Here are a few reasons why people voted for Brexit, in no partiicular order:
- A protest vote by people left behind in the ‘rust belt’ against what they regard as the self serving political elite in Westminster.
Most developed Western countries have been through a de-industrialisation that has left many people feeling left behind by economic change that has traded the working class jobs in industry for the soft skiills of the services businesses that now are the big employers. In the UK the big employers with factories, shipyards and mines were once centres of political power. That world has gone and those left behind do not understand how the modern world with all its customer/service provider metaphors and internet fripperies that are quite lost on the older generation of voters.
- A vote for sovereign UK and rejection of the creeping Federalism of an EU and laws enacted in Brussels.
For the past few decades the anti-EU press have entertained its readers about absurd rules being imposed on the UK by the EU. They seldom explain it in the context of a single market of 500m people that require common standards to make it work. The economic benefits to the UK were never explained.
- Several decades of anti-EU stories peddled by the sensationalist press
Several very popular newpapers have long promoted sensationally negative stories about the EU such that its image is one of wastefulness, bureacracy, stupid laws, uncontrolled immigration, crime and a whole host of other ills that seek to undermine the UK. Very few positive stories ever appeared that explain what it does and its value. Many of the most voluble politicians regarded it as something that the UK would do well to abandon and the socially conservative press gave their views a wide circulation.
- A vote against immigration.
The UK saw a huge influx of EU workers when Poland and seven other countries joined the EU in 2004 and later Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. The UK government at the time decided against a phased approach that many other EU countries opted for and allowed free movement labour from these countries with few restrictions. The rules for Romanians and Bulgarians were restricted, but certainly not enough to moderate the numbers coming over to seek work in the UK. This had a big affect on the economy. Employers greatly appreciated the skills and flexibility of EU migrants: it was good for business. The working classes were far less impressed. They worried about job competition, depressed wages and the strain on public services, particularly housing. Their fears were made worse by a procession of sensationalist stories about crime, begging, social security fraud and other ills that come when people move to find work.
To be fair the government did not really handle it very well and certainly did not anticipate the numbers coming over. They could have made it easier. The UK does not have a great track record on handling immigration. They tend to change the rules and just hope for the best, hoping people will move to where the jobs and are located and not strain the local services too much.
- The Syrian refugee crisis
The Syrian refugee crisis and the millons entering the EU and trying to reach the wealthier northern countries with developed public health, welfare and education systems was a big worry. There was chaos in the EU and huge camp developed in Calais in France with thousands of impoverished refugees trying to get across the English Channel to England. The arguments between EU countries over who should allow which immigrants to cross what borders fed the arguments against the EU migration generally as being quite out of control and a threat, especially after ISIS inspired terrorist attacks.
The 2008 financial crisis caused severe strains across the EU, especially in Greece. The UK counted its blessings that they were not part of the Euro zone and were protected from some of the economic consequences by having control over its own currency. EU policy seemed to be overwhelmingly inflienced by German priorities.
- The cost to the UK of EU membership and the NHS.
The subcription to the EU was very exaggerated and the argument was made that this money could be far better spent on the NHS. Most people have no idea of the figures involved. It sounded a lot and the NHS in the UK enjoys an alomost religious devotion, especially by the elderly who use it services the most. Every politician knows that any threat to the NHS mades people very worried. The Brexit campaign played on these fears very heavily. They argued all the money spent on the EU could be spent on the NHS to improve the strains on health services.
- The divided history of the Conservative Party
The trading links across the world that came with the Empire and the lessons of WW2 and the importance placed on a close alliance with the US contribute to a world view known as Atlanticism. Conversely looking to Europe for new trade links and agreeing Europe-wide standards in many areas to promote peace and prosperity is known as Continentalism. The Conservatives have been divided over the issue for forty years and the tide of sentiment swings back and forth and it is the basis of rivalries and challenges to the party leadership.
- The conduct of the EU referendum
Referenda are not frequent in the UK, it is a representative democracy. The public vote for MPs who made decisions about economic matters and international treaties on their behalf. In contrast with the Scottish referendum, where the Scots had very long national conversation about the whole issue and heard all the arguments for and against before they voted. The campaigns did little to educate and inform the public about the many and varied aspects of EU membership. It was decided to hold the referendum on the basis of a simple majority rather than a minumum percentage such as 60:40 and we ended up with a 52:48.
No-one explained the UK voters about the Irish border question, the complications over the status of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU, nor the ‘divorce bill’ estimated at £40billion. If these facts were made clear prior to the vote, the result might have been very different. The Referendum was held, not in the UK national interest, but solely to solve an internal problem within the UK Conservative party, which has always been divided on the issue. It was a rash gamble the Prime Minister, David Cameron lost. He did it because he knew he would soon face challenges to his leadership from within his own party and this was an attempt to head off the issue by involving the UK voters in deciding on a very complex issue.
Despite this small margin and ‘advisory’ status of the vote, it has nonetheless been elevated as a sacrosanct ‘Will of the People’ by the small number of Brexit politicians and the Euro sceptic pres. Politicians from all parties are worried over the consequences of going against the decision, no matter what the consequences. The Referendum result has been assumed, by default, to have a huge constitutional significance that was never planned for or expected and has never been tested. Much of this perception has been promoted by the Brexit wing of the Conservative party and their fratricidal squabbling and fear of losing votes to the UKIP party. The Labour Party behaved little better, anxious not the alienate the Eurosceptic working class vote on which they depend. They are all frightened of the mood of nationalistic populism that seems to be affecting many countries.
Only the smaller political parties campaigned to remain in EU and the leave campaign had some big contributions from some prominent businessmen who help finance social media campaigning.
The Referendum was a simple question about a very complex subject put to a public that had little real understanding of what the EU is and few concrete facts on which to base their decision. Little wonder that it became common for people to project all kinds of interpretations onto the vote, with a heavy reliance of emotion and uninformed prejudice. It was wholly irresponsible gamble by Cameron to solve an internal party political problem. It did not solve that problem at all and instead created a much bigger issue for the country as a whole that will perplex and frustrate governments for some years to come.
Sadly, there does not seem to be any easy answer coming from any other political party that stands a chance of winning an election. There remain a large number of unanswered questions about what exactly Brexit means and what the consequences will be for the UK.
Here are a few reasons why people voted for Brexit, in no partiicular order:
- A protest vote by people left behind in the ‘rust belt’ against what they regard as the self serving political elite in Westminster.
Most developed Western countries have been through a de-industrialisation that has left many people feeling left behind by economic change that has traded the working class jobs in industry for the soft skiills of the services businesses that now are the big employers. In the UK the big employers with factories, shipyards and mines were once centres of political power. That world has gone and those left behind do not understand how the modern world with all its customer/service provider metaphors and internet fripperies that are quite lost on the older generation of voters.
- A vote for sovereign UK and rejection of the creeping Federalism of an EU and laws enacted in Brussels.
For the past few decades the anti-EU press have entertained its readers about absurd rules being imposed on the UK by the EU. They seldom explain it in the context of a single market of 500m people that require common standards to make it work. The economic benefits to the UK were never explained.
- Several decades of anti-EU stories peddled by the sensationalist press
Several very popular newpapers have long promoted sensationally negative stories about the EU such that its image is one of wastefulness, bureacracy, stupid laws, uncontrolled immigration, crime and a whole host of other ills that seek to undermine the UK. Very few positive stories ever appeared that explain what it does and its value. Many of the most voluble politicians regarded it as something that the UK would do well to abandon and the socially conservative press gave their views a wide circulation.
- A vote against immigration.
The UK saw a huge influx of EU workers when Poland and seven other countries joined the EU in 2004 and later Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. The UK government at the time decided against a phased approach that many other EU countries opted for and allowed free movement labour from these countries with few restrictions. The rules for Romanians and Bulgarians were restricted, but certainly not enough to moderate the numbers coming over to seek work in the UK. This had a big affect on the economy. Employers greatly appreciated the skills and flexibility of EU migrants: it was good for business. The working classes were far less impressed. They worried about job competition, depressed wages and the strain on public services, particularly housing. Their fears were made worse by a procession of sensationalist stories about crime, begging, social security fraud and other ills that come when people move to find work.
To be fair the government did not really handle it very well and certainly did not anticipate the numbers coming over. They could have made it easier. The UK does not have a great track record on handling immigration. They tend to change the rules and just hope for the best, hoping people will move to where the jobs and are located and not strain the local services too much.
- The Syrian refugee crisis
The Syrian refugee crisis and the millons entering the EU and trying to reach the wealthier northern countries with developed public health, welfare and education systems was a big worry. There was chaos in the EU and huge camp developed in Calais in France with thousands of impoverished refugees trying to get across the English Channel to England. The arguments between EU countries over who should allow which immigrants to cross what borders fed the arguments against the EU migration generally as being quite out of control and a threat, especially after ISIS inspired terrorist attacks.
The 2008 financial crisis caused severe strains across the EU, especially in Greece. The UK counted its blessings that they were not part of the Euro zone and were protected from some of the economic consequences by having control over its own currency. EU policy seemed to be overwhelmingly inflienced by German priorities.
- The cost to the UK of EU membership and the NHS.
The subcription to the EU was very exaggerated and the argument was made that this money could be far better spent on the NHS. Most people have no idea of the figures involved. It sounded a lot and the NHS in the UK enjoys an alomost religious devotion, especially by the elderly who use it services the most. Every politician knows that any threat to the NHS mades people very worried. The Brexit campaign played on these fears very heavily. They argued all the money spent on the EU could be spent on the NHS to improve the strains on health services.
- The divided history of the Conservative Party
The trading links across the world that came with the Empire and the lessons of WW2 and the importance placed on a close alliance with the US contribute to a world view known as Atlanticism. Conversely looking to Europe for new trade links and agreeing Europe-wide standards in many areas to promote peace and prosperity is known as Continentalism. The Conservatives have been divided over the issue for forty years and the tide of sentiment swings back and forth and it is the basis of rivalries and challenges to the party leadership.
- The conduct of the EU referendum
Referenda are not frequent in the UK, it is a representative democracy. The public vote for MPs who made decisions about economic matters and international treaties on their behalf. In contrast with the Scottish referendum, where the Scots had very long national conversation about the whole issue and heard all the arguments for and against before they voted. The campaigns did little to educate and inform the public about the many and varied aspects of EU membership. It was decided to hold the referendum on the basis of a simple majority rather than a minumum percentage such as 60:40 and we ended up with a 52:48.
No-one explained the UK voters about the Irish border question, the complications over the status of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU, nor the ‘divorce bill’ estimated at £40billion. If these facts were made clear prior to the vote, the result might have been very different. The Referendum was held, not in the UK national interest, but solely to solve an internal problem within the UK Conservative party, which has always been divided on the issue. It was a rash gamble the Prime Minister, David Cameron lost. He did it because he knew he would soon face challenges to his leadership from within his own party and this was an attempt to head off the issue by involving the UK voters in deciding on a very complex issue.
Despite this small margin and ‘advisory’ status of the vote, it has nonetheless been elevated as a sacrosanct ‘Will of the People’ by the small number of Brexit politicians and the Euro sceptic pres. Politicians from all parties are worried over the consequences of going against the decision, no matter what the consequences. The Referendum result has been assumed, by default, to have a huge constitutional significance that was never planned for or expected and has never been tested. Much of this perception has been promoted by the Brexit wing of the Conservative party and their fratricidal squabbling and fear of losing votes to the UKIP party. The Labour Party behaved little better, anxious not the alienate the Eurosceptic working class vote on which they depend. They are all frightened of the mood of nationalistic populism that seems to be affecting many countries.
Only the smaller political parties campaigned to remain in EU and the leave campaign had some big contributions from some prominent businessmen who help finance social media campaigning.
The Referendum was a simple question about a very complex subject put to a public that had little real understanding of what the EU is and few concrete facts on which to base their decision. Little wonder that it became common for people to project all kinds of interpretations onto the vote, with a heavy reliance of emotion and uninformed prejudice.
As the government struggles with the issues that are arising during the negotiations, it is beginning to dawn on the UK voters that they have been sold a can of worms.
Many people thought it was simply a case of calling the bank and cancelling a subscription to a club you want to leave and that would be that.
It will be interesting to see whether the tide of sentiment will change as it becomes clear that it is going to be expensive, difficult and take many years to achieve. That it depends not simply on the sovereign will of the British people, but the interests of all the other countries in the world with which we trade who owe us few favours.
On the other hand, maybe the warm words the US President had for the Brexit decision will herald a new era in US-UK trade? We will send Boris over to do a deal. What could possibly go wrong?:rolleyes:
