In February 2016 UK Prime Minister David Cameron dropped a bombshell by announcing 23 June 2016 as the date for the referendum to decide Britain’s future in EU. Suddenly the whole nation was plunged in a heated debate on the merits of this momentous decision. The emotions ran so high that it split families and tore apart friendships.

The righteous certainty most people felt about their views for or against membership never ceased to amaze me as I continued to struggle with uncertainty till the day I cast my vote. People seemed to have stumbled on some wisdom which brokered no arguments or debate. In London, where 60% of the votes were cast for Remain, you could not mention Leave without being shouted down with terms like “uneducated”, “ignorant”, “racist” and “xenophobic”.

My wife, daughter and I continued to debate both sides of the arguments till the day we cast our votes for Brexit. Some of the factors which weighed in favour of our decision were:

Did anyone know with any certainty what the correct choice was?

NO, although it did not stop everybody, on both sides of the debate, from making self righteous claims about knowing the answer. The same people who could not even predict the correct result of the referendum were professing to know the future. It was almost ironic considering that the future would be made up of dozens of similar elections and electoral swings in all EU member states.

What does Britain as a nation mean?

Debating the matter crystallised our pride for Britain and its sense of fairness, equality, rule of law and democratic principles which were a part of its cultural DNA. Perhaps it is for this reason, and despite having been a great colonial power, Britain has never produced a Hitler, Mussolini, Franco or Napoleon.

We were also proud of Britain’s long and historic democratic traditions with a very effective system of local governance. The thought of being governed by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels is anathema to the British. We also felt uneasy at the thought of British laws being superseded by European Courts amounting to a loss of sovereignty for the nation.

Did we think Britain perfect? NO. It only meant that despite all its faults, Britain had the cultural foundation and maturity to rise above its shortcomings.

What does EU stand for?

We weren’t very sure about what EU stood for. While we were fully convinced about its usefulness as a trading block, we were not so sure about its almost Utopian aspirations to be a political union and a nation state. Without this clarity it almost seemed as if the EU agenda for a political union was being pushed surreptitiously.

However, the genius of EU project became clear to us due to its offerings of something for all sides of the political spectrum. Left found it attractive because it was loosely modelled on Socialist principles of a collective while the right was beholden to it because of easy access to huge markets and cheap labour.

We found that we were unable to support this model of EU which was burdened by two fatal structural flaws of being “too big to fail” and its “one size fits all” principle. The remoteness of the decisions making process from the electorate made accountability almost impossible by robbing the electorate of their power to vote the decision makers out of office.  Who can the British electorate vote out of power if they disagreed with the actions of the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker?

Union by Stealth?

European Union started life as European Economic Commission (EEC) which was primarily a trading block. Great Britain joined the EEC in 1973 which morphed into EU in 1993. The goals of EU go well beyond commerce with aspirations of greater political union and perhaps a federal state. This in itself is not a bad aspiration as long as the union is between compatible partners and not a shotgun wedding. A shotgun wedding it turned out to be with the decisions for political union being progressively taken by political masters without the consents of citizens.

Where was the blue print for the long-term plan for the EU? Why weren’t the media and political leaders engaging the electorate in a well informed and robust debate on all the implications of a political union? Was the exclusive focus on economic matters a subterfuge for the political union agenda?

What were the motives behind turning a successful Trading Block into a political union?

We found this question to be of the most concern to us. There are numerous very successful trading blocks in the world, none of which seemed to be under any pressure for a political union.

People pushing for the EU political union seemed to be mainly driven either by their personal or national interest.  EU leadership supposedly representing everybody served nobody except their political masters and their own self-interest. I am sure nobody is under any illusion about the current European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, the ex prime minister of Luxembourg, being the least bit interested in the desires of the UK citizens!  Why else wouldn’t he be respecting the will of the British people by facilitating Brexit instead of trying to punish them for the temerity of thinking for themselves?  But isn’t this a classic example of authoritarianism where a leader is able to affect the lives of millions without being answerable to them?

How confident are we of the success of the EU experiment? Is there a successful model where such a union had worked before?  Most importantly, did we know what the risks were if the EU project failed?

Does our own direct experience of the challenges of similar union between England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales provide any lessons with our long shared cultural, economic and political history? What are the chances of a peaceful and harmonious union with a much larger group of nations with vastly diverse culture, economies and history?

Do we benefit economically by being a part of the EU?

YES, but more because of the trading benefits conferred by our membership of EU which are quite separate from the incremental political union being rolled out. It should be noted that we also benefit similarly from other trade agreements outside the EU. Should we be seeking political union with the member states of those trade agreements as well?

What gets lost in the emotions of this debate is the improbability of the second largest economy in the EU to be a net beneficiary of EU subsidies. We can validate this argument by asking a simple question – Which EU nation would be paying for this subsidy and why?  Would that be fair? Also, if it was true would EU be fighting tooth and nail to retain the membership of a nation which was a net liability?  We might be able to judge the validity of this argument when an economically sick nation trigger Article 50, which might be sooner than we think.

Is EU a stable institution?

We are only now becoming painfully aware of the cost of leaving the EU. Do we know what the cost would have been in the future if we were at a more advanced stage of integration?  What if there was disagreement about the terms of settlement resulting in huge economic disruptions amongst the member states?  Could the ill will and hostility created by such disagreements become the cause for possible conflict?  Does the possibility of this happening increase in a political union in comparison to a trading block?

With their high level of unemployment and national debt the economies of Greece (20.6%, 177.4%), Portugal (7.4%, 130.8%), Spain (16.1%, 98.7%), Italy (11%, 134.1%) are all struggling to keep afloat.  EU under the Maastricht treaty requires all its members to fulfil important financial obligations and procedures, especially to show budgetary discipline and a high degree of sustainable economic convergence, as well as to avoid excessive government deficits and limit the government debt to a sustainable level. Under these strict conditions what are the odds of further defaults by one or more nations?

It is generally agreed that after the Greek experience, another defaulting nation could spell the end of EU.  German public who had to shoulder the main financial burden of Greek bailout were very unhappy with the Greek laissez-faire attitudes, and with the failure of their own government and EU for not enforcing the necessary discipline on the Greeks.  With that background it is clear that EU is unlikely to be able to bail out Greece forever. These facts when combined with the possibility of another major economy defaulting can only spell the doom of EU.  Were it to happen, it would create a crisis which would make the Greek problem and the implications of Brexit, look like a picnic!

Most of these at-risk economies have large organised and unionised labour and bureaucracies. These organisations are natural allies who will always join forces to strongly resist any attempt by the government to implement any EU mandated austerities. This resistance always finds popular support amongst the general population suffering due to the hardships being endured due to austerity. Considering this scenario, what are the chances of this resulting in long term simmering discontent, finger pointing, political upheaval and ultimately possible violence?  Have we considered the cost of this very likely scenario against the much-hyped Utopian peace dividend?

Should the levels of immigration be a matter of concern?

This is an emotive issue shamelessly exploited by both sides.  Anyone challenging immigration is automatically labelled racist or a xenophobe. We also seem to have taken a leaf from the American talking point about Britain being a nation of immigrants. Is it?  Political correctness has greatly inhibited the debate on this matter with multiculturalism being touted as a panacea.

As an immigrant I find myself with a fair insight on both sides of the argument for and against immigration. Some of my views:

• Immigration is good only if planned, controlled, skills based and with full consent of the citizens.
• Popular refrain that immigration is always good is a big fallacy. If that were true, why shouldn’t we allow free immigration for all the suffering and needy from all over the world?
• Uncontrolled immigration puts huge pressures on struggling national resources impacting everything from housing, education, health care etc.
• Artificial controls on the debate about immigration in the name of political correctness and the increasing failure of services build resentment amongst the citizens, a dangerous portent for an uncontrolled future backlash.
• An innate drive to be compassionate, guilt about the colonial past and blindness created by political correctness has clouded the issue so much that it makes an honest debate almost impossible.
• Politicians having lost control of the issue continue to play catch-up and sail in whichever direction the wind is blowing with little vision or concern about the future of the nation.

EU magnifies the immigration problem manifolds where we have to not only cope with the inaptitude and failures of our own politicians but also those of other nations.

Angela Merkel acknowledged the failure of multiculturalism in her October 2010 Potsdam speech and said “the approach to build a multicultural society and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other has failed, utterly failed”.  She went on to add that those who wanted to participate in German society must follow the laws and constitution of Germany and learn to speak the German language.

So, what changed for her to suddenly open the doors to millions of refugees into Germany and in turn EU?  Was it compassion for human suffering? Just go to any African nation and you will find suffering far worse.  Why not let them in?  Alternatively, did she change her mind due to some political reason? And what about the suffering experienced by the citizens of her nation because of her decision?  Did she consult the nation before making such a momentous decision with implications for the harmony and future of German nation?  Whatever her rationale why should the consequences of her decision be borne by other EU nations?

What about safeguarding the cultural heritage of our nation?

The most important wealth of a nation is its values, beliefs, laws and culture. Protecting it is not only the responsibility of the native population but also that of all the immigrants who benefit from these attributes of the host nation.

As an immigrant from India I am unashamedly proud of my religion and culture. However, I would never want to impose these on my host nation in acknowledgement of the fact that my freedom to practice my religion and culture mainly arises from the British values, culture, principles and laws with their Judaeo-Christian foundations.

Greatly reduced pressure for assimilation due to large numbers of immigrants results in the creation of self-sustaining communities with a different set of values, beliefs and culture mostly incompatible with the host culture. These parallel communities become the breeding grounds for some of the same problems which were the cause of their emigration in the first place.  As a result it is no surprise that not only UK, but almost all European nations including France, Germany, Holland etc. have immigrant ghettos with no-go zones which frequently erupt in violence inciting fear and resentment.

Politicians and intellectuals have tried to gloss over this problem by sweeping it under the convenient metaphoric rug of multiculturalism without providing any evidence of it working successfully anywhere.

EU membership with massive free flow of people from member nations puts the British cultural heritage at great risk.  While there are certainly some benefits of cultural exchanges, but it should certainly not be at the cost of its fundamental values being sacrificed to appease other cultures. The risk of such a loss is greatly amplified with the mass influx of immigrants from diverse cultures and religions.

Do the voting patterns tell a story?

The Age Divide: The referendum vote was split by age where 71% of those aged between 18 – 24 years voted to Remain and 64% of those above 65 years voted to Leave. There were vocal complaints by the youth of the country that their elders were risking their future by their irresponsible vote to leave. As an interesting aside the majority of these young people still lived with their parents and were heavily dependent on them.  Unsurprisingly, their rhetoric never matched their knowledge of the history of EU or the implications of a political union.

It is telling that the young, who are undoubtedly cleverer than the previous generations, were totally unaware of the limitations of their knowledge and the undue influence of the social media bias informing their world view.  Nobody had told them that you can learn to be clever, but it takes experience, a lot of it, to be wise.

The Education Divide: There was a similar clear voting divide based on education. 70% of those with GCSE or lower voted to Leave whereas 68% of those with a degree voted to Remain. Whose jobs were most likely to be put at risk by the cheap labour from other EU countries flooding the job market? The degrees holders or those with lower educational achievements?

The Regional Divide: London voted Remain by a huge majority whereas most of the rest of England voted to Leave. If the majority of people voted for their self interest than the obvious interpretation of the voting pattern had to be that London benefits more from EU membership than the rest of the country. Is it sheer coincidence that London is also the richest region in the country with the greatest dependence on globalism of which EU is a subset?

The voting patterns raise the suspicion that EU is fundamentally an exclusive club for the rich, powerful and intellectuals. Those who do not fit these membership criteria lose due to the system being rigged against them. This was clear from the fact that anyone with financial, subsidy, business, property or political interest in EU voted to Remain with the rest voting to Leave.  Does this point to the national interest having been sacrificed at the altar of narrow vested interests and ideological dogma?

Despite all the above arguments I do not profess unfettered confidence in my decision to vote for Brexit. However, I do take comfort in the fact that I voted after diligently researching the relevant issues and my decision was not based on ignorance, propaganda, ideology or self interest.

Muse

1. What are our arguments to support the case for Remain?
2. What assumptions and beliefs inform our view of EU membership?
3. Are these beliefs our own or somebody else’s?
4. What priorities and principles do we consider important when discussing Brexit?
5. Are the political leaders and media pundits pushing their vested interest when discussing this topic?
6. How much are the leaders managing Brexit in control of the preferred outcome?
7. Is this a simple black and white issue or one nuanced with perhaps a 1000 shade of grey?
8. Has anyone in position of power or influence spelled out both sides of the issue?  If not, why not?
9. Are the EU member states looking out only for themselves of for the whole community?
10. Can a community thrive where everyone is looking out for their self-interest?

Next Week: Political Correctness