Wednesday 2 August 2017

YouGov and Reasons Why People Voted To Leave

The YouGov poll just published, reviewed here, tells us some people are prepared to see a hit to the UK economy for Brexit to happen.  Even if it means them or a family member losing their jobs.  But why those people feel so strongly? I haven't seen YouGov say   Let's consider this and the consequences for Brexit.

In my experience of Leavers I've spoken to, they can be put into a number of distinct groups, in descending order of enthusiasm for Brexit:
  1. Brexiters who are Europhobic.  They can't stand the EU in any form, and want a complete break, whatever the consequences.  Their mind is set, and nothing will shift it
  2. Those who have thought it through, and see more to back Leave than Remain. Typically close to six of one, half a dozen of the other.  They too are sticking to that decision.
  3. Labour voters in areas where there is high immigration, and strong competition for housing. Perhaps they hadn't realised how Brexit would hit their pockets, but it is now.
  4. People I know who made their decision in the polling booth, no doubt what "felt right" more than logic
  5. People I know who were taken in by the £350m bus, or hadn't taken account of something important I've since told them. For example the black cabbie, usually well informed, who didn't realise the risk to the City and thus his livelihood.
  6. People who literally tossed a coin, or used some other non-personal method.  I know of a group of 5 who voted Leave on that basis.
That is consistent with polls suggesting there is still strong support for Leave.  People made their decision, and many are sticking to it. Pride perhaps?  It may take more than a summer of rising food prices and expensive foreign holidays to shift the view of many people.

Certainly groups 1 and 2 won't be shifted.  But groups 4, 5 and 6 may well change their minds, as might group 3.

When it comes to why they voted, the interesting group is group 2.  Every person I have spoken to has said the issue is that they want the relationship to be a trading one, and are concerned about the UK being sucked into a United States of Europe. On balance they think we should leave whilst we can.  The issues haven't been the ECJ specifically nor freedom of movement, as these may well come with a trading relationship.

They even acknowledge that clamping down on British borders means the inevitable clamp down on Brits being able to live and work around the EU.  But coupled with the reliance on EU workers on which industries such as our farms and coffee shops rely, these are reasons I believe we should continue freedom of movement, and a key reason to have voted Remain.

Housing is an issue being blamed on immigrants from the EU, in parts of Lincolnshire and around the country.  We should tackle the housing problem directly. Brexit is not the answer for group 3.

In that case the dominant issue we need to address is avoiding becoming a state within the United States of Europe. Call it "sovereignty" if you like, but that term is usually wider.

What if the Referendum question last year, or indeed now, was to ask if people wanted to be part of a European trading bloc, but otherwise out of the EU? A two-tier Europe.  I suspect the answer would be well over 80% in support.  A clear super-majority.

This would mean the trading relationship was fundamentally unaltered, with littel or no transition needed. A few other functions would need trnsition, but often cooperation could still occur.  In which case, I would support a vote for a two-tier Europe.

As shown in the assessment of the YouGov results,  Britain did not vote to be poorer or less secure.

If anything can be salvaged from this Brexit mess, it is becoming part of a European trading bloc outside of the EU.  A two-tier Europe. Otherwise we must stop Brexit.

HOW CAN A TWO-TIER EUROPE BE ACHIEVED?

Focus for Brexit now is on the EEA (European Economic Area).  This is what's really the Single Market (formerly Common Market) consisting of all EU countries plus a few others, in particular Norway.  But not Turkey, which is part of a Customs Union with the EU.

The "Norway option" would involve continuing our current trading relationship with Europe, continuing free movement or people, and continuing to make significant budgetary contributions to the EU.  But with no say in the rules under which trade operates. Even the Norwegians have said it would not be suitable for the UK.

But something based on the EEA might.  EEAplus.

Let's imagine that say 35 countries in Europe held a conference with an open mind to discuss the future of the "European Project":
  • 28 of them are in the European Union
  • 19 of these use the euro and so are in the "Eurozone" (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain)
  • The other 9 use their own currency, including the UK and Sweden
  • A few others have a close trading relationship with the EU, and use their own currency, including Norway and Switerland
  • Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU.  There are a lot of voices against them joining the EU
  • There is a Schengen area where there are no border controls on movement  of people.  This includes Norway, but excludes both UK and Ireland.
  • There is a land border between Ireland (Eire) and the UK's Northern Ireland
How about a two-tier Europe?:
  1. Countries in the Eurozone, committed to greater political union
  2. Countries outside the Eurozone, like the UK, who have their own currency and only want to have a strong free trading relationship with the Eurozone
This is a serious idea.  In recent months there have been a number of articles on this idea in the Financial Times, no less.  Here's one. 

A two-tier Europe would mean:
  • Eurozone and non-Eurozone members having an equal say in how the combined trading bloc runs. Better than Norway today.
  • Both groups would contribute to central European funds,  UK;s contribution may reduce
  • Freedom of movement of people across both zones.  Immigration problems in each country would need to be dealt with by other means, although options like emergency brakes could be allowed
  • The current Schengen arrangements could continue, both for countries in and countries out
  • A specific solution to the Irish border would still be needed - some ideas here
  • All non-Eurozone countries would be in on the same terms.  The Brexit negotiations would set those terms
  • The ECJ would have no jurisdiction over non-Eurozone countries, but there would need to be some legal hierarchy and a top Court
  • Countries would have the option of being in the Eurozone or not, if they qualify. 
  • Countries like Turkey could possibly join the non-Euro group without joining the full EU
  • Leaving the Euro to join the non-Euro group would be painful but possible. That could be right for Greece for example, possibly others.
  • Countries like Sweden that still have their own currency could follow the UK out of the EU and into the non-Eurozone group
  • That would still leave at least a core of 15 Eurozone countries that can steam ahead into a United States of Europe
Those officials within the EU machine that are devoted to a United States of Europe may scream about this.  But that project can still steam ahead, and two tiers may prove the USE's salvation.

We'd effectively have an "EEAplus".  Indeed the EEA's top Court would already be in place.

Back in the UK there is now a cross-party APPG for Brexit, consisting of MPs looking to keep the UK in the Single Market.

The EU negotiators are complaining the UK negotiators don't know what the the UK wants.  That's partly because Leavers want different things, and the government has not agreed on a single vision.

If only that vision was for a two-tier Europe withn the Uk in a EEAplus.  That I think would satisfy the vast majority of people in the UK.  A few Brexiters unhappy, but you can't please everyone!

Perhaps the APPG can take the lead.  Politically how is the question.  Here's the answer!


No comments:

Post a Comment