Founded 1980
Chair:        
Secretary: 
Treasurer: 

Graham Smith
Jan Thompson
Graham Mumby-Croft


Issue No. 75 Autumn 2016

BREXIT: A BRITISH REVOLUTION


Whichever side of the referendum debate you were on there is no doubt that the 23rd of June 2016 will live on as one of the most seismic events in or history. There has been nothing quite as sensational in British politics since 1945 when the world was shocked by Britain's decision to ditch the victorious wartime premier, Winston Churchill, and instead install a Clement Attlee led Labour government to deliver the new Jerusalem. The new consensus about the role of the state endured until 1979 and the NHS endures to this day. The drama that unfolded in the early hours of 24 June was the British equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany, and the election of Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. The only real difference is that in the UK there is a vocal minority that refuses to accept the result. Indeed their reaction is not dissimilar to the emotional incontinence and vicarious grief that infected a minority of our citizens after the death of former Princess of Wales in 1997.

I make no apologies for being on the “Leave” side during the campaign and even handed out leaflets in Huddersfield town centre. For me the central argument was always about the restoration of democracy and the ability of the British people to determine their own future. Nevertheless I recognise the attachment of remain campaigners to international bodies and the mutual co-operation that they symbolise. As a vision it is not purely romantic. Like most leave campaigners deep down I expected to lose. How then did this shock result come about? No doubt in due course the Brexit vote will be subject to the kind of scholarly analysis received by the causes of World War Two. Meanwhile I will throw in my two-penny worth.

There isn't the space for a full historical analysis in this editorial so I will concentrate on the immediate causes save to say that going back to our youth the decision of Edward Heath to break his promise that the UK would not enter the Common Market (as it was then known) ''without the full hearted consent of the British people1' has had a toxic effect on British politics since accession day on 1 January 1973. It has destroyed careers in both the Labour and Conservative parties and contributed to lengthy periods of debilitating opposition for both our major parties. I would not be so bold as to claim that the referendum has finally lanced the boil. We have been so long in the EU that the issue has become almost tribal, but across party lines.

So, in the end what swung the balance? Perhaps when tempers have cooled and the most passionate remain campaigners have moved from the denial stage to one of greater equilibrium, they will come to accept that their campaign was a best an insult to the intelligence of voters, and at worst a disgrace. The attempts to use the murder of Jo Cox MP to further the remain cause by some of its adherents brought politics to a new low They might also reflect on blatant cheating and gerrymandering by the government in spending £9 million of our money above prescribed spending limits and extending the deadline for voter registrar on after the mysterious “crash” of the registration website. Remain campaigners might also want to consider just how important was the obduracy of Chancellor Merkel and EU grandees in swinging the result in a closely fought contest. They might also want to look at David Cameron's non-existent negotiating strategy. Remain campaigners have blamed David Cameron for holding a referendum at all. There is little doubt that without UKIP there would have been no referendum. Events also took a hand. The surprise outright Conservative victory at the 2015 election forced him to deliver on a promise that was easy to make from the security of a Liberal Democrat veto during the previous coalition.
However, remain campaigners should not delude themselves that another coalition government of whatever combination would have presented a referendum. The most likely response would have been the onward march of UKIP in Labour areas and near panic in the Conservative party. The pressure on our political system would have continued to build and a referendum would have become inevitable as the perceptive and the panicky sought a safety valve in a society becoming ever more polarised.
I should add that there were aspects of the leave campaign which troubled me, in particular the claims about the kind of money which would become available to the NHS. I was not comfortable with the immigration poster but then immigration was not an issue for me personally, probably because its affect on me is minimal. However, it is different for people who cannot get their children into a local school, who see their rents rise and their wages held down. Those millions of voters get even angrier when they are denounced as racists for daring to raise the issue. I remember how angry many of our staff were when Martin Narey (remember him) announced that the Prison Service was institutionally racist. Immigration was the catalyst for the result but is only part of the cocktail of resentment felt by millions of people against the metropolitan elite. It should be remembered that the rise of UKIP and the subsequent referendum is not a solely British phenomenon. Contempt for politicians is a worldwide contagion in supposedly democratic nations. The disenchantment with unresponsive ruling elites has manifested itself in rich countries like the USA and France, struggling ones like Greece, and quiet neutral countries like Austria. Chancellor Merkel, the EU grandees and much of the leadership of the Labour Party do not seem to have grasped what is going on.

Do we need to have President Trump running the most powerful country in the world before politicians get the message?

PAUL LAXTON, EDITOR
Paul Laxton