BREXIT – THE INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

UK must avoid Brexit and not quit the EU in this Hour of Maximum Danger:

Trump, populism, refugees demand UK action to strengthen EU & the West

The need for opposition: Labour’s opportunity

 

Second Report on BREXIT by John Pedler, (former British diplomat now a consultant based in France specialising in EU/US/Russia relations. For the past two years he has been working in the UK and on the continent to help keep the UK in the EU. He is the author of ‘Our Broken World – in large part a study of UK/EU/US/Russia relations).

Arriving in Britain 6 months after the referendum for the High Court hearings in December was ‘culture shock’. To my amazement, the implications of any sort of Brexit for the UK’s foreign policy - Britain’s place in the world - are barely mentioned. And this at a time when the future of the EU and of the ‘West’ is at stake and polls suggest that some 75% of Britons want the UK to play its full part on the world scene. Yet none seem aware that any form of Brexit would weaken the EU and the ‘West’ although the UK’s prime national interest is to ensure that they are strengthened. This contradiction goes unnoticed - no one was even talking of avoiding Brexit let alone organising a campaign for continued EU membership.

Much confusion even about an advisory referendum

Instead, on this my first visit since the 23 June referendum, I found a country in thrall to ‘leave’ as populist Prime Minister Mrs. May leads the country to Brexit with steely determination. And this with most of the media applauding Brexit, mistrusted politicians in a quandary, widespread fear of ‘leavers’, and a public resigned to its fate bemused by endless arguments about ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit. But of course what the UK gets is in the gift of an unhelpful European Commission with the approval of the European Court of Justice. Most surprising of all was the persisting ignorance about the requirements of an advisory referendum – as this one was. There is of course no obligation to give effect to the majority vote. On the contrary, government has solely to consider the referendum campaign and then act in the best interests of the UK.

On the continent much concern at defection of the UK

In contrast, in France (where I live), Germany, and Italy there is a pervading sense of crisis: nationalist populism – Trump in the US, Mrs. May in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, and neo-nationalists even in Germany - all threatening the solidarity of the West. It is not only  well-informed contacts in the EU countries and in others like the US, who are alarmed. Our French plumber was typical when he asked with some bitterness how ‘les Anglais’, loyal allies whom the French once envied for their common sense, could possibly desert their EU partners at such a critical time with Trump in the wings.  

Trump’s extreme uncertainty and the EU

For Donald Trump, even before taking office on January 20, has already brought extreme uncertainty to the world with his choice of advisers, his proposed Cabinet members, and with his disturbing contradictory ‘tweets’ about world affairs, impervious to expert advice – notably on NATO and President Putin’s Russia. Exxon’s boss Rex Tillerson is even less qualified to be US Secretary of State than Boris Johnson to be UK Foreign Secretary – and his appointment led German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeyer to exclaim ‘ungeheurlich’ - outrageous. Ever since World War II the West has sheltered under an American umbrella. Now Europe has to accept that it must summon its own strength to face up to populism, be responsible for its own security, and pursue its own vital interests irrespective of the US – with Russia first on the agenda.

Putin’s war by other means is against EU as well as US democracy

At least since 2007, when Fancy Bear hacker was first detected, Putin’s Russia has been effectively at war with the ‘West’ – EU as well as US - using ‘Special Political Action’ (intelligence services seeking political ends) to unprecedented effect: cyber attacks coupled with false information spread through social media and subverting individuals with concealed payments. Edward Lucas’ ‘Spies, Lies, and How Russia Dupes The West’ was published in 2012 (prompting Russia to be dubbed a ‘katascopic state’ – kataskopos = spy).

Russian and FBI intervention can be considered decisive

There is now no real doubt that by far the most successful SPA operation in history was ex-KGB Putin’s success in securing the election of Donald Trump as 45^th U.S. president with the help of FBI chief James Comey (who will have known of Russian intervention when he too, intervened). Paul Krugman, NYT 12 Dec. 2016, shows that Mrs. Clinton lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than 1% and Florida by only a little more yet if any three of these states had gone for Clinton she would be president.  It is all-but inconceivable that their joint efforts on behalf of Trump did not alter the vote by more than 1%. 

It is significant that it is the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, that is responsible for the coordination of the role of the armed forces with the actions of the intelligence services. Military power, which demands respect and creates fears, works in concert with the covert work of the intelligence services – together they achieve the political results that Putin’s government seeks. Putin’s uncooperative military action in Syria is part of this ‘war’ against the West for the aggrandisement of Russia.  It is important to recognise that Putin’s war by other means is far from confined to the US. He has already had major successes promoting populist-nationalism in the EU. It is likely that high on his agenda are the German and French elections this year (there are suggestions, not confined to those made by Ben Bradshaw MP in the House of Commons, that Putin’s attacks on EU democracy may have begun with the use of highly sophisticated algorithms during the UK’s referendum campaign, targeting specific constituencies to enhance the ‘no’ vote). 

Trump an unlikely Putin puppet

So Donald Trump will be ‘the Russian president’ (remember ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ ?) while Russia wages cyber war against the US. But this does not mean that he will necessarily seek a ‘reset’ for US Russia relations harmful to the US. Indeed Putin is likely to find the 45^th President far from the puppet he would like. He too, could find Trump’s policies impossible to discern for, an ignoramus in foreign affairs, Trump is capable of tweeting one thing and its opposite the same day. He enjoys keeping the world on tenterhooks. Trump’s one constant is what Trump believes is good for Trump and his family – not what is in the best interests of the US, though these may at times coincide. What Trump brings is uncertainty – and uncertainty, in foreign affairs as in business, is anathema.

Putin’s popularity over the Ukraine – it is also his Achilles heel

Putin, like Trump and Mrs. May, is a nationalist populist – he won his popularity by opposing the not so secret neo-conservative intervention in the Ukraine in 2014, a part of their SPA attempt to create a US unipolar world ignoring EU interests. Remember neo-con US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and her ‘F… the Europeans?’ Here the State Department cooperated with the neo-cons in the CIA in an attempt to make the Ukraine a pawn in the creation of that ‘unipolar’ world long sought by the neo-cons led by Vice President Dick Cheney and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s two worst mistakes were that vote for the invasion of Iraq which led to the destabilization of the Middle East and half our troubles today, and for permitting, albeit unwittingly, the comeback of the neo-conservatives after they had been forced to lie low after Obama’s election.

For all Russians, the Ukraine is a vital interest for security and historic reasons – Kiev is the home of Russia. But Putin’s bellicose foreign policy – of which he is so proud - using both Russia’s armed forces and his cyber war against the West is in fact contrary to the prime national interest of Russia. As most Russians well know that is to have the closest possible relations with the EU in order to give Europe in its entirety far greater clout on the world stage – now even more essential with the advent of Trump. This is Putin’s Achilles heel: it would be hard for him to oppose a well publicised EU offer of such a partnership provided Russia ceases to confront the West, coupled with a simultaneous offer to work out a plan to respect that Russian special interest in the Ukraine. We must not believe Russian polls vaunting Putin’s ‘immense’ popularity – he makes sure they do.

The greatest danger to the UK, the EU, and the West: the conviction that Brexit is inevitable  

So both Putin and Trump are presenting existential threats to the EU and the ‘West’. Obviously the UK must not desert its friends and allies. But in the UK that mantra is ubiquitous: ‘the British people have spoken and they want to quit the EU’. So it is unquestioned that ‘to go against the people’s will is to flout democracy’ regardless of the fact that it is daily becoming more evident that breaking with the EU is immensely complicated and will absorb UK attention for years to come; and the fact that the entire world is in crisis and needs the strongest possible Europe.  Clearly Britain’s first task is to prevent the EU unravelling because of a selfish quest for Brexit. And that includes united action to counter Putin’s current efforts to subvert EU democracy.

Avoiding Brexit is not ‘flouting democracy’: the vote not the ‘clear will’ of the British people

But how is it that there is this astonishing conviction that Brexit is inevitable and that ‘leave’ voters should be pandered to while ‘remain’ voters are not just ignored but heaped with obloquy although the electorate was all-but divided in half: 51.89% for ‘leave’ and 48.11% for ‘remain’? This is without taking into account the 5 million odd UK overseas passport holders – the ones most affected by ‘leave’ – who had no vote. Indeed the Economist’s Data Unit found that towards the end of 2016 more ‘leave’ than ‘remain’ voters regretted their choice – enough to sway opinion in favour of ‘remain’. And this is also without taking into account either the many Labour sympathisers who could not bring themselves to vote for ‘Cameron’s Tories’, or the ‘millenials’, disenchanted with boring middle-aged politicians, who often did not even register to vote but who are now awakening to the theft of their future as Europeans. 

The severely flawed campaign

Then, profoundly affecting the outcome, was the campaign itself which was marked by deliberate misrepresentations by ‘leave’ – who notably failed to warn of the inevitably long drawn out daunting complications of leaving the EU – and the striking incompetence of ‘remain’: both the obscure Lord Rose’s campaign ‘Britain Stronger In Europe’ run by Will Straw, and by ‘Labour In for Britain’ run by Alan Johnson. Much has been published about these serious defects which are perhaps best summed up in John Lanchester’s ‘Brexit Blues’ in the July edition of the London Review of Books. My own, very similar, First Report on Brexit of 18 August 2016 is at dipconsult.blogspot.fr.

Two incidents stand out – leading Brexiter Michael Gove claiming, without evidence, that the Queen favoured Brexit. This was particularly damaging to ‘remain’ given the Queen’s popularity among most of the population. And the BBC permitting its widely viewed ‘Great Debate’ on the eve of the referendum to close with Boris Johnson, the chief personality for ‘leave,’ with  his emotional appeal ‘make June 23 Britain’s independence day’. This was followed next morning by arch-Brexiteer American Rupert Murdoch’s full page headlines in his top circulation Sun: ‘We urge our readers to beLEAVE in Britain’.

Indeed ‘remain’ was much hampered throughout the campaign and still is by much of the UK press taking its lead from Murdoch. The Daily Telegraph, the most influential quality paper, vigorously supported Brexit and still does: its lead EU correspondent Boris Johnson, like Trump in the US, was the key TV campaigner getting massive free publicity for their populist aims.

As early as February 2016 many observers, myself included, warned both ‘remain’ campaigns that they were concentrating on dull economic arguments for staying in the EU while neglecting the powerful anti-EU feelings of so many far from Whitehall that successive governments – both Labour and Conservative - had overlooked. As in the US (and this got us Trump), too many in the UK have been left behind by globalisation, impoverished by the 2007 banking collapse, and forced to take ‘zero hour contracts’. And few things are worse than daily fear of losing your job. On top of this is that widespread resentment at EU immigrants competing with Britons for limited social services and NHS resources. In the US it was ‘keep America white’, in the UK it was keep Britain British.

But it is not the EU but successive UK governments, Conservative and Labour, that, mostly in the name of a misguided ‘austerity’, ignored this - losing touch with their voters and forfeiting their loyalty. It seems that sufficient ‘leave’ voters blamed the EU for many of Whitehall’s faults to explain ‘leave’s’ close referendum result.

For all these reasons, Mrs. May never did, and does not now, express the ‘clear will of the British People’. And that is without considering the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Avoiding Brexit, the difficulties

So what can be done to prevent this determined lady and the small clique around her, in defiance of that ever-increasing evidence, resolutely invoking Article 50 and thus irrevocably setting the UK on the road to Brexit?  And dragging the UK into years of painful all-absorbing negotiations to separate the UK from the EU, thereby sacrificing Britain’s vital interests in the world for the nebulous, never honestly described advantages of Brexit?

On the face of it there is no problem. If, as expected around 12 January 2017, the UK Supreme Court demands formal parliamentary approval before Article 50 can be invoked, all that is required is for the more than 470 MPs of all parties out of a total of 650 to vote as they did in the referendum for ‘remain’ and thus against such invocation. But, in a snap non-binding vote called by Mrs. May on 8 December while the High Court was still sitting, 448 MPs voted in favour of invoking Article 50 with only 75 against. These are the only MPs to have ‘come out’ unequivocally against Brexit. There is much fear of a backlash from disgruntled ‘leavers’ – Gina Miller, the lead litigant contesting Mrs. May’s claim to invoke Article 50 on her own, has police guard after receiving death threats. Other lawyers and their principals have been browbeaten. I myself found ‘leavers’ will not argue in what was once the British way, but angrily condemn you for being unpatriotic, undemocratic and spurning that  ‘will of the people’. 

Why could parliament vote to end its own supremacy?

Like every one, ‘remain’ MPs are aware of this intimidation. And those from majority ‘leave’ constituencies fear losing their seats so some are ready to sacrifice Britain’s interests. This partly explains how MPs could actually vote to end by Act of Parliament the UK remaining a parliamentary democracy as the High Court has ruled that it is! Without parliament’s supremacy Prime Ministers could enforce populist measures against parliament’s wishes. Yet all this anxiety is unfounded – just as parliament can refuse to pass an Act authorising the invocation of Article 50, so it can refuse permission for Mrs. May to call an early election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, 2011.

A crippling lack of information

All this also reflects that all-but total lack of information about what is at stake internationally. Many, even MPs, are calling for a second referendum once the terms Mrs. May gets from the EU are known. This is mistaken for, whatever she may say, these will not be known before she invokes Article 50, and after that, when what is on offer becomes clearer, it would be too late.

This lack of information is due to that conviction, not only in the UK but abroad, that Brexit is inevitable. This is mainly because, for the first time, there is no effective parliamentary opposition to the party in power (although Mrs. May’s Conservative parliamentary party is deeply divided by its 180 degree turn from supporting ‘remain’ under previous Prime Minister Cameron to mandatory support for ‘leave’ under her). And there is no even informal popular grouping for ‘remain’ which could demand attention.

So it is virtually impossible to place material showing that Article 50 can be avoided in the UK and foreign press. For example, when I complained to the New York Times both their correspondents in London made it clear that they had found nothing to cover, and the Chief Political Adviser to the BBC assured me that it would give proper coverage if there were any appreciable moves to avoid Brexit.

An effective opposition essential: an unmissable opportunity for a Labour & LibDem come back

There is though one obvious event which would instantly ensure full media coverage making the UK’s predicament re Brexit known worldwide. That is for a disciplined Labour Party to resume its ‘remain’ policy during the referendum campaign. Jeremy Corbyn, its leader, has promised determined opposition to Mrs. May’s Conservatives and it was he who made possibly the best speech for ‘remain’ during the election campaign on 14 May – notably calling for the UK to take the lead in reforming the EU wanted by so many countries (he urged members to be more concerned with social justice than remaining something of a capitalist club). All Corbyn needs to do now is to lead Labour’s MPs in making a clear unified message opposing Brexit. Only opposition to Brexit can put Labour on the right side of history for Brexit will soon be seen as yesterday’s folly. Then Labour would right away become a forceful opposition with a real possibility of returning to power.    

Celebrities

And once there is forceful opposition to Brexit, UK and world media will make it known both in the UK and in the world. And once that happens, celebrities – far more influential than politicians - will lend their support. One of them, highly respected for her international concern, who had offered to back the case for ‘avoid’, withdrew because she did not want to find herself alone. Yet her agent told me there were several others on his books who would give their support if there were evident opposition to Mrs. May. For example just a sportsman, an Olympic gold medallist, an actor, and a best-selling author could do much to win over public opinion. If invited there would be several more.

‘Remain’ MPs now well placed to persuade others to join them   

As many Labour supporters already recognise, the best hope for Labour to return to power is in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, not competing for seats. At the 8 December vote 23 Labour MPs and 5 LibDems including their leader, ‘came out’ against Brexit, along with the 51 members of the Scottish National Party, 3 from Wales’ Plaid Cymru, and 3 from Northern Ireland’s SDLP. Broad enough to encourage other MPs of all parties to ‘come out’ as the potential of Brexit for disaster becomes ever more apparent. Labour would recover its roots and the Libdems would recover the support they lost by their coalition with Cameron’s Conservatives instead of Gordon Brown’s Labour.

But if avoiding Brexit is to be generally accepted it is imperative that Labour does not allow Mrs. May to steal its clothes by trying to persuade ‘leavers’ that she has their interests at heart. Labour (and indeed any ‘coalition’ for ‘avoid’), must convince ‘leavers’, who mostly are its natural supporters, that they will demand that the government address their grievances and will act with determination in government.

I must conclude with three points – the first is that Climate Change is by far the most important challenge that mankind faces and Trump does not recognise this. So one of the most important tasks for the UK within the EU is to work on this particularly with China which is well aware of this threat.  

The second is to compare Mrs. May’s approach to a Trump presidency with Mrs. Merkel’s. In an attempt to preserve the so-called ‘special relationship’ with the US, Mrs. May is ready to bow to Trump even to the extent of arranging a state visit for him. This would be a nice feather to add to his cap – but no guarantee that he would prove a reliable friend to the UK. His approval of Brexit could be more closely related to his concern for his golf courses in Scotland – as the Scottish government has discovered! Far better is German Chancellor Mrs. Merkal’s pointedly warning: ‘yes’ to cooperation, but only if Trump adheres to the norms expected of democratic states.

Thirdly – after my article of 2 November 2016 in Le Monde (about how Brexit could be avoided) feedback suggested that the Commission – and indeed all involved with Brexit, especially France and Germany with their elections this year, would be so relieved if Article 50 were not to be invoked that the UK would swiftly be able to negotiate the dispensations its very particular position in the EU demands – dispensations that would certainly be refused in Brexit negotiations. I suggest that some MPs should enquire if this can be confirmed.  

SOME REASONS WHY THE CAMPAIGN LEADING UP TO THE 23 JUNE REFERENDUM RESULT WAS SEVERELY VITIATED AND THUS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS REPRESENTING THE CONSIDERED VIEWS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

(Note by John Pedler, former British diplomat, now a consultant based in France: dipconsult@ hotmail.com. Author of ‘Our Broken World’. The best round-up I have seen of the deeply flawed referendum campaign is John Lanchester’s ‘Brexit Blues’ in the London Review of Books. His conclusions are very similar to mine – I regret that he has not, so far, gone on to make a case for the result to be considered invalid).

The requirement for a referendum if it is to reflect the true will of the electorate

If a referendum is to reflect the reasonably well informed will of the voters there must be easy access to the basic facts needed to make a decision. This was not the case with the UK’s 23 June referendum, and considering the controversy that had come to surround the subject, the UK’s EU membership was not a suitable subject for a referendum. To make an informed judgment in these circumstances one needed some knowledge of economics, foreign affairs, and sociology.

Voters usually vote with some strongly held belief. This generally works quite well when voting for a Member of Parliament who then becomes responsible for taking decisions on behalf of his constituents as they arise in the Commons where emotion is commonly balanced by reason. But emotional elements – e.g. the protest element, the patriotic element – can readily determine the outcome of a referendum without due regard to the question asked. 

I am concerned here to show prima facie that the 23 June referendum was so deeply flawed that it should not be accepted as the considered will of those who voted – let alone of those who either could not, or chose not to vote.    

The history of the referendum on UK membership of the EU

Because of the rapid rise of Nigel Farage’s UKIP (UK Independence Party) demanding that the UK leave the EU, and increased euroscepticism in the Conservative Party including among many of its MPs, its leader David Cameron undertook in 2013 to hold a referendum on UK membership of the EU before the end of 2017 if the Conservatives came to power in the 2015 elections. They did with a small overall majority. Cameron’s aim was thus to overcome the damaging division among Conservatives over the EU with a ‘Yes’ vote. 

When his gamble failed a considerable number of Conservative MPs – both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ begged Cameron to remain until the autumn to allow a period of calm reflection before deciding on the way ahead.  He ignored this appeal and resigned precipitately thereby likely doing more damage to the UK than he had done even by the way he had conducted the referendum itself. For that enabled Theresa May abruptly to succeed him as Prime Minister and, though ostensibly his supporter for ‘Yes’, straightway declared that she is in fact a convinced Brexiter and ‘Brexit means Brexit’.  So it is precisely those anti-EU Conservatives whom Cameron had planned to subdue, who now govern the UK.

Possibly more than by anything else, Cameron’s defeat can be explained by his decision to allow Ministers in his government freedom to campaign for ‘No’ while yet remaining in office. That caused much confusion. This was his referendum and it required his leadership and not contradiction from within his own government. In addition he failed to prepare the electorate for the referendum - instead, rather than choosing some date in 2017, he put it forward to June 2016. Then, as the possibility of a ‘No’ majority increased, apparently in desperation, he ran his own campaign ever less astutely.   

     

Widespread Ignorance that this was an advisory referendum

The most striking thing about the referendum - both in the UK and abroad - is the almost universal acceptance that the comparatively small majority of votes for 'No' means that the UK is now obliged to leave the EU.  The result was 48%-52%, a majority of 1.2m out of 33 1/2m votes cast – certainly not a clear decision, rather proof of a country divided in half which demanded of any government the most careful consideration of the best interests of the UK before deciding on any action. Had all UK passport holders resident outside the UK had the vote ‘yes’ would almost certainly have won. And if just the 1.2m UK residents in the EU had the vote - those most affected by the result - the ‘No’ majority would have been much diminished.

This result also ignores those in the UK who did not vote, or even register – for example the young who feel estranged from today’s political class, and Labour voters who could not bring themselves to vote for ‘Cameron’s’ Conservative referendum. 

The young, the so-called millennials, who did vote voted massively for ‘Remain’. They were aware that their future, more than that of any other group, was at stake: European by birth they would have to live far longer in the confines of ‘little England’ than the middle aged who voted ‘No’. But so many of the under 25s did not trouble to register, feeling that they have little in common with today’s political scene.  It is worth mentioning them again further on.  

Yet this was a purely Advisory Referendum and the result is not in fact binding on any Prime Minister or Government (although former Prime Minister Cameron did say that he personally would accept the result). Even a great many 'Yes' voters believe that they must swallow objections, no matter how profound, because the 'British people have spoken' and so an extreme interpretation of  'democracy' must be allowed to prevail. Indeed, at the end of July, it seems almost taboo to talk of avoiding Brexit for fear of provoking ‘Leave’ voters – although many of these are known to be having second thoughts. And surely the UK’s national interest should come before concerns about the reaction of some ‘Leave’ voters – even if they number some in the present government.

The flaws in the referendum campaign

The campaign was dominated by misrepresentation by 'Leave' and incompetence by 'Remain'.

This February I went to the UK to assess the situation in the four month lead up to the referendum. Since then I have done what I can to support the 'remain' campaign both through personal contacts and organisations - notably Lord Rose's 'Britain Stronger In Europe' and Alan Johnson MP’s 'Labour In for Britain’.

During my enquiries in the UK, like so many others, I soon came to the conclusion that the whole campaign was deeply flawed by that misrepresentation and incompetence.  

Misrepresentation by 'Leave'

Misrepresentation, even outright untruths, by the leaders - Messrs. Boris Johnson MP, Michael Gove MP, and Nigel Farage leader of UKIP, is well documented. Statistics about the cost of the EU to the UK were so often incorrect that the Statistics Authority complained at their misuse. In addition so much was suppressed. Here I only mention the claim that the UK pays £8bn annually to the EU – without mentioning that in subsidies and other payments it gets some £4bn back - and the famous Boris Johnson campaign bus with its claim in huge letters ‘We send the EU £350m a week let’s fund our NHS instead’ when in fact the figure is less than half that. 

Boris Johnson declared more than once that the referendum provided a ‘once in a lifetime … opportunity to take back control of our country’ – an emotive phrase that ignored the fact that every treaty a country signs involves some loss of sovereignty, some lack of that ‘control’. Free trade agreements inevitably involve a marked loss of sovereignty – and so would any arrangement the UK negotiated with the EU following Brexit. In a word, no attempt was made by ‘Leave’ correctly to inform voters about what to expect from Brexit. On the contrary, ‘Leave’ consistently played down the years of uncertainty that would necessarily follow, giving voters the impression that whatever they wanted from a ‘No’ vote would be realised, if not immediately, then after only a short delay.  Here are just two typical remarks illustrating the confusion about the referendum: in Peterborough a worker complained after voting  ‘No’ – ‘When are those Pakis leaving ’ – failing to realise that only immigration from the EU would be limited by Brexit, not the presence of those from the Indian subcontinent whose immigration is under entirely UK control. And in Bournemouth a middle aged accountant with a degree in the subject remarked ‘why vote? They always come back until they get the answer they want’ (as in the case of the Irish referendums) not understanding the different nature of this advisory referendum.

‘Leave’ – and notably Boris Johnson - campaigned on the proposition that they knew better than the UK, EU and foreign politicians and experts – including Barack Obama and  the Canadian Governor of the Bank of England - who strongly advised that UK remain in the EU.  But when ‘No’ prevailed, many were shocked to learn that none of the ‘Leave’ leaders had any plan for arriving at ‘Brexit’ – indeed Boris Johnson found it politic to disappear from the scene.  Their campaign had largely appealed to populist sentiment, not to persuasion with facts. And such populism is currently also threatening democracy in the US (Donald Trump), France (Marine Le Pen), and in a number of other countries.

Another serious misrepresentation – so flagrant as to be termed an outright lie by some observers – was ‘Leave’ leaders’ claim that after Brexit the UK, being so important to the EU, would have access to the Common Market without accepting free movement of EU citizens. This despite clear warnings from EU leaders who fear the EU itself could unravel if the UK left and got any such deal (some other countries might well want the same). Any lingering hopes of such an outcome were dashed on 27 July when the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, named the hardline EU operative Michel Barnier as the EU’s chief negotiator for Brexit.   

The media's bias towards 'Leave'

Much of the media – struggling against competition from the internet - gave ‘Leave’s most dubious statements headline coverage in search of circulation at the expense of accuracy. Notably, the Daily Telegraph favoured Brexit, continuing to feature their lead correspondent, Boris Johnson, elaborating on his habitual contempt for the EU, where he had first made his name as the Telegraph’s correspondent in Brussels. Rupert  Murdoch, the American, former Australian, the world’s leading purveyor of news, also favoured Brexit. His ‘The Sun’ the UK’s highest circulation tabloid (1.8 million) did at least as much damage to 'Remain': two examples - Murdoch associate Michael Gove was involved in getting The Sun's front page 'The Queen Backs Brexit' headline plus full page photo. Although the piece was found 'substantially misleading', the damage to 'Remain' must have been considerable given the all but universal popularity of the Queen. Many in the rest of the media made much of it. 

On 22 June readers woke up to The Sun's headline 'BeLEAVE in Britain'. This after hearing Boris Johnson's dramatic appeal the night before  'Make the 23rd of June Britain's Independence Day’ - the closing words of the BBC’s ‘Great Debate’ which in fact was not a debate which would have given an opportunity for Yes’ to set out its basic case. It was in fact a major two hour questions programme which favoured ‘Leave’ with its penchant for short slogans. So even the well-trusted and supposedly impartial BBC finally came down for 'No'.

Even more importantly, Boris Johnson, more of a self-publicising journalist than a politician, became the TV personality of the campaign, generally without corrective reporting. Without any need for bias by TV stations, through constant exposure Boris Johnson became the TV star throughout - the referendum celebrity when it is celebrities who are revered, not politicians. Johnson made light of the problems that Britain would face if it were to leave the EU and of the long period of delay and uncertainty that would necessarily follow. Indeed, when 'No' got a majority, Boris Johnson had no plan for 'Brexit' and faded into obscurity until appointed Foreign Secretary by Theresa May, Cameron's successor who had been for 'In', but overnight became a Prime Minister doggedly resolved to lead the UK to Brexit. The German Foreign Minister spoke for many when he described Johnson’s appointment as 'Ungeheurlich' - outrageous. 

Exposure on TV not only ensures that you are known, but that your message, however extreme, is unforgettable. Frequent appearance on TV does much to magnify the spread of populism in the US (Donald Trump), France (Marine Le Pen) and the UK (Boris Johnson) where extreme statements which resonate with certain elements of the population are believed with little question.

Incompetence of ‘Remain’

Misrepresentation by ‘Leave’ and the bias of much of the media made it difficult enough to find factual information about the key issues raised by the referendum. But this was compounded by the incompetence of ‘Remain’. Both Lord Stuart Rose's 'Britain Stronger In Europe' and Alan Johnson's 'Labour In for Britain' failed lamentably in getting across their essential message to the general public and to former Labour voters in particular.  When ‘Britain Stronger In’ was founded on 12 October 2015, much of the media predicted failure. Lord Rose, a businessman, lacked the needed political savvy and was prone to making unfortunate remarks - even forgetting the name of the organisation of which he was Chair. He kept a low profile and in any case was very far from the charismatic TV personality needed to oppose Boris Johnson that ‘Stronger In’ so urgently needed. Indeed the failure to find one was a major reason for the failure of ‘Stronger In’. It is surprising that such a second rate organisation became the ‘official’ spokesman for ‘Yes’ on 13 April 2016. If the body politic had bothered, the UK could have set up a far more effective body for such an extremely important purpose.

                                  i) ‘Britain Stronger In Europe’

‘Stronger In’ concentrated, efficiently enough, on the economic advantages of staying in the EU but ignored the fact that referendum voters are less interested in dry facts than their need to feel a strong emotional incentive for their decision - something that touches them personally. ‘Leave’ though, skillfully sounded a chord with its emphasis on immigration and patriotism – two key issues ‘Stronger In’ largely ignored even though this was expressly drawn to its attention. But even if it had been more responsive and had heeded advice, it lacked the means and publicity savoir faire to put this across to the public – something all but impossible without that TV personality. 

                                   ii) ‘Labour In For Britain’

When, in October 2015, I was first in touch with Alan Johnson – the MP charged with Labour’s campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote through ‘Labour In For Britain’ - he appeared to be well informed of the problems and likely to conduct an effective campaign. But in the event his ‘Labour In For Britain’ was even more of a disappointment than ‘Stronger In’. Its website was the same day after day and there was no contact given so I was unable to get the text of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech of 14 May, one of, if not the, best speeches for ‘yes’. (I got my copy through the party’s regular website ‘Labour List’).

Indeed this exceptional speech was almost entirely overlooked by the media which had long been disparaging Corbyn whatever he said.  Almost alone, the speech made much of the important role Britain had in the reform of the EU, desired by so many of both its countries and peoples, to make the EU more responsive to its peoples and less of a club for capitalists. That countered a key ‘Leave’ assertion that the EU is incapable or reform.

Corbyn, one of the few who looked beyond Britain to the wider world, pointed out that it was the EU that guaranteed many of the human and other rights of workers. He put  Climate Change deservedly first in his list of challenges which the EU countries – with Britain - could only resolve together. As he put it – ‘It is not the EU that is the problem but a Conservative Government ….’   This speech deserves reading today as an example of how the media – and Labour itself – ignored the truly important issues for voters.

The Labour Party shares a heavy responsibility for the incompetence of ‘Remain’ which left ‘Leave’ to be positive and strike the note of hope so important in attracting voters. Indeed, examining the results throughout the UK, Labour may well have lost the referendum. It utterly failed to persuade its traditional supporters that – as its Leader Jeremy Corbyn had stressed so persuasively – a ‘yes’ vote was greatly in their interest. ‘Yes’ would be a Labour win – not just a Cameron Conservative win, while a ‘No’ would be a licence for the most diehard Tories to run the country at the expense of the working man and of the UK itself.  

But Labour did not recover in time from the unexpected collapse of its vote in the 2015 election. Despite the election of Jeremy Corbyn as its left wing Leader, Labour had not learned the lesson of its failure to meet the aspirations, concerns, and bitterness of its traditional voters mainly from the white working class. Tony Blair’s New Labour under David Milliband was too much of a left-of-centre form of the Conservative party to be capable of exploiting the disillusion and anger caused by those dire effects of globalization on traditional ways of life. One of the most painful of these being so called ‘zero hour contracts’ removing security of employment from as many as 1m British workers and affecting many more. This too, had little to do with the EU, rather it reflected the misdirected austerity policies of David Cameron’s government. In the absence the traditional loyalty to Labour, this exasperation expressed itself in a massive protest vote against EU membership.

This protest vote was also fuelled by immigration – whole towns had become socially unrecognisable not only as a result of immigration mainly from the Indian sub-continent (under UK government control) but also because of immigrants from the EU – notably from its poorer countries (due to the EU requirement for free movement of its citizens over which individual countries had no control).  These two were frequently confused.

On this immensely important issue, not only Labour and ‘Stronger In’ but Cameron himself suffered a major setback defeat when the latest figure for 330,000 net arrivals from the EU was published shortly before the vote. This setback was unnecessary. It resulted from the incompetence not only of ‘Remain’ but of Cameron himself – for the figure included 169,000 students so only 161,000 could be classed as immigrants (barely above the 140,000 considered not only acceptable but desirable).  The misleading 330,000 figure did Cameron and the case for ‘Remain’ great harm because immigration had by then become the leading issue for so many voters. 

                                                   iii) Patriotism - this deserves separate mention for to some extent it influences all voters. I have already mentioned the damage done to ‘Remain’ by The Sun’s front page headline ‘The Queen backs Brexit’ with its misleading message for patriots.

Appealing to patriotism was a staple ploy for ‘Leave’, but surprisingly barely featured in ‘Remain’ publicity. Here again ‘Stronger In’ ignored advice to challenge ‘Leave’ on this emotional issue.

‘Leave’ painted a picture of a Britain of the past, all but entirely white, and with the worldwide respect due to a country, once the possessor of the world’s greatest empire, and the ‘winner’ of both World Wars. The image was of everyone standing together as Britain stood alone during its Finest Hour. 

‘Remain’ failed to use TV to put across the up-to-date, forward looking, alternative which had been suggested and is worth sketching here. It told of how England and later Britain, for more than four centuries had fought wars at great expense in blood and treasure to prevent any power dominating Europe - from Spain’s Philip II, France’s Louis XIV and Napoleon, to Germany’s Kaiser and Hitler. And after that  Britain had played a major role in countering the pretensions of the Soviet Union. Throughout this history Britain had prevailed thanks to allies - so it was with European allies that Britain had at last done so much to establish the period of peace after World War II that made possible the great experiment of a European Union of all its peoples and dominated by none.

Did voters really want the UK now to turn its back on friends and partners leaving them in the lurch at a time of crisis when UK support was sorely needed? And did ‘Leave’ voters really want to leave to a reluctant Germany the leadership of the EU?

This appeal to patriotism would have appealed to many, and in particular to the elderly who, in the event, voted massively for ‘Leave’.

Labour too, failed to publicise the rather different patriotism implied in Corbyn’s 14 May speech – the solidarity of all workers ‘by hand or brain’.  Here the emphasis was on the great role for Britain in leading the much desired reform of the EU – as I have said, to make the Union more in the interest of its peoples, and less of a purely economic vehicle for business and finance.  And, as importantly, here was the opportunity with its partners in the EU for Britain to take a lead in facing up to the great challenges of Climate Change, emigration, Russia, and the prevention of terrorism - all beyond the UK’s powers to deal with alone. 

One observer aptly noted:  ‘If the UK puts as much effort into reforming the EU as it would have to in order to make a success of Brexit, the UK and the EU would both be better off’.

Neglect of the ‘millenials’

Just as Labour failed so dismally to understand the extent of the grievances of its usual supporters, so all those working for ‘Yes’ equally failed to gain the votes of the ‘millenials’ already mentioned. There was no imagination, no enthusiasm to reach out to the idealism of the under 25s – involving their celebrities, using their music, and addressing their feelings of disinterest and isolation from the humdrum materialism of the world of the over 30s around them.  Yet such an approach would have got many more to register and many more actually to vote in order to preserve their influence and ensure their participation in making the Europe of the future and its clout in the world. Votes enough at least further to dent that million and quarter majority for ‘Leave’.

Threat to the UK as at present constituted

Scotland voted to remain, so did Northern Ireland. This raises complex questions about a) the ability of Scotland to leave the UK in order to remain in the EU, or to remain in the UK but retain membership of the EU, and b) the legislation that would be needed to avoid the return of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic – a border that would in fact become a frontier between the UK and the EU.  It appears that all parties in the North, whatever their other differences, are anxious to avoid that.

Leave played down the threat to the UK’s integrity and ‘Remain’, typically did not explain just how difficult these issues would be to resolve in the event of a ‘No’ vote, nor the possibility that, after ‘No’, Scotland might actually leave the Union despite the result of the 2014 referendum.

If  ‘Remain’ had made more of these issues, quite a few votes could have been different.

Few voting in a referendum – or even in an election – are much swayed by foreign policy. There was quite a bit said about the diminution of Britain’s influence in the world if alone rather than acting through the EU. Just one example that was hardly mentioned was Hong Kong, perpetually under pressure from the government in Peking. Here the UK, acting discreetly with the EU, has had significant influence in helping preserve Hong Kong’s quasi-independent status. Without the importance the EU has for Peking, the intervention of Britain alone could more easily be dismissed as unacceptable from the previous colonial power.

A final word

I conclude this note by drawing attention to way the world goes on as usual after the shock of the British referendum. The international media has moved on to other news simply accepting that the UK will now be too busy with the highly complex and long term self-inflicted problem of leaving the EU to be able to play the part it should in the world. There are observers in the UK, in the EU, and in the world who still ask how Brexiters and their new Prime Minister, against the advice of the UK’s friends and allies and with that mere 52% v. 48%, majority, can possibly go for Brexit with such self-assurance and determination when, even with all possible optimism, any possible advantages of leaving the UK would be negligible compared with those of ‘remaining’.

Here in France, where British common sense has long been cited with some envy, observers find it hard to believe that the least informed are tugging the better informed into an unknown and dubious future letting the distraction of Brexit prevent the UK from dealing with the world’s great problems with its allies as its importance requires.

I much hope that this offering, and no doubt others similar, will help towards making the case that only Parliament can take the decision to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Surely no one person, let alone such a single-minded and determined a Brexiter as Prime Minister May, can be left to take Britain out of the European Union on the basis of a referendum so deeply flawed as even this short note has shown? I hope that those far better qualified than I, will put together the readily available information and present properly drawn up evidence of the unacceptability of the referendum result both for the Courts this October, and for the public.   (Article 50 attached)                               

[This may be forwarded to any who may be interested. I would be grateful for comments and for any errors to be drawn to my attention at dipconsult@ hotmail.com]

Article 50                           

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

--------------------------

UCL Constitution Unit note:

The first point to note about Article 50 is that it is a once-and-for-all decision; there is

no turning back once Article 50 has been invoked. If no acceptable withdrawal

agreement has been reached after two years, the exiting Member State is left without

any deal with the EU. It is of course possible to extend the time period. But this is in

the gift of the EU Council and requires its unanimous agreement.

AT LAST HOPE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE UKRAINE

Dipconsult 150526 Ukraine piece

AT LAST – SOME HOPE FOR THE UKRAINE'S FUTURE

Secretary of State John Kerry’s tweet (CNBC 12 May) “Had frank discussions with President Putin & FM Lavrov over key issues including Iran talks, Syria, Ukraine” is truly historic. For it could signal a determination on President Obama’s part to use the last 17 months of his presidency to usher in a period of cooperation in world affairs ending the resurgent neo-conservatives’ push for a Unipolar world dominated by the US. If – and it’s a big if - followed through, despite Republican opposition, there is real hope that the US and the EU can work together with Russia to make the Ukraine the benign hyphen joining the EU west and the Russian east of Europe that it should be instead of the present bone of contention.

Distributing the blame

Part of the Anglo/American media are presenting Kerry’s visit to Putin’s dacha in Sochi as a defeat for the Obama. But a change for the better would be a victory for both, and above all for that rare commodity, common sense. Hopefully the ‘West’s’ media will now come off its all-prevailing mantra that the Ukraine crisis is ‘all Putin’s fault’ and at last take into account what many ‘Western’ experts have long been saying about how the blame for the Ukraine crisis lies with the EU and the US as well as with Russia. There are two recent publications which deserve the attention they have not had. The first is the 10 February report of the House of Lords Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by Lord Tugendhat. It declares that ‘Foreign Office [and by extension the EU’s] shortcomings led to a catastrophic misreading of the mood in the run-up to the Ukraine crisis’. The second is Professor Sakwa’s recent monumental work ‘Frontline Ukraine’ evenhandedly distributing blame on the EU, on President Putin, and on the US.

For months now noted historians John J. Mearsheimer, Margaret Macmillan, and Tarik Cyril Amar have faulted US and EU policies which have ignored Russia’s vital interests. As early as 8 September last year three former US Ambassadors to Russia/USSR signed a New York Times Oped headlined 'Give Diplomacy a Chance' - Jack F. Matlock, Thomas Pickering and James F. Collins. 

EU, US, Russia – their true national interests coincide

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's annual news conference of 21 January and Mr. Gorbachev's grave warning of 29 January can now be seen for what they were – indications that Russia is prepared to negotiate over the Ukraine provided its interests are respected.

Russia has a vital interest in the Ukraine, the EU has a very important interest, the US has no political interest provided the Ukraine is that benign hyphen. It was flouting Russia’s vital national interest in the Ukraine that led to the present crisis. The call for the Ukraine to join NATO was the last straw. And Mr. Putin, with his understandable all but obsessive fear of the US, if defied reaches for his sword; further defied, he uses it.

It is not only President Obama who is under pressure to end the present stand off with Russia. President Putin too, is under pressure. The assassination on 27 February of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsev, who had openly deplored the policies that had brought civil war to the Ukraine, momentarily revealed the depth of Russian middle class resentment of President Putin’s alienation of ‘the West’. Putin is popular in Russia for standing up, as any Russian President must, for Russia’s vital interests – not for a Ukrainian civil war that’s in the interest of no one – particularly the hapless Ukrainians. So if Putin is made an offer that Russia “cannot refuse”, he is likely to take it.

Prospects for agreement on the status of the Ukraine

Last year the stage was at last set for serious negotiations about the shape of a Ukrainian settlement. For the European Union (Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande) had begun direct talks about the Ukraine with Russia (President Putin) without the US being directly involved, yet with the involvement of all the Ukrainian parties. These ongoing discussions could now have far greater potential to result in negotiations to end the civil war and determine the future status of the Ukraine.

There is too, a growing awareness that neither ‘the West’ nor Russia can afford to make more enemies than they already have. They both need partners: think climate change, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. And good EU/Russia relations will largely determine whether a much needed era of cooperation replaces these times of confrontation. President Obama was right when he famously remarked that in today’s world you can’t get much done without Russia.

  

The shape of an agreement

In an article of mine before the annexation of the Crimea (14 March 2014), I urged that negotiations be opened which would include the lease of Russia's bases in the Crimea (Russia's No 1 vital interest in the Ukraine) being renewed in perpetuity as part of a package. It’s too late for that now, but important Russian concessions over the governance of the Crimea could still be sought in return for Russian agreement on the whole package which would include Ukraine not joining any military alliance.

Given Ukraine's economic plight due to misgovernance and corruption, any package could include the EU matching Putin's offer (since withdrawn) of $15bn in aid - the $30bn assessed as the Ukraine's minimum requirement topped up with the IMF loan. Any preferential economic treatment for the Ukraine to be granted to both the EU and Russia; a joint EU/Russia commission for the Ukraine, based in Kiev, to signal any breach of the agreement and to coordinate such an EU/Russia "Marshall Plan". Obviously, all this would need to be fleshed out, but something along these lines would provide the basis for the future status of the Ukraine. Such a proposition would likely be received with relief by most Ukrainians – but they would of course need to have the last word in a properly conducted referendum.

So all at once, after Mr. Kerry’s three hours with Mr. Lavrov and four hours with President Putin, there is a real prospect of a change of US and EU policies towards the Ukraine which could be palatable to Russia. Now is up to the EU to have its own ‘Sochi’ moment’ with Putin and Lavrov, and then work together with all the Ukrainian parties to make of the Ukraine that essential hyphen joining the east and west of Europe. 

But both the US and Russia are big ships – and big ships are hard to turn around particularly when there are those on the bridge who are trying seize the wheel: unipolar neo-conservatives in the US and the KGB ‘Silovki’ who came in when Putin arrived on the world stage. It will be hard for Kerry and Lavrov to keep the ear of their bosses. The media could do much to help them.    

 [1,164 words inc headlines.