After my last few relatively balanced posts on the European Union referendum, I am going to honour the promise of my initial post and confirm my voting intention: this Thursday, I will be voting for the UK to Leave the European Union.
When asked by friends about how I plan to vote, and what is persuading me to vote that way, I begin by describing myself as a ‘reluctant Leaver.’ In that regard, I think I belong to the vast majority of the UK population – not satisfied with the way the European Union currently operates, but persuaded that it is better when the nations of Europe (and indeed the world) work together. I firmly believe that we agree as a nation on the above assessment – European co-operation is a good thing, and the European Union can and must do better to serve the peoples and nations of Europe. The issue that the public at large are largely wrestling with is not whether some form of European co-operation is a good thing, but instead whether the EU can be reformed. The plea of the Remain campaign is akin to buying a run-down house – you are urged to look beyond what you are immediately buying and instead imagine what it will look like when you have done it up a bit. The Leave view would be akin to the salesperson advising that the house is structurally unsafe – which is the view that I have come to.
What we do not disagree upon
To begin with, I wish to dismiss some of the arguments that have been advanced by both sides in the campaign, and assert that they are not relevant. First and foremost, and in contrast to traditional electoral wisdom: “It’s not about the economy, stupid!” The most helpful observation in this regard was made by Martin Lewis (highlighted in this previous post) – we cannot predict the future with any degree of certainty. The appeals that a vote to Remain/Leave will leave us with more or less money in our pockets are so much fanciful thinking. Let me put it this way – if it were up to economists, we would never have elections. A change of government represents uncertainty, and economic assumptions are based on nothing changing. By definition, a vote for change upsets future assumptions. Equally importantly, a vote to stay doesn’t guarantee that change will not happen. There could well be a crash in the Eurozone. There may be a global economic crisis. The economic debate is important, but only in the sense that whichever governing arrangement we have at the end of it must be equipped to deal with it.
Secondly, it’s not about immigration. Both sides have to shoulder blame for this – the Leave campaign for allowing a ‘Little Englander’ mentality to creep in by association; and the Remain campaign for painting the Leave campaign as being entirely based around xenophobia. The debate around migration runs much wider than the EU debate – it involves us asking deep, difficult and honest questions about whether we really welcome people when they come to live in the United Kingdom; whether we are prepared to challenge community isolation and separation; and whether we are prepared to acknowledge that when migration is net positive rather than net negative, it places pressure upon our resources. It is a very important debate, and Labour’s failure to rouse their traditional base of support shows that we cannot postpone having the debate – but the referendum is not about whether we should accept migrants (so that there is no doubt, I believe both emigration and immigration are positive for human advancement), and it is unhelpful to paint the vote as being a choice between open or closed borders.
Finally, it is not about personalities. A popular internet meme at the moment (used by my wife’s colleague for a school assembly) shows those that back Remain against those who back Leave. Of course it makes me uncomfortable that Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Donald Trump back Brexit. It is a grave misjudgement however to reason that the support of a distasteful person for a policy, means by extension that the policy itself is distasteful. By that reasoning, policies introduced in Nazi Germany such as public work schemes and prevention of cruelty to animals, should be ranked in the same category as their genuinely abhorrent policies of hate, racism and murder. When you equate either campaign with a distasteful supporter of that side, you are effectively saying to any sincere person backing that side on good and reasonable grounds that they are no better than the distasteful person. That does nothing to advance democratic debate and public reasoning. It’s a powerful campaigning tool, which is why it used by politicians – but in the long run it does more harm than good, and takes the focus off of the debate.
So, we are clear on what we do not disagree upon. Where might we disagree, legitimately?
The necessity of reform
I posed two questions in deciding how to vote, and the first is essentially “do you believe that the European Union needs reformed?” My unequivocal answer is “Yes, urgently!” I can think of no better way to illustrate my concerns with the EU, than to quote the late Labour MP Tony Benn’s five questions (here taken from Wikiquote):
One can ask five questions:
- What power do you have?
- Where did you get it?
- In whose interests do you exercise it?
- To whom are you accountable?
- How can we get rid of you?
Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.
For all of the flaws of the Westminster system, Benn’s fourth and fifth questions remind us that it is possible for a government to be unseated when it ceases to hold the confidence of the British electorate – the same is also true for Holyrood and for the Sennedd in Cardiff, and sadly not so true for the Northern Ireland Assembly (but that’s another story). I will venture a more detailed post on democracy in Europe ahead of polling day, but the heart of the problem is that government ought to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. The ‘pro-democracy’ argument of Europhiles assumes that as the European Parliament is elected, and the unelected European Commission can (theoretically) be unseated by that Parliament, Benn’s fourth and fifth questions can be answered satisfactorily.
I am not in the least satisfied with this reasoning. Parliament can (and does) stop the government from using the considerable power invested in it, where it feels it is out of step with public opinion. The government (whether Conservative, Labour or coalition) may well pass laws that sections of the public profoundly disagree with, but does so where they have a mandate to do so. Where that mandate is absent, Parliament attempts to stop the government, and the government knows that the penalty of disregarding public opinion is the genuine risk of losing power at the next election.
The technocracy in Brussels lives under no such fear. Vested with considerable power, the Parliament does not possess the means to block their policies, replace a failing Commission with a new Commission, nor does the Commission’s composition ever change hands at the electorate’s expressed will in European elections. Let me put it this way: when Westminster makes a bad decision, we have the opportunity to kick the government out. In the European Union, we do not have that power.
All of this matters because whether we stay or leave, there are challenges ahead, and we are relying upon those who govern us to choose wisely, and to choose in our interests. The technocrats of the European Commission have thus far demonstrated that they do not answer for the interests of all of the European nations, and southern Europe has suffered as a result.That is why the analogy of the run-down house is most apt when considering a Remain vote. Beyond all doubt, reform is needed – there is a broken connection between public opinion and the decisions reached in Brussels. All governments are unpopular, and all those who vote for non-governing parties believe the government is doing the wrong thing, but they hold on to the hope that they might win next time.
For this reason, a sizeable number of Remain campaigners, of which perhaps the most obvious example is Jeremy Corbyn, are campaigning under the banner “Reform within Europe” – that is, vote Remain to ensure we stay in, but use this as the catalyst to deliver reform. The Prime Minister’s attempt to renegotiate over the last two years has demonstrated what a vain hope this is – the European Commission has been recalcitrant to budge one inch on its projected course, and resistant to the least idea of change. How can we expect accountability, much less reform, from an unresponsive institution?
In this regard, Vote Leave‘s official slogan: “Take Control” has actually cut to the core of the matter. As it stands the EU is utterly uninterested in public opinion or preferences, and demonstrates no willingness to change. Voting to remain, is voting to let the European Commission continue to decide on our behalf regardless of whether their decisions are right for Europe.
That is why on Thursday 23rd June 2016, I am voting Leave. Europe can do better than the European Union – and it’s our privilege to lead our European friends in saying that enough is enough.