Preamble
I attended a 5-week summer-term course delivered recently at Queens University Belfast intrigued by its title "Northern Ireland after Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed." The other selling point was that it was delivered by the Brexit expert and head of Political Sociology Professor Katy Hayward with eloquent support from four of her colleagues.
This short article is based on my assignment, using a "Q and A explainer" format, and submitted on 22 June. It highlights a particular influence on Britain’s decision to terminate its 43 year membership of Europe's union and closes with implications for governance.
On which subject, it has some unintentional resonances with the Westminster General Election of 4 July 2024 and with elements of the campaigning.
Why and when did the U.K join Europe’s Economic Community?
June 2024’s ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of D-day provided poignant reminders of efforts to replace warmongering with peacebuilding across Europe. Early post-World War 2 steps included the Council of Europe established in May 1949 and the European Convention on Human Rights in September 1953. In March 1957 West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg signed theTreaty of Rome to prompt integration and trade through economic growth. This EEC was a common market based on the free movement of goods, people, services and capital (1).
It took until 1 January 1973, after the death of French President de Gaulle who had twice in the 1960’s vetoed Britain's membership, when the U.K. finally joined the EEC. Edward Heath was Prime Minister. Membership coincided with that of Denmark and Ireland. Two years later, the renegotiated terms of entry formed the basis of the proposition to be put to the nation. The PM was Harold Wilson. This was Britain’s first ever national referendum, historic in a sense.
There was debate about whether a referendum suits the U.K.’s governance protocols. Some argued that Britain is not a republic; some emphasised that it has no written constitution. The referendum proceeded. A persuasive argument for joining was that “Britain was at that time, economically, the sick man of Europe (2).”
The impressive quality of parliamentary oratory played a part in gaining public trust, in informing decision-making. The pros and cons of the proposition’s evidence were vigorously contested by groups of senior Parliamentarians in full public view. Unlikely alliances formed. Most notably, the left wing of the Labour Party teamed up with the right wing of the Conservatives to oppose Britain’s continued membership of the EEC. Joy for aspirant debaters to observe values being challenged, opinions being methodically teased out, all on our small TV sets. On 5 June 1975, a majority of 67% voted to stay in Europe (3).
Describe the 2016 referendum context
Four decades later in February 2016 PM David Cameron announced the Government’s intention to put the U.K’s membership of the European Union to the nation in an “in/out” referendum (4). Despite his argument that leaving the E.U would “threaten our economic and national security,” six cabinet members declared immediate support for Brexit (5). If the PM was himself perplexed by the breaking of party ranks, confidence prompted him to allow his MPs to choose which side of the argument to support. He declared that the cherished national rule of “cabinet collective responsibility” would not apply to his Ministers on this issue (6). CCR does not apply in Northern Ireland.
This voter’s baseline position before Brexit was neutral, eager to anticipate both sides in a return of evidence-based debate. I was keen to know that elected leaders would act in the public interest. This would ensure that our children and grandchildren could be part of a thriving, outward-looking and safe place, prioritising the big issues ahead. These include the economy, international relations, nature, national cohesion, health and all the public services.
Governance added soupçons of perplexity. Westminster’s European Referendum Act (December 2015) had been so enthusiastically passed by Parliament with overwhelming support that MPs set no threshold or minimum turnout. This surprised many, not least because of Brexit’s potential constitutional impacts.
Why was the result perplexing?
Eight years after the vote which took place on 23 June 2016 and 17½ million people out of a total electorate of 46½million voted to leave (7), questions remain. The 51.9% “majority” of those who voted was 38% of the total electorate.
Judging from comments made by shrewd observers, the campaign’s result was determined on topics which had no bearing on datasets and expert analyses of the economy, security or the environment. Four days before the referendum an Irish journalist had described in The Observer newspaper how “English Nationalism” underpins Brexit (8). His analysis argued that it fails to meet four of the five characteristics of independence movements with its “inexorable logic” being a stand alone England.
In similar vein, translating the outcome into plain English, a seasoned journalist and former Conservative MP asserted in The Times that “the reliance of the Leave campaign upon resentment of foreigners, dislike of immigration and hatred of immigrants has been absolutely disgraceful. Anti-immigrant feeling won it for Leave and they know it…(9).” Perplexing to discover that Westminster’s legislative enthusiasm did not think about race or nationalism as influences.
Reacting to Northern Ireland’s result which (like that in London and in Scotland) was to remain in the EU, First Minister Arlene Foster said that “we always knew this would happen since four of the five parties campaigned to remain.” This prompted a thought that the undefined “we” did not really campaign, did not articulate a case supported by empirical evidence. Yet the Office of First and Deputy First Minister has explicit guidelines about the imperative for policy-making to be evidence-based (10). Scotland’s Government, for example, had produced 700 page support for its independence referendum (11). No equivalent empirical case was published by Westminster about Brexit scenarios.
It soon became apparent that no prizes would be awarded this time around for debating prowess on either side. A repeat of 1975’s public speaking sparkle in 2016 was a lofty hope. Social media “influencing” and “taking back control of our money, laws and borders” hadn't been invented fifty years ago. Rather, it occurs that both camps in the referendum campaign preferred to perplex voters by abandoning factual debate and suppressing databases.
Remain, for instance, failed to endorse pre-referendum expertise articulated by institutions like the Bank of England (12), HM Treasury (13) and the IMF (14). Leave disavowed empirical evidence from economists and scientists whose advice it criticised with slogans such as “project fear.” One famously used a quip about the country being sick of experts (15). After the result, Leave admitted telling lies about extra funding that would be available for the NHS (16).
What happens when evidence is dismissed?
The effects of sidelining evidence appear from examples of impacts on Northern Ireland’s NHS budget. Recent reports from the General Medical Council reveal that many consultants and junior doctors are transferring to Ireland’s HSE attracted by better pay and conditions (17). Moreover, bleak warnings by Stormont’s outgoing and new Health Ministers that the inadequate budget available from the Exchequer will harm patients alarm our citizens (18).
Westminster’s own forecasts produced both before and adjusted after the referendum by the Office for Budget Responsibility (19) (established by Westminster in 2010) went largely unheeded by Britain’s legislators. It included pre-referendum warnings about potential negative impacts of Brexit on key indicators such as the exchange rate and GDP growth; with post-result estimates of alternative scenarios for future trade and migration relationships with the EU. The OBR subsequently forecast that the 1246-page post-Brexit EU/U.K Trade and Cooperation Agreement “will cost the U.K. 4% in permanently lost GDP (20).”
The paradox of legislators staunchly opposing an “Irish Sea border” while ignoring adverse impacts of installing new trade barriers on the U.K’s borders with 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland’s open border) is bewildering. Hearing no position taken on exit consequences likely to disrupt the quantitative and qualitative success in removing Europe’s sick man moniker off British shoulders felt oxymoronic. This was a self-imposed rejection of the union with our nearest and biggest trading partner paradoxically by unionists, no rationale provided.
To understand the trauma of “Brexplexity” one read commentaries from experts, culminating in the composition of blogs published over the eight years (21). In retrospect, this was therapy driven by apolitical civic duty. Several articles referenced other empirical evidence that seems to have been ignored or suppressed. One blog, by coincidence given the in-class comment about Brexit being a boon for cartoonists, covers the demise of the May Premiership using a cacophony of cutting satirical images, words being almost tautological (22).
Other examples include -
Is Brexit part of a wider pattern?
The above examples show that Brexit is not confined to a self-contained cocoon. Add recent governance cases arising from Public Inquiries into that mix. They show authorities again having a casual relationship with the truth. None end well, reputations have been ruined and lives lost.
The Infected Blood Inquiry report (23), for example, describes the scandal as “a calamity that could largely have been avoided.” The report exposed "a catalogue of failures" in which 30,000 patients "suffered miserably" after being infected with HIV and hepatitis C as a result of being treated with contaminated blood between the 1970s and early 1990s. It found a lack of transparency by the NHS and Government which meant that the truth was “hidden for decades to save face and expense (24).” As a result, a high price must now be paid.
In front of a shocked House of Commons, PM Sunak and Opposition leader Starmer apologised insisting that huge compensation claims will be met. This is regardless of pre-existing pressure on public finances. Funding of claims will be carefully observed.
Where do these scandals leave the vaunted strategy of deregulation? The hiding by public authorities of evidence and truth is surely incompatible with the British values proudly proclaimed by Brexit campaigners whereever those may or may not be documented.
Given the perplexity of Brexit and the shocking evidence emerging from these Public Inquiries, one wonders if there exists a will to make integrity in regulating “the world’s sixth largest economy” a priority for the U.K’s incoming Government?
© Michael McSorley 2024
References
1. EU History 1945-59 https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en
2. Uni of Cambridge Gresham College The 1975 Referendum, Learning from History https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/learning-history-1975-referendum-on-europe
3. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-europe/overview/britain-and-eec-to-single-european-act/
4. BBC News EU referendum timeline 20 Feb 2016 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33141819
5. The Guardian 20 Feb 2016 EU referendum to take place 23 June D Cameron confirms
6. The Institute for Government Nov 2019 Explainer https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/collective-responsibility
7. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information
8. Fintan O’Toole The Observer 19 June 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/18/england-eu-referendum-brexit?CMP=share_btn_fb
9. Matthew Parris The Spectator July 2016 http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/for-the-first-time-in-my-life-i-feel-ashamed-to-be-british/
10. https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/articles/what-economic-appraisal-and-when-it-required#toc-0
11. Scotland’s Future. Your Guide to an independent Scotland. 648pp. November 2013
12. BBC News 12 May 2016 Brexit vote may spark recession, BoE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36273448
13. HM Treasury April 2016 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f7e7ded915d74e33f6c77/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf
14. BBC News 13 May 2016 Brexit pretty bad to very very bad, IMF https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36284200
15. Financial Times Henry Mance 3 June 2016 Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c
16. The Guardian 10 Sept 2016 Toby Helm https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/10/brexit-camp-abandons-350-million-pound-nhs-pledge
17. Irish Times 20 April 2024 Seanín Graham Toxic culture, bureaucracy & better pay is pushing North’s doctors to move South
18. BBC NI News 3 June 2024 Hospital beds could be cut https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg33qvv00n2o
19. OBR Discussion Paper no 3 Brexit and the OBR’s Forecasts Oct 2018
20. OBR March 2021 https://obr.uk/box/impact-of-the-brexit-trade-agreement-on-our-economy-forecast/
21. https://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/5930599165673754705
22. https://michaelmcsorleyeconomy.blogspot.com/2019/04/brexit-lampooned.html
23. Infected Blood Inquiry Report 20 May 2024 https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/reports/inquiry-report
24. Irish Times 25 May 2024 Seanín Graham The British government held off as long as it could hoping that the lie would die with the victims
25. BBC News 18 June 2024 Post Office sabotaged Horizon probe, says investigator https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyddlynqlryo
Footnote:-
This Brexit series (2016-2014) consists of the following 22 articles to date:-
Brexit 25 July 2016
Global Populism 27 Feb 2017
Brexit 14 Months On 30 August 2017
Our Precious Union 29 August 2018
Arguments for/against Brexit as Parliament debates UK/EU Deal 7 December 2018
Brexit Briefings to DUP MP Jan/Feb 2019 5 March 2019
Brexit lampooned 27 April 2019
How can the UK’s new PM resolve the Brexit conundrum? 23 July 2019
Omnes ad Unum Conservatives and DUP 24 September 2019
Election Communication 8 December 2019
Leaving Britain Undone 31 January 2020
Brexit Trade Deal: What Price Sovereignty? 30 December 2020
Just how good is the UK’s trade deal with the EU? 22 January 2021
Politics failing the people 28 April 2021
Brexit and empty shelves 27 August 2021
Winning friends and influencing people 15 October 2021
The business of politics 11 May 2022
An Ode to prudence 28 September 2022
Alarm bells in Westminster 24 October 2022
The Windsor Framework 7 March 2023
State of the Nation 14 Oct 2023
Stormont Assembly back after 2 year boycott 8 Feb 2024
