Over the past few months I have been trying to put into context this Brexit thing. To do so requires separating off the daily noise of the media and (in many instances their partiality e.g. Daily Telegraph vehemently anti EU compared with The Independent where almost any criticism of the EU is ignored or sidelined). This perspective is, I hope, more contextual in terms of history and accuracy. I think the first substantial rumblings of discontent came from within the Conservative Party on the Maastricht Treaty. It should be recalled that the then Prime Minister (John Major) had considerable difficulty in gaining approval of the treaty in both his own Cabinet, Party and Parliament. Objections centred around actual and implied moves towards integration - sometimes portrayed as the precursor to a Federal Europe e.g. Common Foreign Policy. This was in direct opposition to the basis on which the 1975 referendum was presented in that what was being offered was participation in a Common Market. The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 set the future framework for a "Deeper and Wider Union". So there was the expansion eastwards built on the creation of the Eurozone some 7 years earlier and clear movements towards further integration e.g. European Defence and Security. This was too much for many Tories (and a few on the Labour side) who claimed that they had been deceived by being told that they were joining a Commercial Club only to find that their country was to be absorbed into a super state. The wider geo-political implications of the eastward expansion and Russia's reaction are for another day and time. The other point of real significance is that because of the difficulties in the Tory Party real engagement with EU was absent except in relation to strictly economic matters (it is widely acknowledged that the Single Market was strongly supported by Conservatives). During the period of Labour Government there was strong support for eastward expansion but the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) could not get his Chancellor (Gordon Brown) to join the Euro (Single Currency). From this it can be seen that the UK was never fully engaged - we seemed to be happy to remain semi-detached but the political mistake of not managing inward migration opened the door for the anti EU people to mount their campaign. Similarly the EU seemed to be saying they were going to integrate no matter what and those that did not wish to do so would remain on the periphery. Given this perspective I am surprised that the majority to Leave was not greater!
Here are a couple of letters sent to The Independent trying to make the point. They were not published of course as they do not fit their narrative!
11th June 2018
"As Femi Oluwole must surely know answers to questions often
depend on how they are asked and the context. I am clear that the EU
question goes back to the Lisbon Treaty and how the then Major
government dealt with that. Over the years it has become increasingly
obvious that the Lisbon Treaty set the path towards European
integration via a federal arrangement. The bruising passage of approval
of the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament led to the UK not wishing to
engage fully (for fear of Tory backwoodsmen) in the EU and thereby
allowing the Federalists to work away at their project. We could have
been much more active in shaping Europe's future - that awkward old
Parliamentary Democracy on the western margin of the EU - but we did
not! We could have said inward migration is causing great political
problems and we are prepared to take unilateral action to address it -
but we did not! We could have said the continuing annual disappearance
of €500m from EU allocated funds is unacceptable and we will deduct our
share of that amount from our annual contributions - but we did not! We
could have said that the rapid removal of non-tariff barriers was
essential - but we did not! There is more, of course, but Brexit is
largely a problem of our own making. Now the UK and EU political
establishments are perceived both in the UK and in other EU countries
as having tried to surreptiously engineer federalism at the same time
as working people suffer more than a decade of continued austerity and
at best stagnant wages. Given the chance to fight back - why not? even
though I voted remain I understand the alienation that many felt and
feel. To deny the genuine and honest fulfillment of the referendum
result would be a disaster for our democracy and potentially dangerous.
It will take time and patient negotiation for the terms of our exit to
be settled but I am sure that will be well before a reformed EU would
be acceptable to the UK."
20th June 2018
"Following on from Darko Kapor's letter of 20th June regarding Brexit.
I feel it is about time we called the EU's bluff. Ever since the EU
issued its first negotiating brief (which if you read it is nothing
less than an ultimatum) it has been clear that inflicting pain on the
UK was the objective not sensible negotiations. The UK has offerred a
€40bn financial settlement, unconditional security and defence support,
continued finance for joint UK/EU projects e.g. Galileo and yet Barnier
has the gall to say he does not wish to get into the blame and that
insufficient progress has been made. Of course he does not want to get
into the blame game, as he calls it, because an objective analysis
would show that the EU was and is the problem. Quite apart from the
contrived problem of the NI Border (it is worth recalling that the
Good Friday Agreement is mainly bi-lateral - UK and the Republic - the
EU is not a party to it). Grown up negotiations require reasonable co-
operation on both sides not continual puerile press releases and
statements. This pains me greatly as a Remain voter but time is up -
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and as I have said before
you feel so much better when you get up off your knees!"
