
©
Copyright:
Malcolm
Potter-Brown,
2018
Notwithstanding
the provisions listed
in Copyright and
Concessions
during the course of the Brexit negotiations anyone may quote this
article,
in full or in part, in support of the campaign for a people's vote
or in support of remaining in the EU.
It was Boris Johnson, speaking of the current
stage of the Brexit negotiations, who said, “I think what is
happening now is alas not what people were promised in 2016”.
For once Boris the Liar has told the
truth, though
probably unintentionally. What he and his fellow Brexiteers
promised the British people in 2016 was a golden age of
prosperity. We would save £350,000,000 per week by
no
longer contributing to the EU, and the rest of the world would be
queuing up to make trade deals with us on our own terms. It
was a
total fantasy and the Remain side, originally too confident of victory
to make much effort, could only reply with incompetently vague
forebodings of disaster, which it was only too easy for the Brexiteers
to characterise as Project Fear.
Since then much that was never
mentioned, and in
some cases never even thought of, has come to light.
As I pointed out in the first of these
essays on
Brexit, our net contribution to the EU is not £350 million
per
week, but, after rebates and grants are taken into consideration, only
£136 million, which is far outweighed by the additional
prosperity of belonging to a major trading block with 47% of UK exports
going to the EU and only 7% of EU exports coming here.
I have also previously pointed out that
English was
well on the way to becoming the dominant language in Europe, and that
London would have been the financial capital. After Brexit
the
financial capital will be Frankfurt, which will result not only in
increasing German financial dominance of the EU, but also in massive
loss of income to the UK.
As time has passed it has become ever
more apparent
that the EU is not simply going to roll over and give us everything we
want in the negotiations and allow us to cherry-pick those parts of the
free-trade agreement that are advantageous to us and reject everything
we don’t like. That that might happen is again part
of the
fantasy of the Brexiteers, who seem to live in a fairy-tale
cloud-cuckoo land.
The disadvantage to British academic
life rapidly
became obvious, and it is no coincidence that universities tended to
vote remain. Not only will it be much harder to recruit and
retain the best academics from Europe, but co-operative research
projects will be jeopardised. Collaboration in major scientific and
technological research projects will be ended. Twenty-nine
Nobel
Laureates have written to the Prime Minister to point this out, among
them the Director of the Francis Crick Institute, the world leader in
biomedical research. It will lose EU funding, and though the
Government has promised short-term funding to cover the loss, major
research projects cannot be undertaken if there is no guarantee that
money will be available to carry them through. 78% of the
Crick’s European researchers will leave, 51% of the total
staff. Brexit is causing chaos. Together Britain
and Europe
are in the forefront of development. Europe may have the
resources to maintain a prominent position. Britain, alone,
will
not.
The NHS will be badly
affected. It is not only
at consultant level that the effects will be felt. In the
hospitals run by Oxford University Hospitals trust, for example, 61% of
nursing staff come from Europe, there is a high staff turnover, and the
inability to recruit replacements will have a deleterious effect on
patient care. In addition hospitals all over the country rely
on
East Europeans for cleaning and ancillary services. Shortages
of
drugs may mean that it will be necessary for pharmacists to be given
the authority to substitute different medicines without reference to
the prescribing doctors as GP surgeries would not be able to cope with
the volume of substitutions necessary if there is a hard Brexit.
Industry will be disrupted as supply
chains are
broken. The motor industry, for example, which relies on
transferring components between one factory and another just as they
are needed, will find supplies interrupted by customs barriers, leading
either to the construction of massive warehouses at great expense or
the temporary layoff of workers and the introduction of short-time
working, leading inevitably to falling profits and the possible
closures of British factories.
This disruption affects not only major
industries
but permeates the whole of our commercial life, as can be seen in the
case of a florist who does not know whether her business can survive
Brexit and is currently unable to quote for weddings taking place in
2019 because she cannot be sure of supplies from the Netherlands.
The Government, despite its reassuring
words, is
afraid of the disruption. The M20 to Dover is to be turned
into a
giant lorry-park, and preparations are being made to charter ships to
bring imports to other ports to avoid shortages caused by the delays,
even though Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has not, as he admits, fully
understood the importance of the Dover route. The
Dover-Calais
route is by far the most important for goods vehicles with 1,905,000
units passing through in 2016, with Dover-Dunkirk in second place, with
690,000 units. Next comes Holyhead-Dublin with 299,000
units. As the Shadow Brexit Secretary said, “How
are we
meant to trust this government to deliver a good deal for this country
when we have a Brexit Secretary who doesn’t even understand
the
very basics of Brexit?”
It is not only the queuing of goods that
will affect
efficiency. The National Audit Office has warned that any
company
that trades with, imports from or exports to Europe will have to fill
in customs declaration, even if their goods are tariff-free, leading to
additional inconvenience and expense.
Security is also affected. The
police and
security services will no longer have access to Europol records and the
military will be excluded from use of the European satellite services,
to which Britain has been a contributor.
No-one appears to have realised the
problems that
would arise on the Irish border if the customs union is
abandoned. Britain cannot accept that a part of the UK should
be
part of the EU customs union and split from the rest of the country
with a customs barrier through the Irish Sea. The EU cannot
accept that Northern Ireland could have open borders with both the UK
and the EU if Britain is outside the EU customs union because it would
mean surrendering control of its borders. If there is a
customs
border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic it is more than
likely that Sinn Fein IRA would use its existence as an excuse to
restart the Troubles. After all Sinn Fein MPs elected to
Westminster seats always refuse to take them, and the party has brought
about the suspension of the power-sharing assembly at Stormont,
probably to force the British Government to reintroduce direct rule
from Westminster so that a “splinter-group” can
have an
excuse undertake terrorist activities.
What of the rest of the world?
Are they
queuing up to do business with us? Will the United States
give us
trade agreements on whatever terms we propose?
Have the Brexiteers forgotten the
repeated promises
of Donald Trump: “America first!”?
Can’t they
see from his actions that this President is a man who believes in trade
wars because he believes America will always win, a man who is even
prepared to take on a super-power economy like China? Have
they
forgotten how American firms have taken over British companies, made
promises to keep them going, then closed them? Have they
forgotten how rationing became worse after the war as America, which
had already profited forced Britain to repay its aid? Do they
not
know how the USA schemed and plotted to undermine the British Empire
and replace it with its own imperial influence? Do they want
American chickens washed with chemicals, American meat laced with
antibiotics, American food prepared to lower standards than those we
have been used to as members of the EU? Do they not know
about
the contaminated blood scandal when the USA exported to the UK blood
taken from prisoners and drug addicts, resulting in the infection of
British citizens with hepatitis and other diseases? Do they
want
the “Special Relationship” to become entirely what
America
wants it to be, with Britain as a satellite or colony, to be exploited
as a dumping ground for unwanted produce and used as a
cat’s-paw
to assist in American aggression?
The Brexiteers will point to India and
Pakistan. They will trade with us, won’t
they? Yes,
of course they will, but their governments have already made it clear
that this will be only on condition that all Indian and Pakistani
citizens will have the right to free access to the UK without
visas. So instead of offering open borders to about
452,000,000
people, most of whom would prefer to stay in their own prosperous
countries, while others are prepared to come over for short-term work
and intend to return home, we would allow the uncontrolled immigration
of 1,342,512,706 Indians, 200,813,818 Pakistanis and 166,368,149 people
from Bangladesh. The Brexiteers promised to take back control
of
immigration, instead they would appear to be prepared to replace
freedom of access for 452 million with freedom of access for 1,710
million.
Hardly what was promised, especially
when you
consider that the Europeans to whom the xenophobes so greatly object
share the same
Graeco-Roman-Judaeo-Christian-Renaissance-Enlightenment-democratic
culture as the British, while those from other parts of the world come
from a very different background, often shockingly different, as for
example in the acceptance of so-called
“honour-killings” in
which a young woman can be murdered by her father or brothers for
daring to marry a man of her choice rather than one imposed on her by
her family, or the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian who was attacked by a
gang of Muslim women who claimed that a Christian who drank from the
same well as Muslims polluted it and attacked her
Christianity. When she tried to defend her religion
she was
charged with blasphemy against the Prophet, and condemned to
death. She was in prison on death row for nine years,
including
eight in solitary confinement before the Supreme Court overturned her
conviction, but even now it will not be safe for her to stay in a
country where there is such irrational hatred that a prominent
politician who spoke in her defence was murdered, and where violent
extremist mobs have rioted and forced the government to prevent her
leaving Pakistan while they attempt to overthrow the verdict of the
Supreme Court and have her put to death.
What was promised was control of
immigration, by
which was meant “keep the foreigners out”, and a
golden age
of prosperity in which would-be trading partners across the world would
kow-tow to the UK and beg to be allowed to trade with us on whatever
terms we choose. What we are likely to get is further loss of
control of immigration as we desperately try to replace our European
trade by attracting other partners, a general decline in economic
prosperity, continuation of the decline in the value of the pound, and
more expensive imports, including rises in the price of food.
This is not at all what was promised, and as the politicians seem more
intent on their own squabbles than in working together for the good of
the country, we need another referendum, one in which the options put
to the people are (1) hard Brexit and loss of our trade with Europe,
(2) soft Brexit in which we remain within the customs union but without
a vote, or (3) exit from Brexit, in which we remain full members of the
EU and fully able to influence its policy.
The likely effects of a hard Brexit are
not
difficult to understand. 47% of our exports currently go to
Europe, only 7% of exports from the other EU members come
here.
At present we are members of an economic bloc with a population of
512.6 million with a gross domestic product of $19.7
trillion.
The population of the UK is 66.5 million, and its GDP is $2.9 trillion
(the 2nd largest after Germany). While the loss of its second
largest economy will be damaging to the EU, the effects of leaving will
be far greater on the UK, and it is obvious from these figures that the
idea that the UK can impose its will on the EU, as the hard Brexiteers
insist, is nothing more than a wishful fantasy.
A soft Brexit, with the UK remaining in
some form of
customs union for some further period, as envisaged by Theresa May,
merely postpones difficulties like the position of Northern Ireland, it
does not solve them. Furthermore, as the hard Brexiteers
repeatedly point out with perfect truth, it leaves the UK in the
position of having to follow EU rules without any right to vote on them.
It is possible that some of the soft
Brexiteers may
have chosen this option in the hope that at some time in the future the
Government may realise the advantages it has lost and seek to re-enter
full membership of the EU. This is a forlorn hope.
The EU
would inevitably wish to ensure that the position of being in but not
fully in would come to an end. Fresh negotiations would lose
us
the rebate we enjoy and impose membership of the Schengen open-borders
agreement, while our participation in the various scientific and
technological projects, in which the EU is a world leader, would have
to be built up again from zero – and there is always the
possibility that the other members would simply refuse our application.
We have not yet left the EU.
It remains open
to the UK to rescind its application to leave and continue as a full
member, able to influence the future development of Europe –
the
UK economy is, of course, the second largest in the EU and London is
currently the main financial centre. We would continue to
enjoy
the advantages of belonging to one of the biggest economic blocs in the
world, with free movement of goods and component parts uninterrupted by
customs barriers. The threat of short-term working and
layoffs
would recede. International companies would no longer feel
obliged to move their operations to the continent, so jobs would be
saved. Medicines, threatened by
interruption of
supplies, would continue to be available. British travellers
in
Europe would continue to receive free medical treatment with their EHIC
cards, and would travel about easily as they do at present.
UK
participation in CERN, the European space programme, the Airbus
programme, scientific and technological research and development of all
kinds, Europol and joint security operations would continue
uninterrupted. The question of the Irish border would be
settled,
and the possibility of Scotland making another bid for secession in
order to stay in the EU would recede.
The 2016 referendum, which was described
beforehand
as merely advisory but is now regarded by Government Ministers as
definitive, resulted in a very narrow victory for the leave
campaign. The figures are: Leave 17,410,742, Remain
16,141,241,
Abstain 12,922,659, Invalid or spoiled vote 25,359. The gap
between Leavers and Remainers was 1, 269,501 and the total number of
eligible voters was 46,500,001. Expressed as percentages of
the
total this comes to: Leavers 37.44%, Remainers 34.71%, Abstainers
27.79% and invalid votes 0.0005%, with the Leavers having won by a mere
2.7%
Analysis of voting patterns indicates
that Leave
voters tended to be older and less well educated than Remainers.
It is likely that many of those who did
not bother
to vote were younger people to whom the advantages of membership seemed
so self-evident that they thought there was no need for them to bother
to vote. It is also clear that many of those who voted Leave
were
not concerned at all with EU membership, did not believe that Leave
would win, but cast their votes simply to give Westminster politicians,
who at that stage generally favoured remaining, a kick in the pants.
The people of Britain had suffered
several years of
austerity, for which many blamed the Government, without considering
that austerity was a necessary evil needed to overcome the effects of
the financial crisis, which was not the fault of the UK Government or
of the EU but stemmed from the sub-prime jiggery-pokery by which
American banks sought to protect themselves from their own financial
incompetence by selling on disguised bad debts across the
world.
The rescue of the banking system, vital for the continuance of
financial stability, appeared to many as the rescue of one lot of
wealthy parasites by another.
Westminster politicians are seen as a
separate class
from the people they allegedly represent. They spent their
time
at University as activists in the Conservative Association or the
Labour Club, they ensure that their names are known to existing
politicians, on graduating they get jobs with political parties and
move up through the network until they become candidates for
Parliament. Many of them spend their whole lives in politics
and
never do a real job at all, although they may be offered directorships
by their well-heeled friends. They are seen as a privileged
elite, and it is not many years ago that they were embroiled in an
expenses scandal in which a surprising number had misused the
allowances for second homes to obtain for themselves totally
illegitimate perks on a vast scale.
The referendum offered an easy way to
register
disapproval. Government ministers, most of whom were not in any way
guilty of the expenses swindles, were known to favour Remain, for David
Cameron hoped to use the referendum to curb the Tory
backwoodsmen. If the politicians favoured remain, what better
way
to kick them in the teeth than to vote Leave. Leave was
unlikely
to win, but a close vote might send shivers down ministerial spines.
Well, that worked well, didn’t
it?
Cameron, the acceptable face of Conservatism resigned, and Osborne, who
had overseen the slow recovery from the financial crisis, was kicked
out. Instead we got as Prime Minister Theresa May, the Home
Secretary who had created a climate of hostility to migrants such that
the British descendants of the Windrush generation found themselves in
danger of being exiled to the Caribbean.
Out of the backwoods crawled Jacob
Rees-Mogg, the
caricature of a patrician politician. David Davis became
prominent as Brexit secretary. The slimy Gove’s opinions
dominated the discussions, and worst of all, there was Boris the Liar
who was given one of the great offices of state as Foreign
Secretary. There his carefully nurtured image as an eccentric
English gentleman crumbled and he was revealed as foul-mouthed and
incompetent.
Even this, though, was not the real
Boris: a
ruthlessly ambitious, self-seeking schemer determined to be Prime
Minister, and one who does not care what damage he inflicts on the
country in achieving his ambition. The Brexit vote has
delivered
the country into the hands of a gang of backwoodsmen who should have
been consigned to the dustbin of history, men who consider Theresa
May’s increasingly unsuccessful attempts to avoid the
unmitigated
disaster of a hard Brexit as ‘appeasement’, showing
that
they live in a kind of imaginary rose-tinted Second World War world era
and long to get back to ‘our finest hour’ when
Britain
stood alone against the world and was completely united in patriotic
purpose – as long as we forget the spivs and the
war-profiteers,
and the starvation, destruction and mass slaughter of the war
–
oh, happy days!
Do you suppose the Labour Party will
perform any
better? It is true that some of its members, like some
Tories,
would prefer to remain in the EU; it is also true that many of its
members are concerned that a hard Brexit will adversely affect their
working class voters, who are indeed likely to be much worse off; but
the position of the leadership is that the party should oppose any
agreement achieved by Mrs May, risking thereby a hard Brexit, in order
to force a general election.
Both main parties are concerned only
with power,
keeping it or getting it, not about the welfare of the people of this
country. As soon as the referendum result was announced it
was
clear that our beloved politicians had only one though in their minds,
how this would affect their careers, and only one strategy, to find
some semblance of party unity and hang on to their
seats.
For the conservatives the mantra was: “Brexit means Brexit,
the
people have spoken”, and for Labour the aim was to bring
about a
general election as soon as possible. Neither is willing to
grant
another referendum when more of the facts are known, despite the
increasingly obvious chaos and confusion caused by Brexit, including
insoluble problems like the Irish border question –
and
this, despite that fact that the referendum was won by a campaign of
lies and xenophobic propaganda and then only by the narrowest of
majorities.
The narrowness of that majority is
perhaps
surprising given the campaign of xenophobic nastiness carried out by
the popular press. Their aim, of course, was to increase
circulation and profits by inventing an imaginary enemy who could be
blamed for everything that went wrong and against whom we could all
unite. It is exactly the same technique that Hitler and the
Nazis
used to consolidate their power. They chose the Jews, our
newspaper proprietors chose the EU. They whipped up hatred to
such an extent that, after the referendum, their more loutish readers
went out to beat up innocent workers merely because they came from
Poland. The editors of The
Sun, The Express and the Daily
Mail
should all have this on their consciences, if consciences they have,
and also the murder of Jo Cox, MP, for though her murderer was a
deranged nutter, it was the campaign of hatred stirred up by the press
that provided the climate in which he thought he could act.
The
Daily Telegraph
was also part of this
xenophobic, anti-European campaign, to such an extent that its news
pages ignored the more balanced assessments in its financial pages and
continued to spew out bitter bile. One might even wonder if
the
editor of the Telegraph
might
be a Russian agent, for the person who
has most to gain from the weakening of the European Union is Vladimir
Putin with his unconcealed ambitions to re-establish the Soviet
empire. The possible disintegration of the United Kingdom
would
be a further bonus for him, for it is surely no coincidence that Alex
Salmond, who tried so determinedly to split the Union, expressed
admiration for Putin and is now working for a Russian television
station RT,
formerly Russia
today.
It was, of course, the Daily Telegraph
that advised
its Tory readers to take out cheap membership of the Labour Party and
vote for Jeremy Corbyn as leader, assuring them that this would make
Labour unelectable for the foreseeable future. Had the editor
really forgotten the role of tribalism in British politics, the
died-in-the-wool Tories who always vote conservative because their
forefathers were conservatives ever since 1688, and the
died-in-the-wool socialists who always vote Labour because Labour is
the party of the working class? The latter will vote Labour
no
matter who is in charge, after all they even voted for Robert Maxwell
who was Labour MP for Buckingham from 1964-70, although no-one was more
eager to grind the faces of the poor into the earth than that swindling
conman.
Had the editor simply forgotten that
many students
and other young people will automatically vote for the most left-wing
candidate available, and that many of the policies Corbyn would put
forward would sound attractive in themselves and would gather him votes
from a generation too young even to remember the terrorist atrocities
perpetrated by those he calls friends? They know that a
pop-concert in Manchester was attacked by a jihadist, but they
don’t remember the many similar attacks on innocent people
carried out by the IRA. Corbyn was a supporter, even meeting
them
within three weeks of their attack on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
in the Brighton bombing in October 1984 and was involved in over 70
Sinn-Fein/IRA events during their terror campaign. He also
supported the campaign to overthrow the conviction of Arab terrorists
who bombed the Israeli embassy in London, and he is a supporter of
organisations like Hamas that want to wipe Israel off the map.
So, thanks in part to the activities of
the editor
of the Daily
Telegraph we may
be faced at the next election with a
choice between Boris the Liar, who doesn’t care what happens
to
Britain as long as he gets the top job, and Jeremy the immature student
revolutionary, who would probably abolish our nuclear deterrent at a
time when Putin and Trump are strengthening theirs, and hope that they,
together with France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, would all
follow his example.
There are many dubious features in the
way the
Brexit vote was achieved, including illegitimate overspending by Arron
Banks and the misuse of personal data held by his companies to target
propaganda. It is also suspected that his campaign was
financed
by Russia, which, according to law, should make the referendum result
null and void.
In the meantime we are faced with
Brexit. Mrs
May has assured us that Brexit means Brexit, but it is only now, in the
later stages of the negotiations, that we are actually finding out just
what it does mean. How can any politician with pretensions to
democratic values claim that it would be undemocratic to consult the
people on the results of the Brexit negotiations? What sort
of
twisted logic could possibly come to that conclusion when it is obvious
that the results of leaving the EU are only now becoming apparent?
It is the logic of politicians who care
more for
their own parties and their own careers than for the democracy they
claim to love. Conservatives want to hold on to power, Labour
wants to achieve power. The old gang is still in charge.
If you want a say in what our
relationship to Europe
should be, and particularly if you want Britain to have the advantage
of belonging to the EU, you should demand a new referendum, a
referendum that takes account of the realities of the situation now
that they have become apparent, and which should include the option to
abandon Article 50 and stay in the Union.
If an election comes and you want to
stay in the EU,
or if you want to give the old guard a good kicking, then the time has
come to abandon the tribal politics that have kept the political class
in power for so long, whether Conservative or Labour and no matter how
incompetent. Don’t vote Conservative because that
is what
your father voted. Don’t vote Labour because you
joined the
Labour Club at University and have been told that Labour is the party
of the people. Kick them all out, but without jeopardising
the
good of the country, and vote LibDem for a change.
If you voted Leave just to show the
Westminster
elite that you were tired of them, look and see how the Westminster
backwoodsmen have used your vote to consolidate their power to the
detriment of the UK. Demand a referendum on the new realities
that have only become apparent during the negotiations, a referendum
with the option to stay in the EU and, if there is a general election,
vote LibDem. Kick out the backwoodsmen who have become the
ruling
elite and preserve the prosperity of the UK and your own standards of
living.
Exit from Brexit!
Notwithstanding
the
provisions
listed
in Copyright
and Concessions during
the
course of the Brexit negotiations anyone may quote this
article, in full or in part, in support of the campaign for a people's
vote or in support of remaining in the EU.
Index
to the Essays of Malcolm
Potter-Brown
Auksford
Index
Contact Malcolm Potter-Brown at mpb.auksford@gmail.com