Those urging Britons to take a leap into the dark and dial-back the clock to a halcyon time that never was, continue to defy reality and are carrying with them a significant proportion of the British electorate. It is remarkable that only a tiny minority of politicians are actively campaigning for a Brexit, highlighting the divisions between the political class and those who elected them, with the vast majority behind maintaining UK membership of the EU (with, it must be said, varying degrees of conviction) yet most opinion polls show that the outcome is still too close to call.
The exit campaigners are very short on detail of the relationship (if any) they wish to see between the UK and the world’s largest trading bloc after a Brexit. They seem to imagine that the UK will be allowed to continue to enjoy unfettered trade with the EU but not need to pay into the EU and be able to refuse to allow EU citizens the right to live and work in the UK without disturbing the rights of British expatriates working or retired in EU states. They maintain the pretence that the UK gains no tangible benefit from its membership of the EU; that the monies it contributes to the EU are wasted and could be better used on the NHS – despite the fact that its head backs continued membership of the EU. Leaving the bloc would generate economic problems which would more than offset any funds that the NHS could get from the subscription (even if the UK left, the government would be under no obligation to increase NHS funding at the expense of other sectors of the economy, so they are knowingly making a hollow promise).
Despite warnings from the World Trade Organisation and heads of state from around the world, the Brexiteers believe that the UK will be able to quickly negotiate trade deals with much of the rest of the world within two years – even if one assumes that trading partners would be willing to give ground on the issues dear to a post EU UK, they fail to take into account the fact that the UK doesn’t have enough trained trade negotiators to handle that workload within the timeframe. Britain would be handing trade advantages to many nations which could see their GDP increase at Britain’s expense and the leave people assume that none of these parties would seal deals against UK interests. I wouldn’t buy a used car from these clowns.
The vast majority of economists and international trade bodies and economic institutions agree that a Brexit would harm the UK economy and have knock-on effects in both the EU and wider global economies; yet these concerns are dismissed as being fear-mongering or self-serving: the Leave campaign has not put forward any detailed analysis of the post EU UK economy. Instead, it calls on the electorate to vote for “hope” and a restoration of democracy and sovereignty – never explaining what aspects of these ephemeral ideas have been subjugated to the EU.
The trade unions, chambers of commerce, British Confederation of Industry and the majority of UK mainstream political parties (amongst others) have made it clear that they support continued UK membership of the EU, so how is it possible that Brexit remains a real possibility on 23rd June? The answer, it seems to me, is that there is a deep distrust of politicians (not just a UK phenomenon) and that the same politicians and the media have used “Brussels” as a scapegoat for all that ails the UK ever since it joined the EEC. Equally, the EU (and particularly the Commission), the European Parliament and all the other organs of the grouping, has made a lamentable job of explaining its work, ideals and achievements to the people of Europe. Across the 28 member states of the EU, if a referendum on continued membership were to be held, the outcome would mirror the UK situation: grave disaffection, limited understanding and a wafer-thin majority for continuing. If the EU is to thrive and survive, a process of reform must embed itself – irrespective of the outcome of the British vote – and more must be done to ensure that EU citizens understand and are on-board with its goals.