The current behaviour of those that we elected to represent us is as shameful now as it was before the fresh wound opened up by the rare exercise of direct democracy. For many years the political classes have avoided all attempts at communication with the populace on the subject of membership of the European Union. For many years they have been confident of the answer, confident that the people that they represented would happily take back control of all of the aspects of our daily lives that had been ceded to Brussels. Only in the last ten years has there been any chance that our leaders could ask us this question and have a hope of receiving the answer they wanted.
I know, though I was too young at the time to take an active part, that an impression has been given that the people of Britain had already been asked the question in 1975. The impression is mistaken because the question that was then asked was about staying in an institution that, not only had we only joined a mere two years earlier, but had only managed to join at the third attempt, thanks to veto powers of the French government. Our own government at the time, though reasonably popular after surviving 1974 and the three-day-week and associated industrial strife, was probably seen as a little weak and in need of the help of our cross-channel cousins. Moreover the club to which we had gained membership was clearly thought of at the time as purely a free trade body; a premium club for the thought-leaders of a Europe that much of the population alive and voting had seen in much worse times.
Since the federalising fetish of the EU's leadership has become known, the overall desire of the wider population of Britain has been to leave, or at least to maintain trade links whilst avoiding the other side of the "ever closer union" coin. Populations and their opinions obviously change. The older generation, with their memories of the world wars inevitably gave way to younger generations and, in the case of Britain, there have been powerful demographic shifts resulting from what can only be described as mass migration. Only in these conditions and through a promise made by a party leader who never expected to be in a position to keep his promise, could a referendum be contemplated, and only then in a climate of political fear engendered by the apparently unstoppable popularity of a minor new political party with a European separation agenda.
These thoughts must be borne in mind when we come later to the first major event of the new order of things, the untimely resignation of the minister responsible for the promise and for misjudging the importance of the new party and the mood of the population.
A few more words must be wasted on the appalling campaigns run by both sides of the remarkably bitter divide. I'm sure that there were some moderate voices on both sides of the debate, for example some of the remain side who were against the release of intensely distorted predictions of the personal cost of Brexit (as the desire to leave became known) and those for Brexit who wanted to present the freedoms (particularly financial) and control we could gain from leaving the union. Unfortunately such moderate voices were shouted down by an orchestrated campaign from the remain side (why not Bremain I wonder) whose chosen strategy was a steady torrent of scary predictions from prominent bankers, industrialists, foreign heads of state, etc. and the contrasting indignant cries about levels of uncontrolled immigration and the lack of democratic accountability in Brussels from the Brexiteers.
Worse was the knowledge that the Tory leaders of the two campaigns were engaged in using the vote as a proxy for their own leadership race, along with the pathetic claims of the Labour party to be solidly behind one outcome when it was plain that their leader hadn't got his heart in it. And loudly, ostensibly on the side of Brexit, but I suspect recruiting as much support for remain, was Mr Farage who we can always think of fondly as the thorn that pricked Cameron to his leap in the dark in the first place, but only if he will now shut up, completely.
Whether the Brexit campaign actually had a plan is an open question. They discovered with about three weeks to go that the immigration flag would fly wherever they waved it and just ran with that. I really believe that the more moderate messages I suggested earlier would have been sufficient without the need to imply that all supporters of the leave message were at best, mildly racist.
There were some notable moments leading up to the vote. The regrettable and tragic death of Jo Cox being one. Some pundits had this as a boost to the remain campaign, since the suspect was a member of a right-wing organisation whose views are aligned with the more extreme beliefs of the Brexiteers wishing to halt immigration. The second event, which I haven't heard analysed in great detail as a factor in the outcome, was the very recent celebration of our Queens' official 90th Birthday, with all the attendant flag waving and patriotic singing (and drinking).
As several pundits have pointed out, the fact that the expected outcome by the polsters, financial institutions and bookmakers was a remain vote only goes to show that the banks and betmakers are as far removed from the general populace (to which description we can safely refine to "those outside London") as the politicians. The outcome is entirely this story. I do not believe that the majority of those who voted for exit did so based on the stupid arguments about immigration, neither do I believe they were powerfully influenced by the fantasy finance of remain. The factors that swayed those I spoke to, and many who were interviewed well in the media were certainly swayed by personal factors: Many of those expressing a view for remain were close to someone who worked or lived on the continent, or had jobs that relied on the continued relationship with a European partner. On the leave side there seemed to be a bunch of sceptics, about Cameron's newly negotiated deal (meaningless since it was not supported by legal treaty changes), about the possibility of any future controls on immigration, about the likelihood and effect of the accession of Turkey to the club and, generally, about the trustworthiness of political elites here and on the continent.
There were also concerns expressed about Britain's place in the world. Whether we would have more control over world affairs on our own or as part of Europe; concerns about the state of the EU (its soft bottom, its expansion plans, the wiff of corruption that on occasion drifts across the channel); the cost of club membership and much more.
I did not watch the vote. I went to bed. I did not listen to the radio and so, it was on arriving at my second desk at work that someone finally let me know the outcome. I admit surprise and cheer, though not the elation that some felt. I realise that the vote was just the start of something; possibly something I had wanted for a long time, but not something I ever really expected.
On reflection (see my earlier comments on the subject) I think Cameron's resignation was inevitable. I do wish he had stayed on and begun the process, since he at least represented a fair and calm voice tha the Tory party could unite behind. I am unsuprised to see the ferment in the Labour party's ranks. I was pleasantly surprised by the resilience of the financial markets, with the exception of the banks. I did not anticipate other European stock markets falling further than our own. I am dismayed that there appear to be a number of legal or political attempts to delay or even reverse the process of leaving. I cannot understand why Nicola Sturgeon wants to gain power in Scotland, to separate it from a largely beneficial relationship it has enjoyed for hundreds of years and give the whole to the European project. I am unsurprised to find that we have a new Irish Question.
On the whole, I remain optimistic. I am not scared of change, even if there is some short-term economic shock. I believe that with the right leadership and if we can find the negotiating skills that we need but have recently given up, Britain can gain the benefits of being easier to trade with, from anywhere in the world. I believe that control of our borders will allow us to keep the great advantages of being able to recruit from around the world, but maintain our cultural identity.
Who knows where this will all go? A broken Europe, an increase in protectionism? All unknown, but we live in a different world to the one that spawned the European project in the first place. Globalisation of industry and capital is going to be hard to stop in an Internet age.
Now if only we can get Farage to shut-up....
No comments:
Post a Comment