Brexit: a nation in turmoil with no clear solution

The British government will be heard by the Supreme Court on December 5th. © Flickr António Jorge Gonçalves

Six months after the referendum that slipped the UK’s moorings of a common Europe, the British Parliament was said to “have no plan for Brexit”. Britain is now immersed in a legal imbroglio as to trigger Article 50 and to guarantee its permanence in the single market while securing control of immigration.

When Prime Minister Theresa May said “Brexit means Brexit”, she was not fully aware of the meaning of her own words. In fact, after the British people voted on June 23 to leave the European Union, they couldn’t know where they were heading. Almost six months after the decisive plebiscite, the country realised they had entered a dull legal and bureaucratic train.  

Once revealed the referendum’s final verdict, the UK was poised to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets the conditions in which a Member State leaves the Union within a period of two years. After a swift transition of power from Conservative David Cameron to Theresa May, the current PM built up a new cabinet including two new posts strategically put in place to deal with the withdrawal process. The new post of Secretary of State for Exiting the EU was appointed to David Davis while Liam Fox became Secretary of State for International Trade.

 High Court ruling and Brexit uncertainty

In early October, Theresa May announced she would trigger Article 5O by the end of March. However, the recent ruling of the UK High Court mandating that the British Parliament must be consulted prior to triggering Article 50 has brought further hassle to the British political scene.

Since Article 50 was only created in late 2009 and it has never been used, British politicians have been trying to grasp what to do in order to ease the divorce process. The parliament has a considerable amount of work on their hands but no one seems to know exactly how to proceed. In fact, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday (November 15), based on a leaked memo, that the “UK has no Brexit plan”. Apparently leaked by Deloitte, the note suggests it will take six months more for the government to decide what it wants to achieve from Brexit. Moreover, the document “estimates that an additional 30,000 extra civil servants could be required to meet the workload”.

After the immediate impact of the leaked memo in the media, PM Theresa May ‘s spokeswoman told journalists during a briefing that the document “was not commissioned by the Government” rather it was produced by an individual from an external accountancy firm that was “not working for the government”.

The unknown Brexit road

Rowing against the legal tide, the UK Prime Minister has vowed to continue Brexit plans. Defending her stance, Theresa May addressed the British people this time writing for the Sunday Telegraph: “Parliament voted to put the decision about our membership of the EU in the hands of the British people. The people made their choice, and did so decisively. It is the responsibility of the government to get on with the job and to carry out their instruction in full.”

Yet, the feeling of vagueness and uncertainty in the political scene is palpable.  May’s senior opponents have claimed they won’t approve Brexit negotiations if there’s no openness during debates. Labour’s Baroness Smith said: “We want to know how the Government sees the relationship with Europe. But at the moment all we’ve got is ‘we want a balance, we want to have a good working relationship, we’re in until we’re out.’ It’s just too general and too bland.”

Speaking to the Class think tank, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for more “transparency” and “accountability” to the Parliament regarding the government’s plans: "I suspect the government opposes democratic scrutiny of its plans because frankly there aren't any plans. There are no plans beyond the hollow rhetoric, which they keep on repeating - apparently - that Brexit means Brexit,'' accused Corbyn.

On a similar note of displease, Sir Simon Fraser, a former civil servant heading the Foreign Office told MPs he thinks the country has no plan to leave the EU: “My understanding is that it is indeed proving to be a very considerable challenge in Whitehall to do this [drawing up a Brexit plan], that the government has not yet reached the point where - it is still in information-gathering mode and is not yet at the point of integrating that into a central plan. And that, I assume, will have to happen before the triggering of article 50 next year.

And I agree that this is a huge burden, a huge additional load, for the civil service. This is an extraordinary complex range of activity across a wide range of domestic and international policies and it will definitely impose a great burden on the civil service,” Fraser continued during the Brexit Committee on Wednesday (November 16).

How the British people perceive the Brexit management by the government. © Ipsos MORI poll    

Can the process be overturned?

Even though the “Remain” voters may be hoping for an opportunity to revert Brexit, it seems unlikely that the process will be reverted. After the High Court’s decision, the UK government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court and is expecting to be heard on December 5. If the government loses the appeal, it is expected to bring forward an Act of Parliament early next year, this way starting negotiation talks between MPs.

Some British politicians have confirmed their readiness to vote against Brexit. The leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron said the party would oppose Article 50 unless a second referendum is considered. Nevertheless, both the Conservatives and the Labour Party have ruled out another referendum, claiming that it would be an undemocratic violation of trust with the British constituency who voted to “Leave”. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn said they have accepted the result of the referendum but they won’t let go of the single market. “We are not calling for a second referendum. We're calling for market access for British industry to Europe,” said Corbyn.”

Brexit has thrown the very territorial integrity of the United Kingdom into question, too. With no surprises, Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, has confirmed that the Scottish government will seek to be heard in the Article 50, naturally opposing Brexit.

 UK as a global actor

Concerned for the UK’s future, Sir Simon Fraser warned that the UK will jeopardise its global influence if it abandons the single market. “No matter how well we manage the process and however good the assets we have, structurally it is going to be much more difficult to exert global influence after Brexit,” noted Fraser while speaking at King’s College.

However, Brendan Simms proposed a different approach in an article for the Foreign Affairs magazine. Simms analysed how the UK could negotiate the UK’s maintenance in the single market. “The United Kingdom will remind the Europeans that most of them are not paying their relatively modest security dues of 2 percent of GDP to NATO. And just as the EU will warn the United Kingdom that it cannot cherry-pick, Britain will tell the EU that it cannot expect the British military to do the dirty work of protection and then refuse to let Britain share in the economic benefits that the wider EU enjoys thanks to those protections.”

While the divorce process is underway, European leaders are planning Brexit discussions without the UK. This decision came as a blow to May who had requested the EU not to convene without her presence. According to The Guardian, Council President Donald Tusk wants Member States to hold talks in a summit around December 15-16, disregarding May’s wishes.

Trump’s impact on the UK

The victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections has brought more uncertainty to the general British panorama. While it’s still difficult to analyse the impact of Trump’s triumph in the UK (and elsewhere), we could think of two possible scenarios. First, the UK comprehends that now more than ever it’s time for social union and eases the exit process together with the EU, as amicably as possible. Second, the UK believes that it will have a “special relationship” across seas, and is confident on future trade deals that will presumably boost the country as a global actor. While the first option seems more difficult to achieve given the current British internal political rows and incertitude as well as the conflict with EU’s terms (single market and free movement of people), the second alternative is all but speculation, as we still have to wait two months before Trump takes office, on January 20.

Yet, it is commonly known that President-elect Donald Trump felt inspired by the Brexit outcome, as he has mentioned during the presidential campaign. Donald’s stance towards the UK has made politicians such as right-wing UKIP’s Nigel Farage – the first UK politician to meet Trump after the elections – with bubbling euphoria and enthusiasm. Farage even offered to help the UK government in negotiations during Trump’s transition. A proposal that was declined by Theresa May.

Thus, the posed question remains: will the UK stick with its European counterparts, regardless of its exit from the Union, or will it be confident on its own greatness as an independent global actor?

Immigration, Huntington and the EU

Article published in Cafebabel

Jamaica airport immigration desk. rickpilot_2000 © Flickr

A serious debate on immigration is still going on in the EU after the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean. How should Europe respond to immigration? History has been shaped by migration and the EU must learn from the past to win the challenges of the future. 

 Leave or die 

Back in the XIX century, between 1845 and 1852, the Great Famine happened in Ireland, leading to the death of around 1 million of Irish people who suddenly were deprived of food, specifically potatoes, which by that time represented 80% of their food supply, specially for the poorest segment of the population. One of the biggest social consequences of this disaster was, naturally, immigration. 

The first wave of massive immigration to the United States defines this period in History, when nearly one million of famine Irish immigrants searched for hope and took their traditions and religions with them. Fifty years later, during the 1900’s, the United States was home for 8.8 million people who had arrived from a little bit everywhere in the world, increasing the total population every single year. By 1970, immigrants represented 4.7 percent of the US population and it grew to 6.2 percent in 1980. As of 2010, 25% of US population under the age of 18 were first or second generation immigrants. Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were from illegal immigrant parents, according to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center. 

Immigration is still going on 

This complex demographic phenomenon keeps on growing and contemporary immigrants account, nowadays, for around 44% of the US population as a whole! In the XIX century, people were coming mainly from Europe, but since the United States admitted more legal immigrants, between 1991-2000, there was an abrupt movement of people coming from Mexico, China, India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, and other countries. 

Furthermore, a survey from the Census Bureau showed that by 2050, one quarter of the American population will be of Hispanic descent. Also, the same research centre estimated the US’ population to be around 319.000.000. The United States is the third most populous nation in the world, after China and India, and the world’s largest national economy fuelled by high productivity. 

Where does all this lead us? If we think of immigration as an engine development rather than a colossal attack against our principles and traditions, we would see the other side of the coin and stop making such a big problem over it. 

Samuel Huntington. © World Economic Forum 

A cultural problem 

As Samuel Huntington wisely defended on his work, The Clash of Civilizations, 1992, the age of ideology would end and the world would only revert to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his anthropological and social thesis, he argued that the principal axis of conflict in the future would be along cultural and religious lines. 

Multiculturalism is good for the development of a society and also for the Human progress. What is happening nowadays across the European Union is purely not acceptable. First and foremost, because we are speaking about people in need: migrants trying to reach our continent, fleeing from war, poverty and diseases. 

The circus in the British media as well as France, Hungary and many other countries, is based on internal political fears, and second, they are not true. Evidence shows that immigrants in Britain have been creating wealth to the UK, having contributed with £20 billion to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011, according to a research led by two migration economists at University College. The most outrageous of all of this condemnation is the fact that immigrants pay out far more taxes than they receive benefits. Let us congratulate, for once, Merkel’s stance towards Mr. Cameron, regarding his attempt to free movement of people to the UK. Why forbid people to cross one’s territory but still make free way for their national products? Should European leaders be barred of drinking coffee coming from Africa? What about the petrol coming from the Middle East? Should it also be denied entry in the EU?

If History can teach us something, is to make us look back and see the retreats and the progresses from the past and learn with them. In a quick overview over the past century, immigration has made the world move forward as many of the immigrants from yesterday made the world we are living today. Unfortunately, we are living in an era where the pursuit of power is the norm and the respect for the human being as a person it appears to be fading away.

Immigration at the top of the Agenda after Conflict between Cameron and Clegg

Article published in Cafebabel

Banksy's portrait about immigration in the UK. Duncan Hall © Flickr

After the quarrel between Conservatives and Lib Dems over the referendum, immigration is at the top of the UK’s political discussion, with Germany fiercely opposing Cameron’s plans. 

The UK is facing difficult moments as their decision-making process is, somehow, very dependent on Europe’s approval. And Europe is not happy with Cameron. In fact, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already shown her opposition to Cameron’s desire of a renegotiation plan regarding migration policies. “Germany will not tamper with the fundamental principles of free movement in the EU,” Merkel said. 

Despite this steady stance from Germany, Cameron has indicated he will make changes within the union. The UK prime minister intends to prepare a manifesto, pledging to bring in quotas for low-skilled migrants from the EU. However, let us remember Cameron’s promises to bring annual immigration down before the last general election, which have completely failed. 

Disorder reins among Conservatives 

But the issue around migrants remains, as Conservative Michael Fallon’s comments made even more controversial when he said that some parts of Britain are “swamped with immigrants.” Later, pressured or not by his fellows conservatives, Mr. Fallon admitted his migrant remark was careless. The atmosphere amongst Conservatives is tense, and disorder reins in a party on the verge of facing elections. 

This lack of cohesion was seen when Tory Minister Nick Boles said that the UK can’t control immigration. “Britain does not have control over immigration into the country, and voters have to accept that as a member of the European Union, that will always be the case,” Mr. Boles said to the Huffington Post. 

Furthermore, he believes the prime minister’s pledge to crack down on inward migration was an attempt to compete with UKIP, as the by-elections are approaching and its supporters are reaching a record high after the EU bid to get £1.7 billion off the UK, according to a ComRes poll. 

EU referendum: ruling parties blame each other 

However, the icing on the cake for the Conservatives happened after the coalition bid for the EU referendum collapsed after a Tory and Lib Dem row. Both parties kept blaming each other for the failure. Conservatives accused Nick Clegg of undermining the legislation by putting an impossible £1 billion price tag on his support whilst the Lib Dems denied all the claims, accusing the Conservatives of pulling the plug on their own bill in a bid to gain the advantage in their battle with the UKIP.