- Welcome
- Essential
Britain
- Places
to visit
- Attractions
by theme
-
Issues
&
institutions
About-Britain.com
- A thematic guide to the UK
Britain
and Europe, from Churchill to Brexit
Why
did British Prime Minister
David Cameron organize a Brexit referendum, and how did we get to the
unexpected result and the events that followed
and will continue to follow ?
►
See also:
The
British General Election 2024 -
a short guide - background,
issues, parties and voting system.
Though neither the Conservatives nor the Labour party want to talk
about Brexit, the subject will remain "the elephant in the room" in the
runup to the elections.
An
overview of Brexit
In January 2020, almost four years after the
Brexit referendum was held, Great Britain finally left the
European Union.
Why such a delay? How did we get here ? And what will the future bring?
The next British General Election will
probably take place in the autumn of 2024 (it must be held before the
end of January 2025, but a January election is improbable).
Brexit will be the "elephant in the room", the
subject that is on every politician's mind, but few
politician's lips. As of August 2023, less than a third
of people in Britain still thought that Brexit was a
good idea but neither the ruling Conservative party nor the opposition
Labour Party will publicly say so....
On the morning of 1st February 2020, people in Britain woke up to the
start of a new era. The UK was no longer a member of the
European
Union. In actual fact, it was not yet entirely out of the EU, but had
entered a "transition period" scheduled to last until the final stages
of the leaving process are completed, on December 31. Final? Maybe
not. Total? Maybe not. Very little is certain at the moment, but there
is one thing that has been certain for a long time, even well before
the referendum, namely that in Britain there is a third of the
population who want and has always wanted to leave the EU, a third who
consider Brexit to be the craziest idea imposed on the British people
by a government in the last few centuries, and a third who either don't
care, have little of no understanding of the implications, or just
hesitate between being for and being against.
For years, UK opinion polls have always shown that
public opinion was divided on the question of Britain's membership the
EEC which later became the European Union. In general, pro-Europeans
remained in the majority, but supporters of an isolationist Britain -
sovereignists, neo-liberals, Marxists and others - still represented a
strong minority.
More significantly, there remained a
consensus among leaderships of the three major political parties,
Conservatives, Labour and Liberals, that the UK's
place was in the Common Market, later to become the
European Union. On the other hand, there also remained within the two
largest parties, Conservatives and Labour, the two parties of
government since the 1920s, an anti-European fringe. In the Labour
Party, left-wingers viewed the Common Market as a great capitalist
plot. In the Conservatives, the right wing of the party - nostalgic
imperialists, neo-liberals, libertarians and sovereignists - considered
the Common Market, then even more so the European Union, as a big
bureaucratic machine, an unwanted supra-national power and an assault
on
Britain's national sovereignty.
Britain and Europe
since Churchill
In the history of European integration, Great Britain has
been, and will remain in spite Brexit, whatever form it eventually
takes, a powerful influence. One of
the first to rally around the idea of a united Europe was
Churchill,
who in 1930 supported the plan of French Prime Minister Aristide Briand
advocating the creation of a "European federal union", about which
Churchill wrote that he would see "
nothing
but good in a richer and freer European community".
Later in his famous 1946
Zurich
Speech, he laid out in more detail the path for the
creation of a European community "
united
in a common heritage", concluding "
We must build a kind of United
States of Europe ".
Not without reason, the European Union officially
includes
Churchill as one of the 11 founding fathers of European
integration.
However, a few years later, the first dealings
between Great Britain
and the Common Market were not of a kind to encourage a surge
of support among the British people in favour of this
"continental" body. Firstly the Common Market had been created in 1957
without the British, who initially believed that Britain - with the
remains of its Empire to look after - had no need of it ; later, when
Conservative prime minister
MacMillan
submitted Britain's first
application to the EEC in 1963, that application was summarily swept
aside by the French president at the time,
General de Gaulle.
De Gaulle
then did the sam again four years later when the UK reapplied for
membership under the Labour government of
Harold Wilson. This
second
"no" was generally viewed in the UK as a snub and an affront
from a man whom the country had welcomed as a refugee in London for
three years during the Second World War.
So when - after the death of De Gaulle -
Conservative Prime Minister Edward
Heath
eventually took the UK into
the EEC on January 1, 1973, it was without fireworks or popular
jubilation.
On the contrary, the sovereignists and those who
yearned back to the days of Empire, supported by part of the popular
press, used the EEC as a scapegoat for everything that was wrong
in Britain. Europe was portrayed as a costly
adventure for Britain, adding to the cost of living by
replacing butter produced by our efficient cousins in New Zealand, by
butter costing twice the price, produced by inefficient farmers on the
continent of Europe. The argument was very convincing, since at the
beginning of 1973 a pound of butter cost on average £ 0.22 in a British
supermarket, compard to £ 0.41 in Denmark, and £ 0.54 in France.
A year after the United Kingdom joined the EEC, and with the
country in an increasingly difficult economic situation, the
Conservatives were defeated in the 1974 elections, and replaced by a
Labour government led by Harold
Wilson
. In the runup to the
election, Wilson had promised to seriously review Britain's
membership of the Common Market; once elected, he stood by this
commitment, and organized the first referendum on Britain's membership
of the Common Market, which took place a year later in 1975.
Uncommitted on the European question while in opposition, Wilson had
nevertheless become completely Europhile once in power and strongly
urged voters to say "yes" to Europe in this first referendum. As a
result,
the British voted by a majority of 65% to remain in the Common Market.
For a decade after this first referendum,
questions about Britain's membership of the EEC were off the political
agenda. This did not prevent the widely distributed right-wing populist
press, led by the
Sun,
the
Daily Mail
and the
Daily Express,
from waging their own campaign against what they saw as EEC absurdities
and interference in the life of the British. Coverage of the
EU in the tabloid press was lagely limited to fake or wildly
exaggerated news stories about things like straight bananas
and bendy cucumbers; and with little to no reporting about the positive
achievements of the EEC, or its economic benefits, the Common
Market was portrayed as little more than an absurd bureaucracy. Readers
lapped it up. But politically, the position of Great Britain
within Europe was accepted as a fait accompli; even the new
Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret
Thatcher, elected in
1979, did
not question Britain's position as a member of the Common Market. On
the contrary ; while admitting that certain aspects of governance and
the role of the European authorities had to change, Thatcher still
believed in Europe, and set to work to improve the EEC from the
inside.
In this she was remarkably successful.
Thatcher was even one of the architects of the
transformation of the EEC into the
European
Union. History has already
quickly forgotten (especially in Great Britain) that the Single
European Act of 1985, setting out the path to the Treaty of Maastricht,
was the result of close collaboration between Margaret Thatcher and
Jacques
Delors,
and was largely drafted by the British Conservative
European Commissioner Arthur Cockfield, specially appointed to this
task by Margaret Thatcher.
Yet during her later years in power, Thatcher
changed, and with it her perception of Europe changed too. The Single
European Act was ratified in 1987. Shortly after, or even before, she
began to have doubts about the direction in which European integration
was going, about ideas of political integration and about a pplanned EU
single currency. Her famous "Bruges Speech" delivered on September 20,
1988
is considered in British Eurosceptic circles as the starting point for
the campaign to leave Europe. It was not. It was highly critical about
the direction in which the EEC was going, but it was not a call for
Britain to leave Europe; on the contrary, the Iron Lady unambiguously
reaffirmed her commitment to Britain's continued membership of the
European Community, stating "
And
let me be quite clear.
Britain does not dream of some cozy, isolated existence on the fringes
of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the
Community. "
The damage however was done. Latching on
to Thatcher's criticisms of the EEC, the right wing of the
Conservative Party became more overtly Eurosceptic, provoking a
reaction from the majority of Europhiles in the party, who considered
that the Prime Minister was losing her sense of direction. Barely two
years after the Bruges Speech, and before the signing of the Maastricht
Treaty, Thatcher was forced to resign by her own party, and it was the
Europhile John
Major
who took over as new Tory leader, and new prime
minister.
For twenty years, from 1990 to 2010, Great Britain
experienced its most "European" period, with three Prime Ministers, the
Conservative Major, then the Labour PMs
Blair and
Brown, all
of them Europhiles, establishing the UK as a major player in the
evolution of the EEC, which in 1993 became the European Union. But it
was during this period, and especially during the 13 years of Labour
government from 1997 to 2010, that Euroscepticism became increasingly
widespread in the Conservative Party.
Historical internal divisions among Tories were
exacerbated by the emergence, on ground traditionally occupied
by the right wing of the Conservative Party, of UKIP (the UK
Independence Party) a new openly sovereignist party, calling for
Britain to leave the European Union. The Tories were in a difficult
situation; Euroscepticism was particularly popular among grass-roots
party members and among its traditional Mail or Express-reading
electorate. Higher echelons of the party, on the other hand, along with
the large majority of MPs, were generally committed Europhiles. The
situation was hard to manage, a delicate balancing act
between preventing the loss to UKIP of too many voters on the
right by showing sympathy for UKIP ideologies, and distancing
themselves sufficiently from UKIP to avoid losing votes in the middle
ground. Somehow they managed, and in 2010, the party came back to power
with David
Cameron, a
young Europhile from the moderate wing
of the party. Cameron enjoyed a short honeymoon, but it was not long
before he had to face a rise in power of the eurosceptic voices on his
right, an increasingly Eurosceptic right wing press (by then largely
controlled by expatriates and tax exiles) and the continuing rise of
UKIP in the polls. Within the party, more and more voices were calling
for a new referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, in
distinct contrast to the country in general, where there was little or
no demand for any referendum.
Towards the Brexit referendum
However, in 2015, on the eve of a general election
with an unpredictable outcome, Cameron gave in to the demands of
right-wingers in the party, and agreed to copy UKIP and
organize, if re-elected, a new referendum on British
membership of the EU. He hoped in this way to put an end to the
interminable and increasingly fractious arguments over Europe within
the Party, firmly believing that the British people would
once again vote as in 1967, and largely in favour of remaining within
the European Union. All the polls suggested that this would be the
outcome... or at least, most of them did.
Cameron was re-elected, and true to his
word announced a new referendum for June 2016. Very quickly, it became
known as the "Brexit referendum". Cameron was so confident of
winning - he, the young popular Prime Minister, who had just
been re-elected with the largest Conservative majority for over 30
years - that he did not even bother to attach any conditions
to the result, no "qualified majority ", nor did he draw up any plan B
should
the electorate do the unthinkable, and vote to leave the EU. The
British, he was sure, would reject Brexit, allowing him to settle
the score with the Eurosceptics within his party, and to emerge with an
even stronger mandate to govern.
The script was clearly written, but reality did
not follow it. In the referendum of June 23, 2016, following a highly
controversial campaign in the populist right-wing press and by a
"Leave" campign masterminded by the far right and taken to the country
by the flamboyant and very ambitious former Mayor of London Boris
Johnson, "leave" won against all odds; and to the horror of Cameron and
of a majority of MPs and a large part of the British establishment and
industry, the UK found itself on the road towards leaving the European
Union.
Cameron had simultaneously committed two of the biggest
mistakes a head of state could make: 1, believing in his personal
infallibility, to the point of organizing an unconditional referendum
without any road-map to follow should the result go the wrong way; and
2, letting the people, many of whom had little more than a
scratchy understanding of the real issues and implications, rather than
parliament and well-informed experts, decide the outcome of a major
international policy decision, fundamentally affecting the
future and the prosperity of the country for years to come.
We know the rest. Just over half of those who voted
supported
the proposal that Britain's future would be better outside the European
Union. Cameron resigned, and after some turmoil in the Conservative
Party was replaced as Prime Minister by
Theresa May, to whom
fell the
task of applying the "will of the people" as indicated by the
result of the referendum.
The choice of May as prime minister was a bad
compromise for the Conservatives. The militants' preferred candidate
was Boris Johnson, but he had too many enemies. May therefore came to
power by default, and then presided for three years over governments
and a parliament in disarray, and over a country which at
times
seemed to be on the brink of insurrection, so strong were the divisions
over the result of the referendum and the way in which it had been
obtained.
The May years could have been less difficult. May
had inherited from Cameron an absolute Conservative majority in the
House of
Commons; admittedly it was a small majority, but it was a
majority all the same. However in November 2016, the government was
challenged in the Supreme Court for abuse of power by seeking to
prepare to leave the EU without the approval of parliament; the judges
upheld the complaint, and the government lost. In normal circumstances,
this would have immediately led to the resignation of the government
and the calling of a snap general election, but in the turmoil of late
2016, Theresa May did not
see resignation as an option, at least not immediately.
Then after a few months of hesitation during which
she swore not to call an early general election, May then called one
for June 2017, in the hope of increasing her narrow majority.
It was not a good move; as in 2016, things did not go
according
to plan, and instead of
increasing her majority in the House of Commons, May lost it. Thus, to
stay in power and avoid a Labour government, she had to form a minority
government supported by, but not in coalition with, the
Protestant Northern Ireland party the DUP (
Democratic Unionist Party).
Towards a new order
At the head of a minority government kept in power by the DUP, May
therefore continued negotiations with the European Union, while being
at the mercy of a parliament where the Conservative minority was
becoming even more of a minority as the months went by, following a
series of defections. Getting her own ministers to accept a draft
agreement was difficult enough for Theresa May; getting any
draft
agreement then voted through parliament was even more difficult. Three
times
May came to parliament to get her "agreement" with Brussels ratified,
and three times MPs rejected it.
Under normal circumstances, such a situation would
have been a boon for the Opposition, and a minority and unpopular
Conservative government would soon have been forced to resign by a vote
of no confidence. With a government at its lowest in the polls, the
Labour opposition should have been able to demand a new general
election, which it would have won hands down. But since 2015, the
Conservatives had had a powerful and unlikely ally, in the person of
the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Marching
against Brexit in 2019, the atmosphere of a tragic carnival
While
May was unpopular, all the polls showed that the
Labour leader was even more unpopular than she was. Seen as a far-left
throwback to the Labour party of the 1980s, Corbyn, unable to make up
his mind about Brexit, was the Tories' secret weapon, because
the spectre of a "Corbyn Government" was even more frightening to the
electorate and even to many Labour MPs, than keeping Mrs. May in charge
of a lame-duck government. So despite her unpopularity, despite her
repeated failures, Theresa May was able to remain in power until the
summer of 2019 when, following disastrous results for the party in the
European elections, she finally handed over power, not without
trepidation, to the successor who was the darling of the grassroots
party activists, Boris Johnson.
In this way, May's minority government was kept in
power by default for two years at the height of Brexit preparations, by
a House of Commons fearful of the outcome of new elections. On the
Labour side, many MPs remained convinced that Corbyn could never win,
and that the alternative would be a government more to the right than
that of May; on the Conservative side, many MPs feared a Corbyn victory
if even a quarter of traditional Conservative voters, tired
of the Brexit deadlock, came to vote UKIP. As for the Liberal
Democrats, resolutely hostile to Brexit, they remained hopeful, thanks
to the difficulties of the May government, of one day being able to
organize a new referendum, which would have (according to polls) ended
the saga of Brexit.
The stalemate was finally broken in the autumn of
2019 when the new Prime Minister Boris Johnson finally managed to
obtain a small majority in the House of Commons in favour of the
holding of new elections. Many in Labour believed that they could at
last prevail given the deep unpopularity of the Conservatives, and
that the voters would throw out the Tories despite Corbyn and despite
the vagueness of Labour's program; for their part, the Liberal
Democrats, along with the Europhile rebels from the two major parties,
beleived that they could win a substantial number of seats in the House
of Commons by promising to stop Brexit.
In the event, things turned out very
differently. The right-wing organisations that had masterminded a
victory for Brexit in the 2016 referendum were still active,
and came back with a new winning slogan "Get Brexit done". Jeremy
Corbyn managed the unprecedented feat for a party leader of
losing three general elections in a row, doing so in spite
of facing one of the most unpopular governments of all time.
And so it was that between the fear of the "chaos" that might ensue if
a very left-wing Labour government came to power, and the leap in the
dark that a coalition government made up of Tories and the Brexit party
would entail, voters came back in sufficient numbers (43.6% of votes)
to the Conservative Party, to hand victory to Johnson. Due to
the UK's "first past the post" voting system, the 43.6% of votes meant
an absolute majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons, and Johnson
was free to "get Brexit done" in the knowledge that parliament could no
longer stand in his way.
From Johnson to Sunak - reality bites
Many fear a no-deal Brexit
which would cause a partial paralysis of the economy, transforming main
routes around Dover into huge parking lots for trucks.
And this photo was taken long before Brexit....
Johnson immediately had his timetable approved by the
government and parliament, and on January 31, 2020, Great Britain
finally left the European Union.
Since then, Britain has gone through very
difficult times.
The insoluble problem of Northern Ireland remains a point of
contention. Though Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is also in a
customs area
with its neighbor the Republic of Ireland, leaving it part of
the
EU Single Market and subject to EU rules. In 2023 new Prime
Minister Rishi Sunak managed to agree a compromise deal with EU
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen... keeping in place some of
the customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland...
effectively an international customs border separating one part of the
UK from the rest. Naturally this agreement was strongly condemned by
the Brexiteering right wing of the Conservative Party and by Northern
Ireland's Democratic Unionist party.
Since
the reality of Britain's new "freedom from Brussels" began to
bite as from the start of 2021, the proportion of people in Britain
thinking that Brexit was a mistake has continued to grow, reaching 52%
in August 2023 - with just 32% still thinking that it was a
good
idea. Like the rest of the world, Britain has been through Covid, and
has suffered economic fallout from Russia's invasion of Ukraine; but
the British economy has suffered more than other major European
economies, with higher inflation and a slower return to growth. More
and more business leaders have been calling for closer alignment with
the EU, to the point that earlier plans for the UK to abandon many EU
product standards, and "take back control" by introducing different UK
standards, have quietly been abandoned.
Boris
Johnson resigned as Prime Minister in September 2022,
following a
succession of scandals; then in June 2023 he resigned as an MP, after
being found guilty of deliberately misleading Parliament; Johnson was
replaced by Liz Truss, who lasted just 49 days as PM before being
replaced by Rishi Sunak.
In by-elections, the
Conservatives have suffered resounding defeats in some of their
"safest" constituencies, with swings of over 20% to Labour and to the
Liberal Democrats; in summer 2023, one of Johnson's surviving
supporters, former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, resigned as an MP,
lambasting the Sunak administration as a "zombie government".
"Brexit" remains the biggest political issue of the day, but
one
that few MPs, whatever their party, want to talk about.
The truth of the matter is that with dozens of constituency results
hanging on a knife-edge in coming by-elections and the coming general
election, few candidates want to alienate the 30% or so of
voters
who continue to think that Brexit was a good idea.
Barring any major surprises (and recent history has been full of
surprises), the Labour Party will win an absolute majority in the
coming General Election, and in late 2024, the new Prime Minister of
the UK will be the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer..... who campaigned
strongly against Brexit, back in 2016.
What
happens next is, for the time being, the stuff of politics-fiction.
There can however be one certainty; the next British Government will
set about rebuilding bridges with the EU, and - in spirit if not in
actual fact - the follies of Brexit will start to be undone.
Copyright : Website
and texts © About-Britain.com 2009-2023 except where otherwise
indicated