Many supporters of remaining in the EU are in denial about Brexit, writes Simon Hix. But if the referendum result is not accepted, the 48% who voted to stay are in danger of being sidelined in the most important debate in Britain in the past 50 years. We need to accept the fact that the UK is leaving the EU, and emerge from it with the best possible deal. He identifies four policies pro-European Leavers – as well as dismayed Remainers – could adopt.
Remainers need to accept that the Commons is unlikely to overturn the referendum result. Chris Hanretty has estimated that a majority voted for Leave in 421 Westminster constituencies. Many of the Remain MPs, in both the Conservatives and Labour, will quickly change their positions. Parliament will also not want to provoke a constitutional crisis by voting against a popular majority.
Denying the referendum result also ignores an underlying reality: that the UK has been drifting from the centre of gravity in Europe for several decades. We may have been leaders on the single market and enlargement in the 1980s and 1990s, but since then we have become increasingly isolated. Our political elites, in both Labour and the Conservatives, have never accepted that the EU is a political project, not just an economic one, and this is unlikely to change. We have been heading for the exit door for some time.
So we are leaving the EU, and the sooner this is accepted by Remain voters and campaigners, the sooner we can think about what the majority of the British people want in terms of Britain’s future relations with the EU.
The new Conservative cabinet seems to be divided between two groups:
The hard-Brexiteers, such as the Brexit secretary David Davis and international trade secretary Liam Fox, who want a clean break with the EU – which may mean leaving the single market, restrictions on immigration, perhaps a new free trade agreement with the EU, new trade deals with other countries, and radical deregulation and tax-cutting to maintain our global competitiveness.
The reluctant-Remainers, such as chancellor Philip Hammond and home secretary Amber Rudd, in contrast, are likely to favour moving into the European Economic Area temporarily, but only if the UK can extract concessions from the EU to allow restrictions on the free movement of people.
Beyond that, there does not seem much else this group can agree on – and with Theresa May’s commitment that “Brexit means Brexit”, I suspect the hardliners will win out in cabinet battles over the choices ahead.
A pro-European Leave position
What is missing, then, is a “pro-European Leave” position. This is not a misnomer. This position accepts that we are leaving the EU, but also sets out a set of policies to establish a close and permanent relationship between the UK and the EU. This would be the preferred outcome of a clear majority of voters: most of the 16.1 million who voted to remain, as well as many of the so-called “liberal leavers”. For example, a recent poll by ORB found that 20% of Leave voters would prioritise single market access over restricting immigration. This position could entail four main policies.
First, the UK should be a member of the European Economic Area for as long as possible, to preserve free movement of goods, services and capital, including “passporting” for financial services. This may not be sustainable in the long-run, as the EEA was not designed for a large country like the UK. In the longer term, a new framework for “not in the EU, but in the European single market” might emerge, but that is not on the table at the moment.
Second, the UK should maintain free movement of people, but with an “emergency brake”, if that is achievable. Yes, many people voted Leave to restrict immigration. However, maintaining free movement of people is vital for our service economy, including the creative industries and our universities as well as financial services, and is crucial for younger generations of Brits who value this “right”. Maintaining free movement of people may be the only way to remain in the EEA. Free movement of people would guarantee the rights of 1.2 million Brits living elsewhere in the EU and the 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK. Recent survey data from YouGov suggests that a narrow majority of British citizens still favour free movement of people. Also, with a falling pound, a downturn in the British economy, and fears of xenophobia in Britain, there is likely to be a significant drop in EU migrants coming to the UK in the next few years, which will take some of the sting out of this issue.
It might be possible to negotiate an emergency brake within the EEA, such as a monthly quota on the number of national insurance numbers issued to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens elsewhere in the EU. But if that is not achievable, we should accept free movement and commit to keep negotiating on this issue, as part of a reform of free movement in the EEA or even in the EU as a whole, which is now on the table.
In addition, supporting the continued free movement of people should be combined with flanking policies to address the legitimate concerns of the millions of people negatively affected by large-scale migration. For example, the government should clamp down on employers who pay cash to undercut the minimum wage, and there should be targeted public spending to alleviate pressure on schools, hospitals, and housing.
Third, there should be close social and cultural co-operation with the EU. This should include UK participation in educational exchanges such as Erasmus, European scientific co-operation such as the European Research Council and the Horizon2020 research programme, and European film and TV collaboration such as the MEDIA programme. This would be valuable for cultural engagement and social relations, and would also be critically important for the economic interests of our universities, our scientific researchers and our creative industries, who contribute £84bn per year to the UK economy. In practice, this policy would mean the UK paying into these parts of the EU budget, but this would be a small price to pay for the funds received and for a ‘seat at the table’ when key decisions are made about European education, science and media.
Fourth, there should be close UK-EU security co-operation. We cannot allow the UK leaving the EU to destabilise European security, for example by encouraging Putin to stoke up trouble in the Baltic States. The UK should commit to close and permanent foreign, security and defence co-operation with the EU, such as collaboration between foreign policy and defence officials and an annual UK-EU security summit.
Who will make the case?
These positions are surely supported by almost all of the 48 per cent who voted Remain. They are also supported by many of the “liberal leavers”, who perhaps make up 10-15 per cent of the Leave voters. In other words, a large majority of the British people want the UK to maintain the closest possible relations with the EU. In contrast, only a small minority supports the version of Brexit advocated by the leading Brexiteers in Theresa May’s cabinet.
The problem, though, is that no one seems to be articulating this “pro-European” version of Brexit. The Labour party is embroiled in in-fighting, while the Liberal Democrats are promising to campaign in the next election to take Britain back into the EU. Could a new movement emerge from the Britain Stronger In campaign? Could someone on the moderate wing of Labour step up to articulate this vision? Could someone on the pro-European wing of the Conservatives step forward? Or could a new party be created from outside parliament, by civil society leaders, industrialists and representatives from the creative industries, and intellectuals and opinion formers?
Without a new force to articulate these views, to represent the majority of the public who want a close and permanent relationship between Britain and Europe, we may end up isolated from our continent, and suffering the disastrous economic, political and social consequences that will result.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the BrexitVote blog, nor the LSE.
Simon Hix is Harold Laski Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Actually I think a lot of remain campaigners are saying loud and clear that – if this has to happen, IF – we would certainly want it to be as close to what you outline above as possible. But I’d say this is best achieved by contnuing to ensure the government is left in no doubt about the huge strength of feeling among the 48%. As ian Hislop pointed out on Question Time we are entitled, in the spirit of opposition, to keep on making the agrument that we are unhappy about this general ‘let’s-leave-but-we-don’t-know-quite-how’ debacle and still value what the EU has to offer..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36742691
Keeping up pressure on the government to hear our voices and represent our interests is key. In negotiating terms, your points 1-4 should be a fall-back position not an ideal one, and we are in very early negotiating days.
Hislop gets £40,000 a show for HIGNFY doesn’t he ? No chance of a Lithuanian taking his job.
Simplistic analysis of ‘migrants taking British jobs’. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/20/reality-check-are-eu-migrants-really-taking-british-jobs Ah but that’s a bunch of experts talking.
I welcome some movement from the Remain Camp but there will have to be more. Simon’s article is still suffused with Remain denial whatever he says about accepting the results. Opinion polls are used as an argument that the vast majority still really wishes to remain in the single market and Leave is still equated with ‘isolation from our continent’ (?!) along with predictions of gloom. There is no acknowledgement that EU and non-EU states have equal access and voting rights in EU funding consortia and overall the argument is that Brexit can only be on Remain terms.
Thanks for the few concessionary crumbs Simon and sorry you lost the vote but this will not do. The new government will lead Britain into an entirely new role in the world while the EU gradually unravels. As Churchill said: we will be with you but not of you.
Best
Alan.
But the EU will not unravel, dear boy.
I think it is only a matter of time before the EU unravels. The U.K. Will be successful in developing new trade deals, with or without the EU, immigration will start to be controlled, and laws will be made for the people by the sovereign government. People in other EU countries will say “why can’t we have this” and public opinion will move against the EU. As the EU dictators impose more control to maintain their position there will be moves against them that eventually can only be controlled by force. The end, just like the Soviet Union.
Some very confident uses of the future tense, there – UK ‘will be successful in developing new trade deals’…’immigration will start to be controlled’…. ‘laws will be made’. Really? What if this is all just wishful thinking? I never cease to be amazed at this image of the UK as able to dictate terms in any negotiation.
Louise
It’s because I am confident in our ability to succeed whatever. Glass half full. It’s easy to talk ourselves down – the media does it all the time in search of a story, never mind the damage. We I’ll succeed. Bet you.
Louise,
In the EU, the UK has no right to make Trade deals, to control the quantity and quality of EU migrants and unsuitable laws are imposed on the UK by all manner of unelected and unaccountable bodies. Leaving the EU may not cure all these ills, but it is clearly a necessary first step.
Since these fixing these issues must be universally regarded as desirable, once it becomes possible, we must assume progress will be rapid.
The EU’s goose is cooked. The inevitability of ever closer union has been punctured. Much of Southern Europe has been economically ruined by the EU; when they see the UK swanning off into the sunset the desire to continue the economic torture for the sake of Eurosolidarity will be pretty limited I imagine.
On top of the economic issues, hard right eurosceptic forces are on the rise in places like Austria, the Netherlands, France. Not looking good for the EU.
Tad Stone, you are are indeed optimistic – slightly naive I would say.
Let´s look at some general facts from the last 3 weeks
1) UK in an economic crisis (huge currency drop)
2) UK in a political crisis (no effective opposition leadership – add a few nut case ministers…)
3) UK in a constituional crisis: (Scotland & N. Ireland prefer the EU to the the UK)
4) UK in a social crisis (Hate crimes rates embarrassingly high for a developed country)
5) EU support on the rise on the continent (polls conducted in several key EU member states)
6) EU economy does´t seem to be affected by the economic mess in the UK
Well go figure… 🙂
I think it will. Politicians can only paper over the cracks for so long. Hey will ofcourse endeavour to keep doing so … but EU economy flat lined, undo,payment 10%, southern countries in trouble and Italians banks in crisis now, wanting €140bn bailout … apparently that’s the tip of the iceberg …not to mention the refugee crisis. There will just be a growing divide between the politicians and the lives of real people and eventually the fault lines will be too big to paper over any more.
It’s already unraveling.
The waters are muddied with Remainers who think we must leave and Leavers who wish now to remain. Some entertain the fantasy of “negotiating the best deal for Brexit”. Well, Cameron negotiated a deal – including the “emergency brake” mentioned above – back in February, a deal for our continuing membership of the EU, subject to endorsement in the referendum. The EU didn’t regard June 23rd as a dress rehearsal for Brexit – it was the real deal. Once Article 50 is activated the only negotiations triggered by it are the mechanics of our exit from the EU. It’s not another bite of the cherry to be had from Parliament or another referendum. If we’re lucky we might also get in tandem a chance to fast-track some bilateral trade deals with countries outside the EU – there are none, repeat, none at present. The gravity of the situation involved in actually leaving the EU would unfold over months and years, well beyond the current Westminster froth of revolving government doors and an imploding Opposition. That’s why the legitimacy question that needs to be put in a General Election is not the Premiership of Theresa May or her Cabinet but the constitutional right of parliamentary representative government to cede to plebiscite opinion the competence to govern a process of such manifold complexity as Britain’s exit from the European Union.
Excactly !
The “emergency break” to which you refer is available to EFTA/EEA members under articles 112 and 113 (safeguard measures) of the EEA treaty. This could be used to mitigate the effects of Directive 2004/38/EC, if we accept article 28 on the free movement of *WORKERS*.
This is important as an FTA or (god forbid) a hard exit to WTO rules, while providing basic protections to trade-in-goods, would be highly unsuited to the UK economy. Our offensive interests lie in services, especially financial services that require EEA financial passporting. (Note that the Swiss trade through London because they aren’t in the EEA).
But *ANY* trade deal of sufficient complexity to addresses these issues – including extended WTO arrangements – is going to include provision for economic rights of free movement, including the right of a worker to accept an offer employment.
It is essential that we get these facts, which were suppressed during the referendum, out into the open now, so that misinformed kippers don’t try to tear up significant trade deals, just because they have “Europe” in the name.
Ok, I get the feeling behind this post, I really do. I am the prototypical frustrated Remainer. Yet I was never pro-EU institutions. Anyone who has spent decades grumbling about EU problems could rally behind an EU minus participation centered on the 4 freedoms, like EEA.
The question is what would be the benefit to the British Establishment in participating in the single market, yet not in the decision making mechanisms that allow it to evolve.
Perhaps there is some reason yet to resist the outcome of the referendum. If economic catastrophe follows (say a property crash), Leavers will reconsider. One tends to care more about the contents of their wallet, than their distaste of foreign neighbours.
Likewise I welcome the re ignition to move on and look at how we shape our future outside the EU ….. but I think we can all agree polls have been shown to be unreliable.
We have to remember that there were constant warningss on the ecominy as well as the EU telling us Before the Vote that there would be no access to the single market without open borders … Yet STILL 17.4m people voted Leave.
You have to conclude there is something Leave voters hold even more dear then the economy.
@Debbie – the warnings regards EEA access (notably from Strauble) were prompted by Osbourne and had mostly been rowed back by close of 24th June. https://t.co/bzbUlX1Tww
We will have to accept Free movement (https://t.co/iEPSdYmZGM), but it’s important to remember that there is a sound economic reason for that – it’s fee movement of *WORKERS*, not open borders.
I don’t think anyone I have met who voted Leave wants to pull up the drawbridge completely, but they do want to decide who walks across it. So I agree it requires a proper system that we have control over …. but where I might differ is that I don’t think the controls should be 100% related to driving the economy, there is something about the social fabric of communities and society that people are worried about too …it needs rebalancing. A 100% focus on the economy will also drive a further wedge between London and the rest of the country and in the long run that cannot be good for our society.
Happy to agree on that – but for me there is also a wider European social fabric and communities issue, which is about a bond of peace and a determination to keep far right nationalism at bay across the continent. It is aguable that a decision based on narrow UK economic interests damages this wider fabric. These are points of vision and principles, not necessarily amenable to a clear factual answer
The campaign was won by lying to voters.
Why should anyone agree to accept a decision based on falsehoods?
What kind of society would we be if we let the lies that fooled a slim majority drive us into economic depression and cripple our most productive sectors, the best case Brexit scenario, or much worse?
You mean the lie about an emergency budget with immediate tax increases for everyone ? Or do you think no potential Leave voters believed that and voted Remain ? Your whole one-sided argument about “lies” rests on the fact you think a large number of people who voted Leave are stupid and will believe anything they are told but no-one who voted Remain is.
The amount of lies and general hysteria was a factor, all those promises of World War III breaking out, Punishment budgets, an end to inter railing, plagues of locusts, etc etc that were so transparent and bullying certainly pushed me to vote out.
Indeed. The only “lie” that the Remainers ever mention is the one which said let’s stop sending 350M to the EU (which actually was a lie, it’s more than that) and spend it on the NHS. So really what they wanted was for the Leave campaign to say lets stop sending 200M net to the EU and spend it on the NHS. They seem to think people would have said “200M ? No, I’m only voting Leave for 350M”. However the punishment budget with 2-3% income tax increases was an explicit promise which has been entirely broken.
The biggest lie was the status quo option it was never on the cards, as pointed out in the article we do not fit in the EU we do not want to be full members of the club and never have.
This is not moving on, it is akin in theory to the Wright Brothers moving on from their gliders to the powered Flyer, but doing so before the internal combustion engine was invented. Absolutely pointless!
Immigration or Free Movement is of primary concern not only to the 52%, but a large proportion of the 48%, anybody who still includes free movement in argument in any form, is defying the public instruction, and denying the reality. Free movement is finished, never to arise again,if you want to work here you will need a work permit.
When is moving on not moving on?
When it is anything coming from a Remainer.
The Remainers still don’t get it. They insist that the vote was won by 17.4 million people’s distaste for foreigners or their being duped by lies. This won’t do. The EU failed on its record. Lies from Remain –everything from the threat of World War Three to the denial that France and Germany were planning a European army– abounded. No positive case for the EU or its future was made. Mention of its migrant crisis was dismissed as racist. Nothing but Project Fear was on offer and that went over the top. Your correspondents are still at it. Reality has still to sink in. It seems that if they have to choose between a failing, dysfunctional and disoriented EU and democracy they will choose the EU. Just more proof that neither it nor its supporters are democratic.
Alan, we only get one thing, you are the only one who gets it,.
Me and 17.4 million!
I like to party, not look areitlcs up online. You made it happen.
This piece is long on desiderata and wishful thinking, and rather short on practical suggestions as to how this might be achieved:
For example: “… there should be close social and cultural co-operation with the EU. This should include UK participation in educational exchanges such as Erasmus, European scientific co-operation such as the European Research Council and the Horizon2020 research programme … this policy would mean the UK paying into these parts of the EU budget”. Right. I’m sure the Commission will be dispatching large number of civil servants to work out special arrangements for the UK to allow this participation, because they’ll be so desperate to have us in all of their projects, after we told them to get stuffed at a collective level.
Alan Sked, would you have stopped campaigning to leave the EU if the vote has gone the other way and was 52% Remain?
I would have accepted the result as valid. Whatever my views of the Remain campaign I would not have questioned the legitimacy of the vote or insulted the voters themselves. I would not have asked Parliament to ignore the result.
I don’t believe you. Nor do I believe that UKIP would have decided to pipe down and not field any candidates in 2020.
On a broader issue, whatever side you are on, MPs have completely abandoned the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Not by refusing to ignore the result, but by allowing a decision over the future rights of EU citizens to be made by the executive, plus a bunch of unelected officials, without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever. Because if article 50 is triggered without an act of parliament, this is what will happen. my right to live and work in 28 countries will disappear, and be replaced by the right to live and work in 1 country. Poles and Romanians will continue to be able to do so in 27 countries. This will happen as a fait accompli, because the lisbon treaty does not provide for any ratification of a deal by the country that is leaving.
I have nothing to do with UKIP which I left in 1997.
I would indeed have accepted the result. Under UK law -/the Referendum Act— any further transfer of power automatically triggers a new referendum. I could then have taken up the cause again. Meanwhile I would have had other things to do.
But would you have stopped campaigning to leave the EU?
Yes.
Had Scotland voted for independence, which as a Scot I opposed, I would have accepted that. On what democratic grounds could I have asked for the vote to be overturned? I thought Salmond lied and that Scottish nationalists were ill-informed and deluded but the result would have had to be accepted. There cannot be annual referendums on Scottish independence.
And there cannot be annual referendums on British independence. You have to accept this. You wouldn’t be granting another had you won. Be honest. Grow up. Accept the democratic verdict of the majority.
I was very disappointed but not surprised that England lost to Iceland in the football. And only by ONE goal. Should we, the about 40 million Englash have asked for a replay because we didn’t like the result.
Likewise a young friend said we Leavers stole his future. I countered by asking him if he would allow someone he didn’t know or ask for advice to decide which computer games he could play, which friends he could have, where he could go on holiday, what food he could eat, and who he had to marry. Angrily he shouted NO!!! Point made. I won’t be told how to run my life by unelected corrupt EU officials. I prefer to be told by our own corrupt but elected MPs!!!
The “emergency break” to which you refer is available to EFTA/EEA members under articles 112 and 113 (safeguard measures) of the EEA treaty. This could be used to mitigate the effects of Directive 2004/38/EC, if we accept article 28 on the free movement of *WORKERS*.
.
This is important as an FTA or (god forbid) a hard exit to WTO rules, while providing basic protections to trade-in-goods, would be highly unsuited to the UK economy. Our offensive interests lie in services, especially financial services that require EEA financial passporting. (Note that the Swiss trade through London because they aren’t in the EEA).
.
But *ANY* trade deal of sufficient complexity to addresses these issues – including extended WTO arrangements – is going to include provision for economic rights of free movement, including the right of a worker to accept an offer of employment.
.
It is essential that we get these facts, which were suppressed during the referendum, out into the open now, so that misinformed kippers don’t try to tear up significant trade deals, just because they have “Europe” in the name.
I disagree that the voice of the remain side is lost in rejecting brexit. The reason it isn’t, is that Brexit is fiendishly complex (speaking from my day job as a lawyer) and not even well understood by the brexiteers.
This isn’t a unilateral decision and there are many checks and balances. I fully expect the UK to be a member of the EU in 5 years time: not even the most ardent brexiteers are keen to commit economic suicide.
If anything people who want to “compromise” have got it wrong: just turn up the heat on the leaders of leave to deliver EVERYTHING they promised and make sure the country understands when they fail.
I wonder when people will acknowledge that before the vote the electorate were repeatedly warned of the economic consequences of Leaving, they were also v clearly told by the EU there would be no access to the single market without a freedom of movement. Yet STILL 17.4m voted Leave.
What does that tell you?
Is it just possible that most people have concluded they value the social and democratic impact more than the economic??
Or rather that they simply didn’t believe it? There was a lot of counter-arguing from Vote Leave that this was just EU posturing, that of course the EU would want to do a generous deal with us because we’re so valuable to them, and of course we’d be able to drive a hrad bargain giving us single market access AND migration control.
You say that ‘in addition, supporting the continued free movement of people should be combined with flanking policies to address the legitimate concerns of the millions of people negatively affected by large-scale migration. For example, the government should clamp down on employers who pay cash to undercut the minimum wage, and there should be targeted public spending to alleviate pressure on schools, hospitals, and housing’
We could have done all these things at any time in the last 10 year. why suddenly think of them after leaving the EU? A position more consistent with brexit would be to tell all non-UK Eu citizens to leave the UK.
It is all silly and a mess, the best thing for the UK itself is to remain in the EU sort out this mess then see if we can get ourselves in a better position to leave in the future, many those who voted leave regret their vote I think it was worked out at about 7% which puts the vote in favor of remain. Only 37.5% of the electorate voted leave which is not a majority as it needs to be 40% or more to be classed as a majority and the referendum was even ran illegally if you look up the UK law on referendums. The downside is that the Pm as some in her cabinet wish us to leave the EU not to benefit the country but so they can pass certain laws that were being blocked by human rights or workers rights laws from the EU. Either way the country is split down the middle and most of this countries educated people make up the remain side these are the only people clever enough to fix this mess as the leavers seem to be uneducated and won’t know how to fix this and do not even care that they have messed this country up for the next few decades.
It’s leave now or never. The rules are changing. What a shame people here don’t have faith in their own Country. I am proud of my Country and absolutely sure that we will succeed out of the EU.
Well the EU has been a lot better for me than the UK has. I take my consequences from the referendum result and will be relinquishing my UK citizenship in favour of that of another EU country. I look forward to watching the chaos from a distance and seeing who you’ll be blaming for the actions of the UK government once the old scapegoat, the EU, is no longer a factor!
Wow. It’s citizens like you we don’t need. I am of immigrant stock and thank the heavens I was born in this country. I make sure my children are aware of their good fortune of having been born here. We have made mistakes in the UK but goodness, you will soon see the benefits of living here when you move away. It’s an incredible country is so many, often very subtle ways. The UK is like the Catholic Church: it thinks in terms of centuries. Brexit is merely a minor blip in a long and phenomenal history.
One more point: hang on to your UK citizenship; you won’t be the first to hurry back when you see what life is like outside the UK. Or when the EU collapses. But if I had my way, I wouldn’t let you have it back. Brexit means Brexit!
It amazes me why Remainers are so wedded to the idea of free movement of people. The working classes and poor middle classes have seen their standard of living ,wages and job prospects fall because of oversupply of cheap labour.An emergency break will never be enacted .We need something more definate that will be fairer to non EU citizens too.
It doesn’t sound to me from this article that acceptance by EU lovers is around the corner at all.Leave means Leave.
I cannot understand what this ‘free movement ‘ is, that everyone seems so concerned about.
If the UK wants people to be able to come here, either to work or for a holiday, it’s up to the UK to allow it. The same applies to other countries. Why is this seen as a problem?
The Youth of Britain Will Never Forget that Their Right To Live and Work in 27 Countries has been Stolen. They Will Reverse This Even if it takes decades… This Will Never Be Over…
You can still live and work in these countries. You need only apply. What you have lost is an automatic right.
Really? EU Economy has flatlined, unemployment is 10% and in some countries it’s as high as 50% for the ‘youth’ ….that’s why they all want to come here. Southern European countries in big trouble. We all know Greece is on its knees but Spain is struggling and the Italian banks are now in crisis – seeking a €140bn bailout from EU just for starters (apparently tip of the ice berg).
Exactly what golden future have we robbed you of?
Are you familiar with EUs plans for ever closer economic, monetary and political union? These are openly published on European Commission website. By 2025 all Eurozone countries to transfer their treasury function to the EU. What does that mean long term? Basically individual member states will lose control over decisions relating to running their own economy’s … it’s another key part of the infrastructure of a Superstate.
I wonder will the youth of Britain have the grace to thank Leave voters in 20-30 yrs time when all other EU states subsumed into an EU Superstate, where all major decisions affecting individuals lives are no-longer taken I the state but by the EU and an individual’s vote is worthless as one of 430m people (without the UK).
I was under the impression that there are many countries in the world that do not have to have free movement of people to trade with the EU.
Had David Cameron provided all of the available information to both sides, put forward a balanced view of the pros and cons for Remain, and not tried to to scare and bully us the result might have been different.
As it was he was not balanced which gave support to my starting definition of a senior politician do “a two faced, self-serving intelligent idiot.” I then wait to be proved wrong.
Cameron was in my mind, an honest and decent man for a politician before the referendum. By his actions he quickly became my definition. Hence, I ceased to trust him which reinforced my Leave position. Many others I spoke to said the same. And oddly enough, none of us are stupid, racist or as required by Cameron gullible.
Thank god the author if this risible article will not be negotiating our exit. What defeatist nonsense. We hold virtually all the important cards in the deck. If I run my business like Hix is suggesting we should negotiate I would not have lasted a year.
Step aside and let the adults deal with this.
There are indeed other issues, but the economy is pretty important – unless of course you are fairly wealthy. I think it would be helpful to remember that a lot of people have made life-determining choices based on being in the EU: they have started businesses that depend on EU membership, students have started courses based on EU membership, people have bought retirement homes in EU countries, people have already retired there (and how will they get health insurance when they can no longer access French and Spanish National Health services)? Some people are working in EU countries, some work part of their time in the EU. Last night I was talking to a University dean who told me he has already had EU students cancelling their places for next year, and has had one resignation from the staff, and Art 50 hasn’t even been triggered yet. These are facts, and they are why people are not going to “suck it up” or give up on EU membership. Nigel Farage is on record as saying that he would continue to campaign if the referendum was for Remain, and I think most Leave voters would have felt the same. That’s democracy and freedom of speech – something we appear to be losing fast in the wake of the referendum.
See The only way to save the EU is for the UK to leave it http://qz.com/721089/the-case-for-brexit/
….“If there is a wakeup call it has to be a recognition that it’s not austerity that’s going to get them out of this,” he says. “Austerity simply means after Germany bankrupts peripheral Europe and can no longer do so, they push their entire surplus abroad. And the US will probably have to absorb it.”
And that would ultimately be catastrophic: Even the US can’t borrow from foreign countries to pay for its imports forever. And when austerity has worn away enough of the global economy’s ability to grow, those debts will bury the world in another financial crisis, maybe even a reprise of the Great Depression…..
Good article. Remainers and “liberal leavers” together constitute a majority which could end up being ignored by an opportunistic government. I’ve started a parliament epetition about retaining single market access. Anyone who is in favour of this could sign it and circulate on to others. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/149966
“These positions are surely supported by almost all of the 48 per cent who voted Remain.”
Probably not. Indeed almost certainly not.
Take your suggestions on scientific research. Probably 95% of Remain voters are involved in research.only to the extent their wallets are raided to pay for it. In particular:
1. They don’t get to choose how much is spent.
2. or what type of research is conducted.
3. They don’t know that it represents a good investment of their money.
4. There is almost no transparency. They can’t look up the amounts awarded and spent and the value the taxpayer received.
4. It is entirely possible that ordinary taxpayers presented with a truthful cost benefit analysis on EU and State funded research might conclude that a great deal of their money is being misspent by cosy groups of academics who recommend each others’ insignificant projects just to keep the money flowing.
I want my democracy back. I want my democratic process back.
With his comments of “We will do whatever the referendum says”, both before and after the referendum, David Cameron hijacked that process. He attempted a coup of the democratic process, a coup that is still ongoing.
Our parliament is sovereign.
Not the government. Not the EU. Not the prime minister. And not the referendum.
Get parliament to take the decision it is paid to take. Then go with that outcome.
Until the massive assumption contained in the title and opening sentences of this blog are resolved, there is no point addressing the rest of it.
(I believe the academic term is ‘false premise’.)
Our parliament is sovereign?
I suggest you read the EU treaties. Start with Lisbon and work backwards.
Only when we leave the EU will parliament regain its sovereignty.
Why the word “fight”.
We should calmly and resolutely negotiate and if the EU does not want to do an acceptable deal wew ei have none – that would mean (horror of horrors) we have to deal with Germany etc on the same basis as the US, China, Canada, Brazil etc.
Oh, my god! We would be just like a normal country.
I am a remainer, but am beginning to wonder whether my country (England) will ever be comfortable in or out of the EU. It seems to me that the problems of the EU were best sorted from within, but our politicians didn’t have the nouse or the gumption to do it. The Germans and the French don’t have problems getting their way, be we are perpetual victims.
However I have now realised that the answer is simple: all we remainers move to Scotland. What’s not to like? With Global Warming it is getting better weather, and if 16m of us join the 4.5m already there, we would hardly notice them, they would seem like the chippy minority we have got used to in Parliament. And houses are dirt cheap outside of Edinburgh, which actually is the size of Sheffield. And of course the best bit is that we could get rid of the Scots Nats at the first election. I’m beginning to warm to this now…
Obviously, we would vote for independence and join the EU as one of our first acts (forgot to mention that).
Dear Prof Hix,
I spent a lot of time thinking about your proposal and I came to the conclusion that I disagree. Appealing as it may be to make peace with Brexiteers it suggests a betrayal of values I cannot stand for.
Please read my full reasons by clicking on my name above..
With Regards
Ioannis
It is too early to accept thar Brexit is inevitable. Before article 50 is due to be triggered it may be clear that something along the lines of the Norwegian arrangement is the best offer other than WTO rules. Something more expensive than EU membership and without the influence could could make parliament think and remember we live in a representative democracy. The referendum was a snapshot on one day and it may become obvious it was not the settled will of the people.
Campaigning against triggering article 50 may not be successful but it puts down a marker for the sort of Brexit deal that is required.
“Theresa May’s commitment that “Brexit means Brexit”.” Dear Professor Hix, that is not a commitment, that is a statement. Brexit means Brexit means Brexit.
I completely agree that we now need to accept that we are leaving the EU and emerge from Brexit with the best possible deal. As a remain voter, it was a disappointing outcome but now we must look forward with as much optimism as possible.
I read a very interesting blog from a business software company a few days ago. They viewed Brexit in a similar way to what you are suggesting in this article, and said this is the time to prepare your business in the best possible way for when the economy recovers. As a software company, they even go in to details about how changing your software can help with your supply chain (which will no doubt be affected in some way if you have business relations in Europe).
http://www.erpcentral.co.uk/resources/blog/business-beyond-brexit/
Good piece, but in reading this and the comments little mention is made of Brexit having severed the notion of European citizenship. The practical consequences of this can be dealt with through some ‘blue card’ deal, but isn’t this missing the fundamental part of us having shared a common citizenship for 40 years.
The “common citizenship” (a legal fiction as citizens from other EU countries did not, in fact, share identical rights to British citizens, such as the right to vote in our elections, making a mockery of the idea of common citizenship) only dates from the Maastricht Treaty ratified in 1993.
We are thus talking 23 years, not 40.
Needless to say, as a leave voter, I categorically rejected the legal fiction of a common European citizenship.
The majority has spoken we want out of the EU this was a vote given to the people to decide and they have spoken in a democratic way why are the losers spitting out their dummies in an undemocratic Way
The judges should respect the decision of the majority as the laws are made to protect against pirates and similar I am afraid the decision in the courts was not in the people’s interest. Chris
Things what have happened in the past with no respect for the majority vote have led to Civil Wars
I believe that there are valid arguments to those on either side of the “Brexit” discussion. Those who argue for it have a strong argument in the concept of independence. It seems as if much of the monetary weight is carried by the United Kingdom, so, by gaining independence, the UK could potentially have more freedom over their economic policy and, moreover, trade policy. It seems as if the UK government still wants some relationship with EU Member States, showing that they do have an interest in solidarity with the rest of Europe.
Brexit also secures the sense of nationalism that has seemingly swept the globe as well, providing citizens with their own sense of independence and national pride as well.
However, independence and free jurisdiction over national policy from the EU does not necessarily mean the Remainers do not have valid points. The UK has been a part of the EU for a few decades now, and breaking away from it suddenly may mean a very differently-structured relationship between the UK and the EU. Additionally, “Brexit” could potentially be a recipe for disaster. While independence sounds possible right now, leaving the EU might mean structural changes that will hurt the United Kingdom, or at least in the short term.
Either way, there is good reason to be supportive of “Brexit,” but also good reason to remain cautious about it.
Excellent post Simon.
Please may I just point out that some of us who voted Remain have been making similar points (fairly consistently) since the day of the referendum. For instance – see my comment here on The Economist (including my replies to various objections) https://www.economist.com/comment/3167457 – posted on 27 June 2016.
As I said at the time: “no one (neither the UK government nor the Leave Party) has a coherent plan, let me suggest one. The aim is to cauterise the wound to prevent further harm to both the UK and our European neighbours.
“The referendum result was to ‘leave’ the EU. But the confusion in the Leave camp makes it abundantly clear that there is no sensible definition of what LEAVE means. The government must therefore define ‘leave’ as narrowly as possible while still abiding by the will of the people to leave the EU.
“That clearly means giving up our membership of the club. It means giving up our seat in the council of ministers, giving up our MEPs and giving up our commissioner. But as Norway and Switzerland show, it doesn’t have to mean much more than this.”
I finished by urging the government to “take the above as a reasonable starting point (before anyone pushes the red button marked Article 50).”
Sadly parliament did not listen to that last bit. We are where we are. We need to make the best of the situation. A close association agreement – along the lines of EFTA / EEA (if not in them precisely) with a customs union would work. It would meet the simple simple condition of leaving the EU and keep the UK united.
BUT – we must first sign the Withdrawal Agreement treaty. This will secure an essential transition period. If we laid our EFTA/EEA cards on the table now, we could get that included as part of the ‘framework for our future relationship’ which will go in the accompanying (but not legally binding) political declaration. This is needed before 29 March 2019.
After that (when we are a third country) the real negotiations on our future relationship begin. There is still much to fight for – and it will be gruelling (with many on the far left and far right trying to divide us further from our EU neighbours – and ourselves). Those who favour close ties with the EU (including ardent Remainers) must start preparing the ground now for a sensible compromise.
@HuwSayer