By Andy Zdan-Michajlowicz
By the time you read this the world will be slightly the wiser about the United Kingdom intention to leave (Brexit) or stay in the EU. Despite the amount of discussion, newspaper columns and internet space devoted to it, nobody really quite knows for sure whether it is good for Britain or not.
The referendum has come about largely because UK Prime Minister David Cameron felt he needed to appease Euro Sceptics in his own party and counter the threat from the UK Independence party (UKIP) which won 13% of the votes cast in the UK May general election. Having promised a referendum, Cameron was obliged to follow it through, though he probably would have preferred not to as it is taking up an inordinate amount of his time and energy.
Whatever the result may be, there are two certainties. Firstly, it’ll be a ‘damn close-run thing’, as the First Duke of Wellington was misquoted as saying after the battle of Waterloo. The latest polls show 51% want to remain and 49% want to leave. While the country is split down the middle so too are the main political parties where party members are having ferocious debates between themselves. However, as this is Britain, once the referendum is over, the losers will congratulate the winners and everyone will return to doing other things, just like a game of cricket. Or so one hopes.
The second is that in the end nobody really knows whether a Brexit is a good thing or bad thing, for the simple truth is that nobody can say how Britain would have fared had it not been an EU member and how it will fare if it exits. The debate, therefore, is largely speculative and has tended towards fear-mongering on both sides.
The discussion has centred around a specific number of issues such as sovereignty, immigration, and the cost of membership. In March 2016, the British Observer newspaper published the results of a poll that included the question ‘which three issues will most affect how you choose to vote in the referendum? The area of primary concern was immigration at around 50% , followed by ‘How the European Union is run/who runs the EU’ at just over 40% and the ‘state of the UK economy’ at just over 30%.
Certainly immigration has been cited by the Brexit side as a significant issue, tapping into the fact that towns across the UK have experienced a massive influx of Eastern Europeans since 2004, first mainly Poles and now mainly Romanians. This has resulted in net migration (immigrants minus emigrants) of 300,000 per year. Of this, 184,000 are from the EU and 188,00 non EU. Not only is the anti Brexit lobby unable to explain how immigration can be stopped, pro Brexit have not been specific on this either. Few of the latter group would admit that immigration could be stopped completely and almost nobody would admit to supporting forced repatriation. In the end while many claim that immigration is a burden on the National Health Service and on the schools (most immigrants are mainly young and of child-bearing age), others argue that a significant proportion of the health service staff are immigrants and the children of today are the tax payers of tomorrow, reducing the imbalance of too few young people paying the pensions of many old people in years to come.
Sovereignty is another area of debate. For years, voices have been raised against ‘Directives from Brussels,’ as they feel that laws once debated and made in the UK parliament and involving the UK are now set by foreigners in Brussels who can force through laws against the wishes of parliament and possibly against the wishes of the British people. Those against Brexit argue that only a minority of laws derive from the EU and that Britain, and indeed national parliaments retain a veto over certain laws.
A third, much debated, issue is the question of the direct costs of membership with the pro Brexit lobby claiming that the UK gives the EU as much as £350 (€455) million a week. They argue that a large amount of money disappears or is wasted, going into the bureaucracy of Europe with Britain getting very little in return. Anti ‘Brexiters’ claim that the benefits of membership outweigh the costs. In the end, nobody is able to prove the truth beyond reasonable doubt. It all seems to be a matter of choosing the arguments that best serve your beliefs.
Both sides have brought in the ‘big guns’ to fight their case in a last minute realisation that it’s not what you say that matters but who says it. The line of Pro Europe supporters include Virgin boss Richard Branson, actor Liam Neeson, 007 actor Daniel Craig, author JK Rowling, TV personalities Jeremy Clarkson and Simon Cowell, musicians Elton John and U2, David Beckham and Stephen Hawkins. US media mogul Michael Bloomberg has also expressed support.
European politicians have also weighed in. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker’s has warned that Brexit would be “an act of self-harm” and French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron along with a host of European leaders has expressed the hope that Britain will stay in Europe. However, whether this will convince UK Euro-sceptics to support Europe is highly debatable. Indeed , even among pro Europeans these sentiments are more likely to inflame suspicions of outside interference in UK affairs.
The voices in favour of Brexit include actors Michael Caine and Elisabeth Hurley and the creator of Downtown Abbey, Julian Fellowes. Others include footballer Sol Campbell and aspiring US President, Donald Trump. We should also mention British politician Michael Gove here if only for his flattering mention of Albania as a role model to be emulated should Britain leave the EU..
There is a generation gap with younger voters more likely to vote remain and older voters to leave though this is balanced out by the fact that older people tend to participate in elections more than younger people. The reason for the generational differences here can be partly explained by the fact that the main worries of the younger generation are about jobs and employment and younger voters may see Brexit as a threat to their own future economic well-being.
The older generation tends to see immigration as a major issue more than the younger people. Older folk perhaps look back nostalgically to their childhood when only English was spoken in the streets and shops sold British food (though those under 70 years would consider Spaghetti and curry as staple British fare). They feel that their British identity is threatened. The younger generation have tended to grow up with multi ethnicity and are therefore less likely to see immigration as a threat. Indeed, to primary school children who mix easily with children from other cultures, this is all perfectly normal. Their own fears are more often a reflection of their parent’s concerns.
Sovereignty is also another generational issue. While the older generation have felt a slow erosion of their national sovereignty, the younger generation tend to be more concerned with human rights and basic universal freedoms and as such put their trust in European institutions to uphold them. It should be said that the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish who have ‘devolved assemblies) have had the opposite experience, and the Scots tend to be more pro-Europe.
This suggests that as time goes on and the current younger generation gets older, EU membership will become less of an issue. Thus, the often frenzied debate may well become an historical curiosity. Britain’s traditional role of sitting in the North-West corner of Europe, sometimes participating in European politics and sometimes not, may well become less relevant as improved communication, immigration and intermarriage bring Britain closer to Europe.
On the other hand if the UK decides to exit, we look forward to much time and energy and money being devoted to untangling and renegotiating the agreements and laws of the last 40 years. In this case, how quickly this happens or indeed whether it happens at all is not at all clear.
