BREXIT:
the people have spoken
– or have they?
*
*
*
An
essay by
Malcolm Potter-Brown
Auksford, 2016
Copyright
Malcolm Potter-Brown, 2016
During the 2016 negotiation period anyone may reproduce this article in
whole or in part, provided that due acknowledgement is made that the
test is by Malcolm Potter Brown and published by Auksford.
The referendum
The result of the EU referendum was a very narrow victory for
the
Leave campaign, with a difference of only 3.8% on a 72%
turnout.
How the voters divided was encapsulated in a television news item the
following day. First came an interview with some bright,
intelligent Cambridge students who were almost in tears at the way
their future had been blighted. This was followed by an
interview
with some inhabitants of Peterborough, people with stupid, closed
faces, barely able to string two words together, in fact barely
conscious. Their reason for voting to leave was that their high street
bakery had recently closed, and for that they blamed a Polish grocery
shop that had opened in the same street. It did not occur to
them
that the only way the Polish shop could have helped to close their
bakery would be if they themselves had forsaken it to buy their bread
from the Poles. Given their open xenophobia this seems
unlikely,
so it is probable that the shop closed because they preferred to buy
from Tesco or one of the other supermarket chains. Clearly the Brexit
vote was a victory for stupidity.
In the following few days we heard of young people devastated
by
the leave victory who had wanted to remain but hadn’t
bothered to
vote because they thought remain would win easily. We hear of
others who had voted leave as a protest against the Westminster
establishment with no thought that leave would win and no intention
that it should. The lesson here is, if you have a vote use
it,
use it sensibly, and never underestimate the stupidity of the British
public. Both these groups, if given a second chance, would
undoubtedly vote to remain.
The
campaign
One cannot, I suppose, entirely blame the barely conscious
denizens of Peterborough and their fellows in other parts of the
country. They have been led astray by a sustained campaign of
xenophobic propaganda from lying politicians and irresponsible
journalists. From the gutter press one can expect no better,
from
the Express
with its
obsessive anti-European outlook, or the Sun
with
its puerile insults, and from the Mail
too, always eager to stir up
trouble and anxiety to increase sales. One might have
expected
better from the Telegraph,
which at least included on its financial
pages some of the likely dire results of a vote to leave, but on its
news and comment pages it totally ignored these, just as it ignored or
scoffed at the predictions of the Remain side, to pursue an obsessively
Little-England policy of one-sided propaganda. Its former
editor,
Charles Moore, once an incisive political analyst, and still, in old
age, a man who can write far more elegantly and persuasively than most
of the grammatically-challenged younger generation of journalists, also
adopted this one-sided view and seemed oblivious of any possible
detrimental consequences, despite their detailed presentation by the
Remain side, an obsessive mono-mania that might perhaps suggest the
beginnings of senility were the delusion not shared by so many of his
younger colleagues.
The results of all this hysterical journalistic stirring up
of
xenophobic hatred has not only brought about the close-run victory for
Leave, but also an considerable upsurge in hate crimes against
foreigners of all kinds, and may well have been instrumental in tipping
over the edge the madman who murdered a promising young MP.
If journalists have been irresponsible, what are we to think
of
politicians? Nigel Farage has at least devoted his political
life
to his one aim of getting Britain out of the EU, but Boris
Johnson’s adoption of the Brexit leadership seems to have
been a
cynical move to further his own ambitions: would he be in a better
position to become Prime Minister if he stayed with
Cameron’s gang and sought adoption as anointed successor
(unlikely) or might he make more of an impact as leader of the Leave
campaign? Boris’s lovable clownish image as Boris
the
bumbling buffoon is revealed as merely a mask for overweening ambition,
and he is shown to be a man prepared to inflict incalculable damage on
Britain, even to risk the disintegration of the United Kingdom, if it
brings him closer to the top job. No longer Boris the
buffoon, he
is revealed as Boris the Hypocrite, Boris the Liar. As for
his
treacherous toady, the slimy Gove, the only word of truth he has spoken
throughout the campaign has been to declare Boris unfit to be Prime
Minister.
The
lies
Let us now turn to the lies propagated by the Leave campaign
The first is that Britain contributes £350 million
per week
to the EU and that this money will be available to spend on the NHS,
and indeed to spend over and over again on reducing taxation and other
favoured projects. Deducting the rebate, which is not paid at
all, our weekly contribution is £250 million, and with EU
grants
this is reduced to £136 million. This still leaves
us as a
net contributor, like Germany, but it is only right that richer areas
should contribute to the development of poorer areas, as happens within
the UK where the prosperity of the south-east helps to subsidise less
affluent areas. However, although on the basis of
contributions
we are a net contributor, the additional prosperity from being an
integral part of probably the wealthiest single market in the world
more than outweighs the contributions deficit.
The second lie is that if we leave the EU we will have access
to
the single market without having to agree to freedom of movement for
money, goods and people. Politicians on the Brexit side who
think
that it will be easy to make the EU agree to this appear to be living
in cloud-cuckoo land. 47% of our exports go to the EU, only
7% of
their exports come here, so, although German car-makers may wish to
retain free access, overall the EU is in a much stronger position than
the UK and will have no reason to agree to our demands that they should
simply surrender the basic principle of freedom of movement.
The case of Switzerland is instructive. The Swiss,
with a
similarly high rate of exports to the EU, wished to have access to the
single market and other EU benefits, but a plebiscite voted not to
become members. The EU than imposed the following conditions
for
access: Switzerland has to contribute to the EU budget, Switzerland has
to accept about 75% of EU regulations with no voice in determining
them, Switzerland has to accept the principle of free movement of EU
citizens, and also the Schengen agreement on open borders, which the UK
has been able to reject. A further Swiss referendum voted to
restrict immigration, and the EU reacted punitively, withdrawing many
of the privileges of associate membership, including expelling Swiss
students from the Erasmus scheme for study at EU
universities.
Student distress was extreme, and the Swiss government has had to agree
to fund the remaining years of study.
If the EU can treat Switzerland like this, why should the UK
expect anything better? Switzerland merely voted not to join,
we
have voted to leave, possibly destabilising the whole project and
opening the way for the advance of far right parties like the French
Front National led by Marine Le Pen.
A third lie was that Turkey was about to join the EU and that
this would mean millions of Turkish Muslims flooding into the
UK.
Turkey is not about to join the EU. Because of its
geographical
position the Americans wish to bind Turkey into the West and, as part
of this policy, they have pressed for its admission to the
EU.
The only EU government that has seemed at all sympathetic to that idea
has been the British. Other EU countries do not regard Turkey
as
European. Greece has never been in favour of its admission,
and
the continuing dispute over Cyprus is an immovable obstacle.
The
oppressive dictatorship established by President Erdogan since the
alleged attempted coup and his move towards a closer relationship with
Russia have made any further advance towards even associate membership
impossible.
A fourth lie was that the predictions of financial
instability
made by the Remain campaign were unfounded and could be dismissed as
project fear. Now, while it is true that the Remain campaign
concentrated only on the negative effects of withdrawal and largely
ignored the positive advantages of membership, and that there has not
been an immediate catastrophe, it does appear that international
companies are biding their time to see what the negotiated arrangements
will be. Nissan, for example, may move much of its
manufacturing
from Britain to the continent, threatening the future of 7,000 jobs in
Sunderland and 40,000 across the country.
The
future
The decision by politicians that “the people have
spoken
and we must follow their decision” has more to do with
uniting
the political parties that were in danger of fragmenting than with the
future of the country.
That decision having been made, what must now happen is that
the
Brexit team should try to negotiate the best possible agreement with
the EU. It seems unlikely that this will be any better than
our
present position as members. If we want access to the single
market we will have to accept freedom of movement, including very
possibly the Schengen open borders agreement, accept much of the corpus
of EU regulation without a voice in any decision-making, and contribute
to its budget.
It must therefore be open to Parliament to scrutinise the
agreement and either to accept or to reject it. If Parliament
believes that the only way to determine whether or not it should be
accepted is to refer the decision to the people in a second referendum,
then this should be done before there can be any question of initiating
the withdrawal process. If the conditions agreed between the
Brexit negotiators and the EU are favourable, then, doubtless, the
people will accept them, but if they are unfavourable, we must have the
option to reject them and retain our existing membership.
This is
especially important as certain parts of the UK, Scotland and Northern
Ireland, may choose to secede if they lose access to the single market.
The unwise, and in many cases unintended, decision of the
British
people to leave the European Union, was stirred up by lying politicians
and a campaign of xenophobic hatred by the press. The dire
consequences predicted by the Remain campaign may yet come to pass if
access to the single market is not granted without unacceptable
conditions. It is evident that leaving the EU will not in
itself
allow us to take control of immigration, which will require radical
reorganisation of our benefits system, equally possible whether we are
in or out of Europe, and that the conditions for associate membership
may well be less advantageous than those of full membership.
We
must therefore have the option of choosing to remain, and the EU must
take genuine steps towards reform.
For permitted uses of this
text see Copyright
and Concessions.
During the Brexit negotiation period anyone may reproduce this essay in
whole or in part proving they make due acknowledgement that the it is
by Malcolm Potter-Brown and published by Auksford.