Brexit

Brexit

I have now started gathering the documents I need to apply for French citizenship. I have prevaricated over this and delayed, possibly too long, thinking that the UK population would come to its senses and Brexit would be reversed. I'm no longer so sure and clearly need an insurance policy: French nationality.

I have presumed that, if and when Brexit actually happens, little will change during the transition period, which would give me until some time in 2021 to obtain French nationality. The Prime Minister has said she will guarantee retention of the existing rights of British nationals in Europe after Brexit but her word is worth little given the numerous U-turns, rethinks and double-thinks the government is displaying. I simply have to hope that my assumption about having until 2021 is correct. All my English friends and acquaintances here seem to have come to the same conclusion and are engaged in the same process or have already completed it.

That decided I am trying to clarify my attitude to Brexit and to understand better why I deplore it and believe it should be reversed. I find there are several aspects, which I will explore here.

The Referendum

The first is the legitimacy of the referendum and its result, on which I find several acquaintances (let alone a number of MPs) divided. On the one hand is the fact that most MPs said before the referendum that the result would be binding. On the other hand is the fact that all the legislation enabling the referendum clearly states that there is no way the result could be binding. Therein lies an anomaly and people have to make a choice as to how to resolve it. If one chooses to accept that the result is binding it cannot (by definition) be classed as democratic, so the idea that the referendum result was a democratic decision has to be false. It may nonetheless be accepted. It may surprise some people that a free vote and its result can be undemocratic but democracy is more complex than many people think. If, on the other hand, one chooses to accept that it is not binding there is a conflict with majority view in the UK's supreme democratic body, Parliament. Anyone's decision cannot be other than a personal choice and I, of course, refuse to accept the view that the result should be binding. As an aside, this is simply one of a number of anomalies regarding Brexit that can be decided only by personal choice; if any rules could apply, they have yet to be written.

That is a detail, albeit an important one. There is also the larger world view, of the UK, the EU and the role that each may play in the evolution of the global social and political picture. The EU has made no secret of the fact that it seeks, in effect, to “homogenise” Europe. That is, it will seek to iron out and reduce the differences between the member states. The devil here is in the detail (which we will come to next). The idea that the UK should in some respects lose its national identity is understandably anathema to many Britons: “hence “we want our country back”. The same, of course, can be assumed to be true of every other EU member state. Every other EU state must be expected to also want its country back so the eventual compromise can only be a matter of negotiation (and speculation).

The Global View

Given that stated aim of the EU, what is likely to be the social effect? My take on this is focussed on what I believe to be a major question in the UK: the wealth gap. Historically it can easily be demonstrated that as the wealth gap increases so it leads to political instability and extreme forms of government. This is already evident in the UK, with extreme right and left wings vying for power and no one apparently seeking the middle ground. Whatever the result of EU social aims they must inevitably lead to reducing, over time, the wealth gap in member states. There will, of course, be other social effects of EU legislation, such as initiatives for a cleaner and safer environment already enacted or in the pipeline, but exactly what they will be is unknown at present as also is whether the UK will do anything similar (and be able or choose to finance them).

In the world view politically it must be clear that the UK will lose clout. Whatever clout the UK has as a single, albeit important, nation it must have less than it would have as a member of a 28-nation group with much greater collective economic and demographic power. Does the UK's global political influence matter? That is a matter of personal preference but must surely rule out any idea of an independent UK having more influence. Why would it?

Even more important in my personal view are the advances in education, science, research in all fields and security control that have been achieved through pan-EU cooperation. The UK will automatically be excluded from these at Brexit; re-inclusion will be only with consent of the EU and may be denied, particularly in fields where the UK has less to offer and more to gain.

The Economics And Practicalities

I may as well state right away that I believe Brexit will cause the UK to be economically weaker. Such indeed was the opinion of virtually all MPs prior to the referendum. For a start, the UK will have to renegotiate as a single country some 50 trade agreements previously agreed as one of a group of 28 countries. I cannot conceive of how one of that group, not even the most powerful economically, can obtain more favourable agreements than were obtained previously. So I believe that UK must lose out to some extent here, even ignoring the cost and time needed to renegotiate the agreements. Just the time needed must put pressure on the UK to concede more; other states will still have their agreements with the EU in place, they need just an agreement with the UK alone. The UK will urgently need an agreement with the other 50 or so states.

The divorce bill has been variously estimated at between £30 and £50 billion. Whatever it eventually proves to be, the cost in terms of increased civil service personnel must be the next most important. Various numbers have been mooted, even the smallest in multiple thousands, and increased border control can only add to them. This is in the context of a public sector already reeling from the effects of austerity cuts. The only certainty is that public sector costs must rise significantly, to add to the divorce bill. And that will coincide with a time when the UK must compete economically with rest of the world at a disadvantage to its current position. So I can only conclude that the UK will be significantly economically weaker.

One other economic effect comes immediately to mind. All EU states obviously want a safe environment (safe drinking water, clean beaches, clear product labelling, etc). One benefit of the EU is that legislation to effect all such measures has been negotiated by the EU rather than each member state deciding it individually. The cost savings per state are not negligible. The UK can take advantage of such legislation on past issues but will have individually to incur the cost of future legislation, or neglect to legislate.

There are many other practicalities of course, the status of the Irish border being just one important one of very many.

Conclusion

I've already stated my personal conclusion: the Brexit decision should be reversed. I think that although anyone can quibble with some of my statements it would be difficult to substantiate any significant disagreements to the broad conclusions; the only basis for disagreement can be blind hope. Britain must end up poorer economically and in terms of global political influence (and in many other aspects in my view).

So why wouldn't any reasonable Briton want the Brexit decision reversed? I think there are two sticking points. One is anyone's personal choice on the status of the referendum result. That is a personal choice and not subject to argument. The other is trust in the EU, with immigration control as a central issue.

Immigration is a sensitive issue and the Leave campaigners successfully hid the fact that the UK had many avenues for control open to it which it simply chose not to use; the fault of the government rather than the EU. Be that as it may, immigration remains an emotional and ill-understood issue and could be a reason for maintaining a Leave stance, despite the overwhelming evidence that the UK badly needs immigration in one form or another. I doubt that the practicalities of the precise control that Leavers would advocate have ever been thought through by them. I've tried thinking them through and find them impossibly complex, unmanageable. But I wrote “reasonable person” as the test and this of all the issues seems largely to be decided emotionally rather than rationally. It is, to an extent, an emotional issue for me too. The racist and bigoted element which exists in all societies has in the UK claimed Brexit as a “win” for its views. Whatever is a “win” for its views is anathema to me.

The remaining question is whether belief in the EU, with all its faults and unknowns, is a preferable bet to a seemingly bleak and perhaps even more unknowable future outside it. That again is a personal judgement, although the weight of evidence of what is known favours remaining in the EU.

As I said at the beginning I have started on the process of seeking French nationality. I hope that if and when I obtain French nationality it will facilitate my son and daughter gaining EU citizen status, should they choose to do the same in the future.