So here it starts again – there’s a new ‘question’ on the
table, one deemed important enough to warrant a national referendum.
On Thursday 23 June, every British citizen (as well as Irish
and Commonwealth nationals residing in the UK) will have the right to answer
the question ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?’ by ticking either 'Remain a member of the
European Union', or 'Leave the European Union'.
Politicians (both the more successful, overt ones – and the
even less honest ones, who pose as ‘journalists’) fall over themselves to
‘prove’ to voters what an important decision this is and what catastrophes lurk
just around the corner, should they make the wrong choice.
David Cameron said
that this will be a ‘once-in-a-generation’ choice. That’s probably the only item on which ‘Remain’
and the ‘Leave’ activists agree. Well,
whenever politicians from both sides of an argument agree on something, smart
money should get very, very wary.
Is this really such a crucial issue?
‘Remain’ campaigners will tell you that the UK stands to
lose millions of fat jobs and tens of billions of pounds if it dares leave the
warm bosom of the European Union.
Ask a ‘Leave’ activist and s/he’ll draw a picture of Britain
as the Post-EU Utopia: de-regulated, non-bureaucratic – and therefore
wealthier; a proud nation in charge of its laws and borders, free once more to
pursue her best-in-the-world way of life.
 |
| Playing us for fools... |
So who’s right? Well,
actually, neither. They both very
convincingly tell you tall stories. And
they mostly know it. The truth is that,
in actual, objective, tangible terms – it makes little difference whether
Britain stays in or leaves the European Union.
The first argument both sides of the remain/leave conundrum
roll out is the economy. True, the
European Union is UK’s main trade partner.
If trade with the EU suddenly became more difficult or more expensive,
that would negatively affect the British economy. Only problem is – such a scenario is
extremely unlikely. The fact is that the
UK imports more stuff from the EU than it exports: in 2015, British exports
into the rest of the EU totalled £133 billion; imports reached £218
billion. In other words, Germans, French
Italians and Spaniards are at least as interested in free trade with the UK, as
the latter is in free trade with Europe.
It’s a win-win situation. True,
EU bureaucrats can be amazingly clumsy, but they’re not completely bonkers;
European politicians are a thoroughly uninspiring lot – but even they are
highly unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot, by choosing the lose-lose
option. I’m sure they’d like to poke
David Cameron in the eye with a blunt stick; but the stick has two ends and
they’re both rather sharp. So whatever
its results, post-referendum Britain will enjoy free trade with the EU. In the ‘Leave’ scenario, the situation might
be slightly better or slightly worse than the current one, depending on the two
sides’ negotiation prowess; but only slightly.
I’m not the only one stating the obvious here; according to the
think-tank Open Europe
“[the] realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030”
 |
| Wrong pitch, buddy! |
The ‘trade’ argument, therefore, fails on both sides – as do
all the sub-arguments stemming from it (jobs, investments, the supremacy of the
City as Europe’s financial hub, etc. etc.)
And how about the ‘we’ll be in charge of our own laws’
bit? Will a post-Brexit Britain enjoy
complete legislative independence? Well,
yeah… approximately. To start with, the
existing EU legislation has already been incorporated into UK’s laws. Undoing that will necessitate many years of
legislative work – assuming that the Parliaments of the time will want to undo
it. And even if it’s undone, will the
pure-bred British replacement laws be that different? Unlikely: Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are
not EU members; yet differences between Norwegian and (say) German law are not
significantly wider than those between German and (say) Dutch law. On great matters of principle, UK is unlikely
to ever be completely independent again – no, not because of the EU, but
because she is a signatory of a long list of international treaties (mostly
concocted under UN, not EU patronage), with which UK’s government is obliged
(in theory at least) to comply. Contrary
to popular belief, it is these international
treaties, not EU legislation, that have the greatest bearing on – for
instance – UK’s obligations towards refugees/migrants/asylum seekers.
Which brings me to the next point – control of immigration. For many on the ‘Leave!’ side, that is the
crux of the issue. Beneath the
politically-correct veil, they are greatly annoyed by what they see as the
‘flooding’ of their country by migrants who know little and care even less
about ‘the British way of life’. They
see Brexit as a PC way to stop that flooding without – God forbid – running the
risk of being labelled ‘racists’ in the process. They dream of a Britain proudly in control of
its borders, keeping out all but a smallish number of ‘acceptable’
foreigners. The problem is, again, that
the migration issue has little to do with UK’s membership of the EU. UK joined the European Economic Community
(EEC) in January 1973; the Maastricht Treaty (which declared the ‘Union’ and
the ‘European citizenship’) was enacted in 1993. Neither event made a difference in terms of
immigration: according to census data, in 1971, UK’s ‘foreign born population’
was 3.1 million; by 1981, it had increased only marginally – to 3.2
million. In 1991, the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) reported circa 53,000 immigrants from other EEC countries; in
1994, the number was 50,000. Contrary to
popular belief, the watershed event in terms of immigration was purely British:
the rise to power in 1997 of a Labour government led by Tony Blair. In 1996, ONS reported a total inflow of circa
224,000 immigrants; the annual number climbed steadily after that, reaching
513,000 in 2006; and it has more or less stabilised since then. In other words, the major issue in terms of
immigration is not membership of the EU, but the policies of UK’s government.
‘Leave’ campaigners might claim that Brexit will allow them
to reduce the immigration – but that claim does not withstand close
scrutiny. Two thirds of migrants come
from outside the EU. As for the
remaining third, it is not clear that the UK economy can do without them:
leaving aside the potential penury of those stereotypical Polish plumbers (a
most frightening prospect!), who would replace the tens of thousands of East
Europeans who work as construction workers, cooks, waiters, barmen, bell-boys
and chamber-maids? Not to mention
cleaners, au-pairs and a host of other low-paid, rather unpleasant jobs?
Britain’s ‘immigration flood’ is a common problem among rich
countries. In relative terms, non-EU
members Norway and Switzerland are more ‘flooded’ than the UK. So are USA and Canada. Australia is currently getting rid of some of
the migrants landing on her shores by deporting and detaining them in
neighbouring Papua New Guinea, after bribing that country to accept them. But that policy has
recently been ruled illegal by PNG’s Supreme Court.
To sum it up, whether the UK stays in the EU or leaves it
makes little difference in practical terms; what makes a difference is which government
sits in Westminster.
So why the brouhaha? Because,
just
as I’ve written about the Scottish independence referendum this is not
really about the economy, or about the laws, or about immigration – although of
course these are issues people care about.
It’s about nationalism, stupid! The
only reason why there is a referendum about EU membership is that many people
feel that the latter is gradually becoming a kind of super-state (which is what
‘Union’ is supposed to express), potentially superseding the British national sovereignty
and clashing with the Britons’ sense of national identity. There’s nothing wrong with such views; nationalism
and patriotism are quintessential human feelings. Except for a certain category of boneheaded, ideology-intoxicated
self-styled ‘progressives’, for whom any expression of pride in one’s
particular heritage represents ‘identity politics’ – something that those cultists
have decreed ‘taboo’. It is tragic that so
many people succumb to the constant harangue from the ‘priests’ of this
modern-day religion; battered into politically-correct submission, we learned
to hide our feelings, lest the thought inquisitors accuse us of being ‘racists’,
‘fascists’ and a host of other mortal sins.
Sure, if taken to extreme, nationalism can slip into
xenophobia; but then, anything can turn negative if taken to extreme. In moderation, nationalism is good: it fuels
the spirit of competition, which is the engine of human progress; it preserves
the beautiful, colourful diversity of mankind and keeps it from turning into
that awful, amorphous thing Marxists call ‘masses’ and I call ‘herd’.
My prediction is that the UK will rather overwhelmingly vote
to stay in the European Union. And that’s
not just because ‘Brexit’ is such a poorly-chosen brand – it sounds like
someone belching; no, it’s mostly because the ‘Leave’ campaign is playing the
wrong game, on the wrong pitch. As long
as the discussion focuses on the economy, people will vote to stay. Bombarded by both sides with tendentious ‘arguments’
and untrustworthy ‘evidence’, they will naturally vote against change: ‘the
devil you know’ and all that. If they
really wanted to win, the ‘Leave’ campaigners should unabashedly have talked
about nationalism, about British identity, about the independence of an old and
proud insular nation.
‘To Brexit or not to Brexit’ is not the question. What people really want to know is how their
country will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. Will their children still be able to proudly
wear a distinctive British identity – or will they become ‘the masses’? That is the question.
Very comprehensive analysis showing that the change should be done inside the nation and inside the people. But the EEC type of legislation is already so deep in all the countries that to change them in a smooth way should take tens of years.
ReplyDelete