What was it actually supposed to accomplish? I mean, I’m an American who mostly followed the whole thing via UK chat and panel shows so I’m sure I missed a ton of detail, but I don’t remember there being an over-arching goal, just a lot of little nebulous promises like somehow generating an extra 350 million a week for the NHS, but with no actual plan for how any of that was actually going to happen. It seemed like the whole point was to let xenophobic shit disturbers flick the Vs at Europe, and the vague notion that once Brexit was done it’d finally be open season on “those bloody immigrants.”
The reason why it happened is that the Conservative Party government was wildly unpopular in 2013-2014 with all of the indications being that Ed Miliband’s Labour Party were going to storm the Conservatives at the 2015 General Election. Furthermore, ever since the Thatcher governments of the 1980s, the Conservatives were weakened by the ‘Eurosceptic’ branch of their party often being vocal, disruptive, difficult to work with, and harming the ‘Not the Nasty Party’ narrative Conservative Party Central HQ (CCHQ) had often tried to push in the 90s and the 00s.
Offering a referendum on the European Union therefore had two advantages:
It was a substantial, concrete policy idea that would be easy to implement and massively popular with a certain portion of the populace, not massively unpopular with the other portions, and which Labour would never offer.
By having a popular ‘stamp of approval’ on the European Union, CCHQ believed it would permanently weaken and weaken the difficult Eurosceptic portion of their party.
This is of course on the assumption that the referendum passed. And never let anyone tell you otherwise, David Cameron (then-PM) and George Osbourne (then-Chancellor; finance secretary and 2nd most important cabinet member) absolutely would not have proposed the referendum if they believed it had any chance of failing.
Furthermore, they assumed they’d be out of government and the referendum would never see the light of day. To the arrogant, and out-of-touch Cameron and Osbourne the policy was all upside.
As it happens, for a variety of reasons, the Conservatives actually won the 2015 General Election with a majority (whereas they were in a coalition before). And, as promised, a referendum was planned.
Ideological basis
For a substantial period of time (late 18th-century to mid-20th century), Britain was unquestionably the most powerful empire in the world. This is within living memory. The culture and expectation of Britain being a 1st rate world power is something that has only begun to fade within the past couple of generations. But a significant number of older people (people who vote) were raised and educated with the fair understanding that Britain was a superpower. For example, all of my grandparents and most of great Uncles and Aunts were being educated at a time when Britain still held all of India and most of Africa.
Since the Second World War, Britain’s place in the world has unquestionably declined. We no longer have the Empire. We racked up tremendous amounts of debt to the United States. For periods in the 1970s, Britain was widely considered the ‘sick man’ of Europe. The feel good moments of the 1990s and Cool Britannia were quickly doused by the War in Iraq, where Tony Blair was universally seen as a puppet of the Bush administration.
Since the 1980s in-particular, life has changed for many in the United Kingdom beyond recognition. Trade unions were razed. Income disparity has skyrocketed. Town centres have become neglected. Internal tourism has been decimated. Cities like Leicester started becoming majority-minority. 2008 and the Great Recession tumbled the New Labour government and brought in a Conservative government. All parties at the 2010 general election bought into the consensus that the only way the country would survive would be to gut public sector spending. Healthcare would worsen. Education would worsen. Adult social care would worsen. Local government services would worsen.
A very large number of people came to the rational conclusion that, at least for them, their lives had gotten worse and would continue to get worse. But how does one consolidate this very clear observation with:
The Queen
Rule Britannia
Two World Wars; One World Cup
Largest empire ever known to man
The Second World War in-general, and the Battle of Britain in-particular
A lot of the media attempted to bridge this issue with a scapegoat: the European Union.
Euroscepticism
Euroscepticism first found a voice with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. She often disagreed with a significant number of the leaders on the continent and didn’t appreciate being limited in how she could act.
Thoughout the 1990s and the 2000s, the whole media knew they could gather attention by blaming various problems on the European Union. A notable young journalist, Boris Johnson, was particularly renowned for the ludicrous and inaccurate stories he wrote on European Union directives.
The European Union was an outstanding scapegoat:
It was ‘foreign’
It was ‘undemocratic’
It was ‘bureaucratic’
It had something for everyone. Before the result of the referendum, you’d never hear anyone defend the EU. It was seen by most of its defenders as a necessary evil in a world we could no longer rule, and isn’t it nice you don’t need a visa to go to Spain? No positive case was ever put forward by anyone. There was little point to. There was never any risk of us leaving.
Now, the European Union is an imperfect project. However, thanks to the economic and cultural connections brought about by the EU, Western Europe is at the lowest risk of internal armed conflict in millennia of history. Europeans are more familiar with one another than they’ve ever been before. Smaller states such as Ireland remain independent and sovereign but now have defenders, and allies, and representatives that allow them to assert themselves globally.
These arguments hold much less weight on an island nation, that hasn’t known armed conflict within its borders since the Glorious Revolution (excluding Ireland), who within living memory had the power and the influence to dominate half the globe.
No one appreciated the EU until it was already too late. And all of the rich newspaper editors who made bank on peddling lies about this foreign government to a lost, and disaffected public thought it’d be consequence free.
Conclusion
What was it supposed to accomplish? Nothing. The referendum was never supposed to happen, and if it did, it was never meant to pass. No one with any power or influence had any idea on what to do. What Brexit would look like. What some fringe politicians had promised was an emotional return to self-government, wealth, power, influence, independence. A turning back of the clock.
Excellent post. If there is an equivalent of /r/bestof this would be worthy. It is super telling that rather than stick around and deal with the ramifications of the referendum, Cameron immediately resigned. Another point of context is that Cameron had gambled his political life previously on a different referendum (Scottish Independence) and that one worked out fine, so what is the harm in trying that gambit one more time?
Wow, thank you :) that’s an amazing compliment. Brexit has the dangerous combination of tremendous emotional investment and piquing my interest in domestic politics. Hence the rant 😂
This is a great post but I would say that there were some people who were absolutely dedicated to achieving Brexit and in large part their participation can be explained by the proposed financial transaction tax.
The idea that a supra-national entity might be able to impose a tax that could be difficult to mitigate was absolutely intolerable to various millionaires and billionaires e.g. The Telegraph owning Barclay Brothers. Any downsides from the resulting chaos, which in any case would only affect the working and lower middle classes, would be more than offset by the ability to bank offshore and retain their profits untaxed.
You’re absolutely correct and if there’s one thing I wish I included it would’ve been a ‘charitable’ description of the possibilities of Brexit. The reason why it wasn’t included is that I think the actual motivations of the arch-Brexiteers within parliament and the media aren’t a contributing factor to why Brexit happened. They certainly had a vision for a potential Brexit but I don’t think that played any role in the decision to hold a referendum, and I believe only a very small subset of the 52% voted Leave did so because they shared the ‘Singapore with worse weather’ vision of the Brexit elite.
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to point out that Brexit wouldn’t have happened without some fairly serious money being put behind it (UKIP’s funding had to come from somewhere and there were not one but two pro-Brexit campaigns Vote Leave and LeaveEU) and that money had to spent with a purpose.
Smaller states such as Ireland remain independent and sovereign but now have defenders, and allies, and representatives that allow them to assert themselves globally.
This is quite a long-winded way of saying that we’re a puppet state, money laundry and unsinkable aircraft carrier for the USA.
Remain “More of the same but we will try make it better”
Brexit “the current situation is shit and everyone’s giving you the same old arguments again don’t trust them. If you vote Brexit we can have all your dreams come true”
Remain was one option. Brexit was about 5 different options depending on who was pushing it. So Brexit offered a lot more options in a sort of Schrodinger’s paradox.
Basically what was being offered was more freedom to make our own choices and not have the EU pulling us down. Not having to have the stupid EU rules and not having to pay the stupid EU money, we could keep all our fish and be rich. It offered power, freedom, growth, wealth. (In reality we had great veto powers, we could help form rules, the EU membership was a bargain, who gives a fuck about fish).
Also Boris Johnson is a massive [can we swear here?]. And would sell his own children for his own personal gain, but for some reason is loved by the British, seen it as a way to make a name for himself by going against the grain and pushing for something no logical person would vote for. When that unexpectedly came true he hid in a fridge and ran away for a few months (actually true).
It was an absolute shower and just shows how uneducated the British public is. It’s their own God damn fault all the info was out there, someone just said what they wanted to hear and they believed it.
The campaign talked of frictionless trade deals with Europe, but while it looked good on paper the small print came littered with problems that made trade slightly harder than it had been as a member. The new customs processes has seen haulers transporting goods needing to fill out extra paperwork while new infrastructure has been needed to deal with queues.
The UK adopted a new points based immigration system, a promise of the Vote Leave campaign, in January 2021. This removed the right for EU workers to come to the UK without a visa and implemented the target to cut immigration to the tens of thousands. The target does appear unlikely, given the number of residence visas issued was higher in the year ending June 2022 than in any year since records began - with 1.2 million issued. Meanwhile, Brexit has created a shortage of 330,000 workers in UK.
This is some of the rhetoric the Leave campaign used to garner votes, but none of it is what it was supposed to accomplish.
The architects of Brexit were proponents of William Reese-Mogg’s ideology of the Sovereign Individual, which basically states that the wealthy should be above the law and outside the pervue of the state. It also calls for the collapse of democracy, via the withholding of the rich’s wealth from the state via tax immunity.
It’s still unclear whether the Sovereign Individualists will succeed in their goals, but they haven’t failed yet, and Brexit was a necessity hurdle on their journey.
I watched a DW video about some woman who voted for Brexit running a shellfish farm and with all the new regulations she’s dealing with very short shelf life seafood that has to get to the EU with a bunch more red tape.
She is losing money and might have to sell her side business because of all the excessive fees she now has to pay to get her seafood out of the country.
Totally a leopards ate my face party member.
What was it actually supposed to accomplish? I mean, I’m an American who mostly followed the whole thing via UK chat and panel shows so I’m sure I missed a ton of detail, but I don’t remember there being an over-arching goal, just a lot of little nebulous promises like somehow generating an extra 350 million a week for the NHS, but with no actual plan for how any of that was actually going to happen. It seemed like the whole point was to let xenophobic shit disturbers flick the Vs at Europe, and the vague notion that once Brexit was done it’d finally be open season on “those bloody immigrants.”
OK, so…
Political necessity?
The reason why it happened is that the Conservative Party government was wildly unpopular in 2013-2014 with all of the indications being that Ed Miliband’s Labour Party were going to storm the Conservatives at the 2015 General Election. Furthermore, ever since the Thatcher governments of the 1980s, the Conservatives were weakened by the ‘Eurosceptic’ branch of their party often being vocal, disruptive, difficult to work with, and harming the ‘Not the Nasty Party’ narrative Conservative Party Central HQ (CCHQ) had often tried to push in the 90s and the 00s.
Offering a referendum on the European Union therefore had two advantages:
This is of course on the assumption that the referendum passed. And never let anyone tell you otherwise, David Cameron (then-PM) and George Osbourne (then-Chancellor; finance secretary and 2nd most important cabinet member) absolutely would not have proposed the referendum if they believed it had any chance of failing.
Furthermore, they assumed they’d be out of government and the referendum would never see the light of day. To the arrogant, and out-of-touch Cameron and Osbourne the policy was all upside.
As it happens, for a variety of reasons, the Conservatives actually won the 2015 General Election with a majority (whereas they were in a coalition before). And, as promised, a referendum was planned.
Ideological basis
For a substantial period of time (late 18th-century to mid-20th century), Britain was unquestionably the most powerful empire in the world. This is within living memory. The culture and expectation of Britain being a 1st rate world power is something that has only begun to fade within the past couple of generations. But a significant number of older people (people who vote) were raised and educated with the fair understanding that Britain was a superpower. For example, all of my grandparents and most of great Uncles and Aunts were being educated at a time when Britain still held all of India and most of Africa.
Since the Second World War, Britain’s place in the world has unquestionably declined. We no longer have the Empire. We racked up tremendous amounts of debt to the United States. For periods in the 1970s, Britain was widely considered the ‘sick man’ of Europe. The feel good moments of the 1990s and Cool Britannia were quickly doused by the War in Iraq, where Tony Blair was universally seen as a puppet of the Bush administration.
Since the 1980s in-particular, life has changed for many in the United Kingdom beyond recognition. Trade unions were razed. Income disparity has skyrocketed. Town centres have become neglected. Internal tourism has been decimated. Cities like Leicester started becoming majority-minority. 2008 and the Great Recession tumbled the New Labour government and brought in a Conservative government. All parties at the 2010 general election bought into the consensus that the only way the country would survive would be to gut public sector spending. Healthcare would worsen. Education would worsen. Adult social care would worsen. Local government services would worsen.
A very large number of people came to the rational conclusion that, at least for them, their lives had gotten worse and would continue to get worse. But how does one consolidate this very clear observation with:
A lot of the media attempted to bridge this issue with a scapegoat: the European Union.
Euroscepticism
Euroscepticism first found a voice with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. She often disagreed with a significant number of the leaders on the continent and didn’t appreciate being limited in how she could act.
Thoughout the 1990s and the 2000s, the whole media knew they could gather attention by blaming various problems on the European Union. A notable young journalist, Boris Johnson, was particularly renowned for the ludicrous and inaccurate stories he wrote on European Union directives.
The European Union was an outstanding scapegoat:
It had something for everyone. Before the result of the referendum, you’d never hear anyone defend the EU. It was seen by most of its defenders as a necessary evil in a world we could no longer rule, and isn’t it nice you don’t need a visa to go to Spain? No positive case was ever put forward by anyone. There was little point to. There was never any risk of us leaving.
Now, the European Union is an imperfect project. However, thanks to the economic and cultural connections brought about by the EU, Western Europe is at the lowest risk of internal armed conflict in millennia of history. Europeans are more familiar with one another than they’ve ever been before. Smaller states such as Ireland remain independent and sovereign but now have defenders, and allies, and representatives that allow them to assert themselves globally.
These arguments hold much less weight on an island nation, that hasn’t known armed conflict within its borders since the Glorious Revolution (excluding Ireland), who within living memory had the power and the influence to dominate half the globe.
No one appreciated the EU until it was already too late. And all of the rich newspaper editors who made bank on peddling lies about this foreign government to a lost, and disaffected public thought it’d be consequence free.
Conclusion
What was it supposed to accomplish? Nothing. The referendum was never supposed to happen, and if it did, it was never meant to pass. No one with any power or influence had any idea on what to do. What Brexit would look like. What some fringe politicians had promised was an emotional return to self-government, wealth, power, influence, independence. A turning back of the clock.
Excellent post. If there is an equivalent of /r/bestof this would be worthy. It is super telling that rather than stick around and deal with the ramifications of the referendum, Cameron immediately resigned. Another point of context is that Cameron had gambled his political life previously on a different referendum (Scottish Independence) and that one worked out fine, so what is the harm in trying that gambit one more time?
Wow, thank you :) that’s an amazing compliment. Brexit has the dangerous combination of tremendous emotional investment and piquing my interest in domestic politics. Hence the rant 😂
You could make one!
This is a superb comment! Thanks for taking the time to post it
And what they delivered instead was essentially Britain becoming a de-facto US-client state.
Gee, it’s almost as if you can’t trust right-wingers these days.
Well this was insanely insightful, thank you
This is a great post but I would say that there were some people who were absolutely dedicated to achieving Brexit and in large part their participation can be explained by the proposed financial transaction tax.
The idea that a supra-national entity might be able to impose a tax that could be difficult to mitigate was absolutely intolerable to various millionaires and billionaires e.g. The Telegraph owning Barclay Brothers. Any downsides from the resulting chaos, which in any case would only affect the working and lower middle classes, would be more than offset by the ability to bank offshore and retain their profits untaxed.
You’re absolutely correct and if there’s one thing I wish I included it would’ve been a ‘charitable’ description of the possibilities of Brexit. The reason why it wasn’t included is that I think the actual motivations of the arch-Brexiteers within parliament and the media aren’t a contributing factor to why Brexit happened. They certainly had a vision for a potential Brexit but I don’t think that played any role in the decision to hold a referendum, and I believe only a very small subset of the 52% voted Leave did so because they shared the ‘Singapore with worse weather’ vision of the Brexit elite.
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to point out that Brexit wouldn’t have happened without some fairly serious money being put behind it (UKIP’s funding had to come from somewhere and there were not one but two pro-Brexit campaigns Vote Leave and LeaveEU) and that money had to spent with a purpose.
This is quite a long-winded way of saying that we’re a puppet state, money laundry and unsinkable aircraft carrier for the USA.
I will not abide you talking Britain down…
… we also launder Russian money.
As a “foreigner” from the continent, thank you so much for taking the time to so clearly summarise this complex situation.
Incredible explanation that captures how I’ve felt/viewed the whole debacle.
Great post dude.
And they would have gotten away w/ it if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!
Remain “More of the same but we will try make it better”
Brexit “the current situation is shit and everyone’s giving you the same old arguments again don’t trust them. If you vote Brexit we can have all your dreams come true”
Remain was one option. Brexit was about 5 different options depending on who was pushing it. So Brexit offered a lot more options in a sort of Schrodinger’s paradox.
Basically what was being offered was more freedom to make our own choices and not have the EU pulling us down. Not having to have the stupid EU rules and not having to pay the stupid EU money, we could keep all our fish and be rich. It offered power, freedom, growth, wealth. (In reality we had great veto powers, we could help form rules, the EU membership was a bargain, who gives a fuck about fish).
Also Boris Johnson is a massive [can we swear here?]. And would sell his own children for his own personal gain, but for some reason is loved by the British, seen it as a way to make a name for himself by going against the grain and pushing for something no logical person would vote for. When that unexpectedly came true he hid in a fridge and ran away for a few months (actually true).
It was an absolute shower and just shows how uneducated the British public is. It’s their own God damn fault all the info was out there, someone just said what they wanted to hear and they believed it.
Yes, you can swear here. Was the redacted word twat?
It was cunt.
That works, too. Makes me think of Australia before England, though.
I’m not English (or Australia).
The campaign talked of frictionless trade deals with Europe, but while it looked good on paper the small print came littered with problems that made trade slightly harder than it had been as a member. The new customs processes has seen haulers transporting goods needing to fill out extra paperwork while new infrastructure has been needed to deal with queues.
The UK adopted a new points based immigration system, a promise of the Vote Leave campaign, in January 2021. This removed the right for EU workers to come to the UK without a visa and implemented the target to cut immigration to the tens of thousands. The target does appear unlikely, given the number of residence visas issued was higher in the year ending June 2022 than in any year since records began - with 1.2 million issued. Meanwhile, Brexit has created a shortage of 330,000 workers in UK.
This is some of the rhetoric the Leave campaign used to garner votes, but none of it is what it was supposed to accomplish.
The architects of Brexit were proponents of William Reese-Mogg’s ideology of the Sovereign Individual, which basically states that the wealthy should be above the law and outside the pervue of the state. It also calls for the collapse of democracy, via the withholding of the rich’s wealth from the state via tax immunity.
It’s still unclear whether the Sovereign Individualists will succeed in their goals, but they haven’t failed yet, and Brexit was a necessity hurdle on their journey.
I watched a DW video about some woman who voted for Brexit running a shellfish farm and with all the new regulations she’s dealing with very short shelf life seafood that has to get to the EU with a bunch more red tape. She is losing money and might have to sell her side business because of all the excessive fees she now has to pay to get her seafood out of the country. Totally a leopards ate my face party member.