Maybe surprising to some I watched the clock countdown to an 11.00pm Brexit reality last night without a hint of happiness about this thing that my vote has helped to bring about. Like an intimate relationship with someone who wants a lifestyle you don’t want, the necessity of changing the intimate relationship into a friendship carries the sadness of what could have been if only…
So I’m sad that we’ve left but feel that the UK’s culture is infused with its Island heritage and history in a way that makes ideas of sovereignty and individuality slightly more important to Brits than the EU could accommodate. Sadly, I also remain convinced that economic reality dictates we leave
I see that many across Europe are touched by the sadness of our exit and I’m heartened that whilst we have had to leave the club we remain friends. As with the end of a personal relationship I am stalked by my own set of “if only” questions:
- Why did the people supporting EU ideology not understand that the UK position of: Flexible job market, English language, long term openness to immigration; might make the UK a target for mass East European migration and that migration might break the fragile social adjustments that were already underway to accommodate the historical commonwealth immigration. A relaxation of the EU free movement rules to allow the UK to set a less open immigration policy might have helped Cameron and removed some of the impetus to leave.
- Does the EU not realise that bloc level trade policy can only work in the long term once people feel European first (Like Americans do). Brits currently have little appetite for suffering higher costs to protect Spanish Orange growers or the French to protect British pork pies. The level of openness that the intersection of hard-line ideology and EU expansion into more culturally diverse countries requires, is well ahead of EU citizens’ preparedness to tolerate it.
- Does the EU not see that the communal huddling at the back of the cave that seems to characterise much of EU policy is at odds with the active, entrepreneurial, dynamic rest of the world? How can the EU build a future with ever larger portions of its human and financial resources being used to pander to naive, idealistic, ‘woke’ groups whilst ignoring the growing hostility of their own populations?
- Why, after the vote, did Tusk not articulate specific positive reasons for the UK to remain in the EU in response to the obvious concerns that drove Brexit? Rather than seek “special places in hell” for those who had championed Brexit. This (along with other EU approaches) has poisoned the UK view of the EU
- Why was the UK remainer community so devious and dishonourable in looking to make the counter case to the vote? Creating a mistrust of liberal elites and pushing ‘normal’ (non-woke) Brits away from the main stream (media, elites, politics) probably for decades and provide fertile recruiting grounds for extreme politics
The answers to these questions and a reflection of their validity in EU policy & approach may have resulted in a different outcome to today. However, it would also have led to a different EU. An EU that is less involved in member country affairs, with fewer powers, and probably one that most EU citizens don’t want.
Maybe WW2 is the historical context that means EU and UK citizens will always have different perspectives. Preventing a war from happening again may be more deeply ingrained on the continent than in the UK. Perhaps the plucky Brits standing alone against the Germans cf the military conquest of your home might be the 2 cultural foundations that shape the different destinations for the EU and the UK.