Posted on

EU migration opens a whole Brexit can of worms

By Alessio  Colonnelli

britain euPutting a cap on EU immigration was all that mattered for many. But now, what about Belfast and Dublin? No need for a border, they say. Soft Brexit will do, it’s the only sensible way. As long as those speaking in tongues stay out, anything else is peripheral and can go on as it is.

Nothing new. A conspicuous minority of Brits did have previous bouts of strong irritation towards newcomers. The Jamaicans in Brixton in the late ’40s and ’50s; the Italians of Wales, Glasgow and Bedford; and that’s before mentioning the Irish.

 That was a long time ago, and now many sense it’s just got a whole lot worse. Who will ever forget the day Labour MP Jo Cox was assassinated by a man who could not stand foreigners? Egged on by a web mob and, much worse, an atrocious sense of superiority, self-importance and moral impunity. It was shocking. Campaigning to remain in the EU, as Cox was doing, led the murderer to believe he should do his bit to dam the hordes of barbarians. The same attitude has paved the way to a number of gratuitous assaults of a similar nature.

Continue reading “EU migration opens a whole Brexit can of worms”

Posted on

Speech! Speech! : The Campaign Rhetoric of Theresa May

By Alan Finlayson

As the country prepares for an unexpected barrage of campaign rhetoric Professor Alan Finlayson analyses Theresa May’s opening shot and speculates on what might come next.

Theresa May’s surprise speech announcing a General Election, is rhetorically rather clever. She uses language to position herself favorably in the campaign to come. But it’s also risky, creating clear opportunities for her opponents.

Every clever schoolchild has worked out that the first thing you do in answering an essay question is to redefine it so that you can say whatever it was you wanted to say. The same principle can be applied in political debates. The party which defines what the debate is really about improves its chances of winning. That is why politicians will try to make a debate about, say, economic policy into one about competence or trust. Roman rhetoricians likened this to finding the ‘fulcrum’ of an argument, the point over which opinion was divided. The trick is to find a point where the distribution of opinion is unbalanced in a way that favors you. If opinion is split 55-45 on a vote about environmental regulation maybe you can redefine the question as one about ‘the overwhelming power of the state’ and put more numbers in your column.

In her speech calling for an election Theresa May used such rhetoric to try and define two debates at once.

The first of these is the question of whether or not there should be an election at all. Under current rules the UK Prime Minister cannot call an election. But she can propose one and put it to a vote in the House of Commons. The risk is that in so doing she might look opportunistic – exactly what the rules are meant to be prevent. So, May tries to do two things. The first is to make out that she is only reluctantly calling this vote. She says as much, adding that she is just doing what is ‘necessary to secure the strong and stable leadership the country needs’. She also tries to describe that Commons vote as about something other than an election. Rather, it is about letting ‘everybody put forward their proposals for Brexit and their programmes for Government’ and removing the ‘risk of uncertainty and instability’ and ensuring ‘strong and stable leadership’.

The UK is at the start of a period of complex and profound negotiations demanding the full focus of government and the subtlest of strategies. Here is the Prime Minister unexpectedly complicating that process further with an election certainly intended to enhance her personal power. But she defines the situation in the opposite way, implying that voting against the election is a vote for uncertainty and instability. That’s a bold rhetorical move.

It’s also only half of the story.

Continue reading “Speech! Speech! : The Campaign Rhetoric of Theresa May”

Posted on

Brexit as a Strategic Shift

By Roberto Orsi

Britain’s move to leave the European Union has been a topic of political discussion worldwide for more than a year, starting from an extremely polarising referendum campaign in spring 2016 to the latest developments following PM May’s official invocation of Art. 50 of the EU Treaty on March 29. A great deal of analyses and forecasts have been formulated: some are already obsolescent, others have been faring better, but overall a great uncertainty looms over the entire question of what kind of outcome Brexit will yield. Will Britain be better off? Will the EU be strengthened? What about the economic implications? What about the “common values” of the European Union?

All these questions and the related answers certainly have their legitimacy, and many offer valuable insights also in relation to practical issues such as the status of EU citizens living in Britain or immigration in general, trade regulations, academia and research, defence, and so on.

However, there is one element of Brexit which appears to be little understood: its historical magnitude. Whatever the reader may think of Brexit, the way it emerged, how it was politically engineered, the opportunity of deciding such matter by means of a referendum, the point is to understand what kind of event Brexit is, and to what kind of historical events it may be compared.

Brexit is a major strategic shift for Britain and the future of Europe, which shall therefore compare with other major strategic shifts in history. This means that its consequences are better understood and judged in a multi-generational time frame. The US coming out of isolationism under F.D. Roosevelt in the 1940s, France’s recognition of Algerian independence in 1962, the US recognition of the People’s Republic of China in 1972, the Soviets decision to withdraw from Central Europe in the late 1980s, are just four examples of strategic shifts in the past century. Britain has taken this kind of decisions numerous times: signing the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, fighting Germany both in 1914-18 and 1939-45, withdrawing from the Empire afterwards.

Continue reading “Brexit as a Strategic Shift”

Posted on

Monsters in the Mist: The Elusive Quest for Financial Security in Scotland post-Brexit

By Faye Donnelly and William Vlcek

 

Image credit: First Minister of Scotland (CC-BY-SA-2.0)
Image credit: First Minister of Scotland (CC-BY-SA-2.0)

It is easy to become disillusioned, confused and even fanciful when trying to envision Scotland’s financial security in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. With a leap of imagination it is possible to conceive that there is now a higher probability of seeing the Loch Ness monster than there is of seeing any constructive resolution to the decisive vote emerging on the horizon. At first glance this assertion sounds like a fictitious rumination. Yet analysing the different stories that have surfaced about where Brexit leaves Scotland one quickly finds that they are rife with mystery. This blog argues that the complex discursive performances enacted since 23 June 2016 take on a particularly elusive quest when it comes to what financial security means for Scotland going forward. Akin to the Loch Ness monster, different actors have reported sightings. These vary from plots of the SNP canvassing for a second independence referendum to audacious acclaims of Scotland fighting to retain their membership in the European Union (EU). Let’s take a closer look at the ability of Scotland to synchronise these competing agendas.

With Scotland voting 62-38% to remain in the EU, the resurrection of independence as a political agenda certainly appears to have taken on a new lease of life with calls for ‘indyref2’. Speaking on 27 June 2016, First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, emphasised, “a second independence referendum is clearly an option that requires to be on the table and is very much on the table.” Stepping up efforts to ensure that Scotland’s interests are defended amidst post-Brexit negotiations the SNP party leader characterised Theresa May’s assurance that “Brexit means Brexit” as “a soundbite that masks a lack of any clear sense of direction”. At the same time, Sturgeon has indicated a willingness to participate in ‘engaged talks’ with the new elected UK Prime Minister. An easy explanation behind this discursive oscillation is that Scotland will need permission from Westminster to hold another referendum. What is also plain is that there must be public confidence in the prospect of an independent Scotland being financially secure, something that the latest YouGov polls figures have called into question. Elsewhere opponents to ‘indyref2’ are highlighting that the economic goals for an independent Scotland that appeared possible in 2014 (with oil at $100/barrel) have vanished (with oil hovering just below $50/barrel). Consequently, the projected political economy for an independent Scotland today forecasts either tax rises in order to maintain current public services or a reduction in the provision of those services. Faced with this reality Sturgeon has stopped short of demanding another independence referendum, in part because it is not clear that financial security lays at the end of that path.

Continue reading “Monsters in the Mist: The Elusive Quest for Financial Security in Scotland post-Brexit”